Talk:Endorsements in the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Women urging Clinton to run

Can this really be considered an endorsement? Supporting a candidate is not the same as asking them to run, and there is proof that not all these women are so enthusiastic about endorsing her directly. "When Stephanopoulos pushed a second time, asking if Warren would endorse a Clinton 2016 run, Warren responded, "Hillary is terrific." Close, but not an endorsement yet." (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2014/0428/Elizabeth-Warren-Almost-an-endorsement-of-Hillary-Clinton-2016-video) & "Boxer told ABC News she is an enthusiastic champion for Clinton 2016, but added, “I can only speak for myself. I’ll leave it to my colleagues to describe their views.”" (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/women-dems-senate-endorse-hillary-clinton-president-article-1.1501771) 201.196.246.146 (talk) 05:03, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

I have had this same concern too and agree with the opinion above. There seems to be a clear difference and not until an endorsement is completely clear should we put them on here. Nitroxium (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Agree, that letter was a.) not meant to be public and b.) not an endorsement, but rather asking her to run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.13.40.254 (talk) 15:39, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

These so-called "endorsements" for Hillary Clinton don't seem to resemble that when you look into the sources. For example, you've got every female Congressperson on this list because the women's caucus signed a letter encouraging her to run. That's nonsense as these are hardly formal endorsements.2601:1C2:4600:34D:348B:66DB:350F:BC54 (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree - someone is jumping the gun here... Gandydancer (talk) 12:47, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also agree. Some bad faith editing, at first glance. Jusdafax 12:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Templates to avoid duplication and unsynced lists

What do you guys think about changing this page to transclude content from templates, which can then be used both in this page and in the candidates' articles without the need for duplication and synchronization of the lists? --Waldir ^talk 02:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Criteria for Inclusion

I created a talk page discussion on the Republican article about inclusion of endorsements in the article. I see no reason for have different rules for each party so if you have feedback on this question, please share any views: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Endorsements_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Endorsement_RulesObieGrad (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the rules you have set there and would propose we use them for this article. I would also add the use of direct sources, either be it social media of a person or group, their website or an article covering the endorsement of a single person/group. Nitroxium (talk) 20:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Impartial and premature article

A majority of these endorsements occurred before Sen. Sanders and other Democratic candidates entered the race. Much of these endorsements were predicated on the now incorrect belief that Secretary Clinton wouldn't face any meaningful primary competition.

Many of these endorsements cite this CNN article. Those are hardly formal endorsements and I'm not sure CNN's criteria for an endorsement was particularly stringent. If the CNN article had been titled "Democrats Who Have Signaled Support for Hillary", a more fitting headline, would that be worthy of a Wikipedia citation? I think not. The headline is deceptive; these are not formal endorsements. A politician or public figure backing a Hillary run doesn't mean they are endorsing her as the nominee. There can be a range of motivations from truly liking the candidate, encouraging a woman to run for the office, or the desire to see as many candidates as possible in the primaries.

I could also point to the Bill Maher endorsement being extremely suspect. The context of that endorsement sounds more like an attack on the Republican candidates rather than support for Sec. Clinton. As Bill Maher is one of the most strident Progressives in the United States, it seems doubtful that he would be endorsing Clinton when Bernie Sanders, his ideological equal, is in the race.

Both campaigns just launched in recent weeks. It is much too premature to be stating any of this as fact. Without looking through each and every name, at least half of these so-called "endorsements" seem to be tacit approval, at best.

I believe this article does our democratic processes a terrible disservice by playing into a narrative that there is no primary fight in the Democratic Party. The polling does not reflect this.

At the very least, this article needs some refinement. JaskaPDX (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by JaskaPDX (talk • contribs) 08:22, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Gandydancer (talk) 12:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

AFL-CIO stated SC cannot endorse separate from Nationa. SC had to walk-back suggestion to endorse Bernie Sanders.

Over the weekend the South Carolina AFL-CIO executive board passed a resolution supporting Sanders’ candidacy and urging the national organization to endorse him. Podhorzer, though, said the state federation lacked authority to recommend an endorsement. “That was walked back,” he said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/06/afl-cio-2016-endorsement-doesnt-hinge-on-fast-track-119077.html#ixzz3dKJ2pk8Z — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 13:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The article you keep removing is titled "Here are the senators who have already endorsed Hillary Clinton" It's literally just your original research that those people aren't "really" endorsing her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That article is NOT a direct source for the endorsements and should therefore not be used as a source. If they truly have endorsed Clinton, then find the direct source of them doing so. I believe the CNN article has some links to the direct sources. Nitroxium (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd say "Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois - Headlined a June 2014 fundraiser organized by Ready for Hillary" is endorsing her but that's been removed. I hate campaign season. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I apologize if I removed him incorrectly. It is my understanding that Durbin does support Hillary. The rest, not so much. As Nitroxium suggests below, sourcing each one is much more reliable. These politicians are not going to endorse any presidential candidate without fanfare, press releases, and social media postings. Any real endorsement won't be hard to find. But it can't be an encouragement to run; it needs to be a clear endorsement of the candidate otherwise what is the point in placing it here? If someone wants to start a page "List of People that have encouraged Hilalry Clinton to run for president" then feel free to use the CNN article as gospel. Hell, I don't support Hillary and I want her to run if only for the contrast.JaskaPDX (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Here you go, I'll add it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/05/20/sen-dick-durbin-to-headline-ready-for-hillary-fundraiser/ I think we should limit our sources to direct ones that refer specifically to each endorsement. That article just mashes up endorsements with not-so-endorsements. Nitroxium (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Building off of this I'm going to crawl through the last few endorsements whose only source is the hill list (just the list for now, not going to mess with sources that do more than just give a name) and remove them if I can't find anything else backing it up. As public figures there should really be multiple sources confirming 2016 endorsement before we add them. As a example, I removed Colleen Hanabusa from the list. Hanabusa backed Hillary for the 2008 campaign when she became the Hawaiian chair for Asian-Americans and Pacific Islanders for Hillary. She mentioned Hillary slightly in an interview with Honolulu Civil beat in 2014 but there's been no indication anywhere that she's actively endorsing her this time around. --Flounder19 (talk) 20:12, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The problem with the direct sourcing of actual endorsements is that less notable House members do not always seek or get headlines for having endorsed someone. More typically, they are referred to in passing as an "ally" or "supporter" in an article, or are mentioned as attending a fundraiser. Incidentally, the original Hill list from last January of about thirty Hillary endorsements is not quite a mash-up because they did not rely on public statements - they literally called around the House offices, which I think qualifies as reporting rather than aggregation. But all this aside, virtually all of the endorsements from the best mash-up lists [e.g. fivethirtyeight's] are verifiable and vehement, give or take an odd Congressperson. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PotvinSux (talk • contribs) 07:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

The Lady Gaga "endorsement" source is just an outfit she wore. They don't even quote her saying anything remotely related to Clinton. They compare clothing. That's completely shoddy sourcing. Elsewhere there's a better source, which says she performed at a Clinton fundraiser, since that indicates some kind of support, but that's not an official endorsement either. What's the standard for these things?

South Carolina AFL-CIO

I removed the South Carolina AFL-CIO here. The actual resolution (which is from Sanders' website and his own press release) are an encouragement by the executive board to endorse Sanders not an actual endorsement of Sanders. As the anonymous editor added, here, it looks like the full AFL-CIO (who was the entity encouraged to be endorsing someone) refused to endorse anyone, Clinton or Sanders. As stated, "Over the weekend the South Carolina AFL-CIO executive board passed a resolution supporting Sanders’ candidacy and urging the national organization to endorse him. Podhorzer, though, said the state federation lacked authority to recommend an endorsement. “That was walked back,” he said." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

These two union chapters letter of recommendation to endorse from a while back keep reappearing. It is linked to Trumka saying chapters cannot endorse. There will be one national AFL-CIO endorsement as always. Why is it back up there? Dishonest or clueless Bernie supporter grasping at fake endorsements that sound important? The citation used is the link to show it isn't a permitted endorsement! WALKED BACK as per that link and the Politico link the other time it was removed above.

STILL NOT PERMITTED but STILL on the wikipage anyway.

"In a memo this week to state, central and area divisions of the labor federation, and obtained by POLITICO, the AFL-CIO chief reminded the groups that its bylaws don’t permit them to “endorse a presidential candidate” or “introduce, consider, debate, or pass resolutions or statements that indicate a preference for one candidate over another.” Even “‘personal’ statements” of candidate preference are VERBOTEN, Trumka said."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/afl-cio-endorsement-2016-democratic-primary-119701.html#ixzz3htWhYlQN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 00:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

I removed Roseanne Barr from the list of Bernie Sanders' endorsements because she is listed at United States presidential election, 2016#Declared_3 as running for president herself. (By the same token, I have also removed Dan Bilzerian as an endorsement for Rand Paul because Bilzerian is also listed as running for president.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Endorsements wrongly removed

I see most of Hillary's endorsements have disappeared. Back on April 15th The Hill compiled 104 endorsements from officials and they link to exact quotes from letters to constituents and to tweets of clear support to show their research. While some of these are perhaps not full endorsements many of them are clearly that and you have removed them, including actual clear cut publicly stated ones. If you run a list that purports to show actual research and remove real endorsements for no reason - all your credibility is lost. There must be someone actually working on an accurate list. http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 12:31, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed you removed people who endorsed her and are on TV doing so all the time, like Claire McCaskill who has endorsed her steadily for two years! WHY? Hmmm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-thanks-2016-endorsements — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 12:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Endorsements that were placed with the list compiled by CNN were removed, due to its inconsistent nature. You're absolutely right in saying that some actual endorsements for Clinton were removed in the process, and we encourage you to add specific articles referring to each endorsement in order to add them back. We are avoiding list-articles that serve as indirect sources and rather are using articles reporting on each individual endorsement. I will be adding some of her endorsements back in the coming days, such as Barbara Boxer and Claire McCaskill. Please be sure to follow our rules for adding new endorsements, they can be found on this very talk page. Nitroxium (talk) 05:14, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This is because a Bernie Sanders campaigner guy (JaskaPDX, whom is paid), deletd it all. I don't have the mental power in order to undo his currption to the entry every time. Archway (talk) 10:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure thing Archie. A presidential endorsement isn't something that is done in secret. If the only place you can find a name is in an unsourced article without details then it's not an endorsement. They've been added again, so I'm now going to mediation. The campaign that is using fake Twitter followers and outsourcing FB friends is not going to continue to manipulate Wikipedia.JaskaPDX (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

State Reps and State Senators for Clinton

Announced on 6/26 in Iowa at offices of the Hillary for America campaign. "at least one committed supporter in each of Iowa’s 1,682 precincts"

http://www.p2016.org/clinton/clinton062615pr.html

Supporters(announced June 26, 2015) Former Iowa Democratic Party Chair and Lt. Governor Sally Pederson former President and CEO of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland Jill June State Rep. Phyllis Thede (Davenport) State Rep. Timi Brown-Powers (Waterloo) State Senator Bill Dotzler (Waterloo) State Senator Jeff Danielson (Waterloo) former State Rep. Wes Whitead State Rep. Abby Finkenauer (Dubuque) former State Senator Staci Appel Cedar Rapids City Council Member Justin Shields former Cedar Rapids Mayor Lee Clancey former Iowa Democratic Party Chair and State Rep. Tyler Olson State Rep. Mary Mascher (Iowa City) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.8.219.3 (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Considering sending this to AfD

Along with its Republican counterpart, I'm failing to see an encyclopedic value in listing every notable person who has liked a candidate's facebook page or sent a favorable tweet. I mean Ja Rule? Ariana Grande? Tarc (talk) 18:17, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, looking at Category:United States presidential election endorsements, I see that newspaper endorsements, presidential endorsements but not necessarily primary ones. Perhaps they should be split off into List of Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign endorsements and the like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: split the article into ones for each candidate

I think we should consider splitting the articles into List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, List of Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, List of Martin O'Malley 2016 presidential campaign endorsements, etc. We already have List of Hillary Clinton 2008 presidential campaign endorsements out there from the last campaign and once the primary is finished, I'm doubtful that people will suddenly change to endorsing the Republican candidate or rescind their endorsement or whatever so the non-nominee's endorsements will either be shuffled away or the page will be archived and a new one with the same information will be needed anyways. Each of the campaign pages have shortened versions but I think we'd be better served if we could separate these discussions by candidate and then leave this page as either a summary (US senators with just last names and states, US representatives similarly and no more celebrities). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Lessig

Shouldn't there be an entry for Lawrence Lessig? Samuel Webster (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Not until he officially launches his presidential campaign. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Conan for Chafee

would Conan O'Brien be considered a endorsement for Chafee since in his show wanted Chafee to poll at a 1%. Is that an endorsement? - TDKR TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

It probably comes down to what you consider an endorsement. Conan went so far as to say "I'm not saying we should get him elected. I'm personally not going to vote for him." so he's not really endorsing him to become president. On the other hand he is publicly declaring his support for Chafee up to 1%. The line for endorsements is just so blurry and this is an extreme example of someone 'endorsing' and candidate without actually wanting them to become president. --Flounder19 (talk) 00:20, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Former Gov. Dukakis for Hillary Clinton 2016

It seems that former Massachusetts Governor and 1988 Democratic U.S. Presidential Nominee Michael Dukakis endorsed Hillary Clinton in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, according to this article link I provided: http://www.capecod.com/newscenter/dukakis-backs-hillary-clinton-in-upcoming-election/ Kegejoeco (aka Plyjacks) (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

NPOV dispute regarding formatting of Bernie Sanders endorsements

Why are Bernie Sanders endorsements listed differently than everyone elses: In a *separate* Wikipedia page, in a "hidden box," of a formatting type almost never used anywhere else in Wikipedia? Where the user must click a little "show" icon to even see the list?

Fairness would dictate the endorsements are placed on this page easily accessible just like everyone else's:

(1) The endorsements are zipped up in a hidden box accessible on via an innocuous "show" link to the right on Sanders' 2016 Wikipedia campaign page. (2) Other lists in Wikipedia *rarely* use such "hidden" boxes. (3) That hidden box is listed directly *after* a circular reference that points users to *another* list of endorsements for other candidates on this page, a circular reference ultimately pointing straight back to this page...while listing *none* of Sanders' endorsements along side the endorsements of his competitors. In other words, the links go out of their way to show endorsements for all candidates *other* than Sanders...Even on his own page!!! (4) The hidden box is buried underneath that circular reference. The impact is readers looking for endorsements for Sanders are encouraged to go look at other candidates' endorsements, then pointed straight back to the original page where the endorsements are hidden and all users may not think to look for the link to the far right to unzip the unorthodox hidden box. KyleSager (talk) 18:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

If any other experienced users are reading this, we have a classic case of WP:NPOV rabble rousing which we're discussing at Talk:Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 21:36, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Seconded. This accusation is and was completely inconsistent with reality. Only chiming in here late as passive support in case the user drums it up again. JesseRafe (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky for Bernie Sanders?

If Chomsky calls Sanders' campaign "good for the democratic party" [1] and even sent an email stating his endorsement for Sanders [2]. Should we add Chomsky? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Chomsky doesn't or won't endorse Sanders, but that is in no way an endorsement. As Chomsky is not a Democrat, the nomination of Sanders would bring the party to the actual left, which is where Dr. Chomsky's political views lay, and would thus be "good" in his worldview. Similarly I, not being in the GOP, could say that someone who is a moderate (or at least comparatively) would be "good for the Republican party" but I would not endorse them for the actual office. JesseRafe (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Daniel Craig (007) for Bernie Sanders

Craig is known as an English Actor and is now married to an American, Rachel Weisz. What exactly permits him to make a substantial political contribution to a PAC in support of Bernie Sanders if he is British? Is it that he has American citizenship or other status now, or was the contribution made through his American wife, or does the limitation on contributions from foreign citizens "not apply" if the contribution is to a PAC? A legal eagle could help on this, Please!96.224.65.24 (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Lawful permanent residents may make campaign contributions. Mr. Craig apparently is a lawful permanent resident (i.e., he has a Green Card). Neutrality^talk 01:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Numbered officeholders

I notice that many of the endorsers listed have the numeric order of the offices they have held given. "19th White House Chief of Staff" ... "29th Director of the Office of Management and Budget" ... "28th Lieutenant Governor of New Mexico" ... "53rd Mayor of Bridgeport, Connecticut" ... and so on. Do the ordinal numbers really provide any interesting or useful information, or do they just take up space? My thinking would be the latter, but if anyone has a good argument in favor of these ordinal numbers, I would like to read it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Someone first added them back in July or August, and my first reaction was also to gut them, but I ended up keeping them because 1) they are part of the ceremonial title (most of these individuals' pages use the ordinal) and 2) They actually take up less space than the word "former" where it is a formerly held position, which is a majority of the cases. 3) I actually do think they provide some unique information because they help differentiate how established and historically significant a post is - for example if you're the 1st New York City Public Advocate or 8th Energy Secretary, that signals that the post is less prestigious - cf. the 111th governor of South Carolina, etc... . All in all, I think it could go either way, but given that it actually saves space in more cases than not, I think it makes sense to use the ceremonial. PotvinSux (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Walter Mondale

The problem with the Mondale cites are that they are original research ... and false.

Despite Pajamas Media (not a reliable source - a blog network) titling the interview an "endorsement," the content itself is not unequivocal (I watched the whole clip, and unless I'm missing something Mondale said "I think she's a very strong candidate," "has strong support all over the place," he's a fan, he encouraged her to run, etc., none of which are endorsements.

If an endorsement is real, it's public and unequivocal reported on publicly. An example of a real endorsement is this one from Mondale in 2007 (reported by the AP) - clear, unequivocal, and in a mainstream source. This is not so. Neutrality^talk 21:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Tbh, I think there are several candidates listed even though it isn't clear that they endorsed the candidate e.g. Ellie Goulding and Josh Peck maybe even Cole Sprouse (because hoping someone will run for president doesn't mean they endorse them). Prcc27 (talk) 21:56, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Prcc27, To your point, I think this case is A LOT less ambiguous than those, though I do think, in general, a fixation on the magic words "I endorse x" is not tenable because "endorsement" can really be any public statement or action of ostensibly exclusive support. Even something like saying you hope someone will run can be an endorsement in some contexts and not others, and we leave it to reporters to judge. PotvinSux (talk) 22:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked into this and I'm putting it back. Reasoning: PJ Media may be a D-list news site, but they are a news site. It says so on their wikipedia page [[3]], which describes their model as "citizen-journalism." This does, in fact, appear to be what they are doing here. Their reporter - and I have no reason to call him anything else - wrote a story based on comments by Walter Mondale at a press-availability that he attended.

On the video in question, the reporter asks Mondale "What made you decide to support her for president?" Mondale clearly hears the question and responds with various praise. I don't think he somehow got tricked into endorsing her, neither does the reporter, nor would I think the average person based on everything presented here. Moreover, In the original story link (not the one that I had posted, to be fair), the reporter includes the video with his piece meaning that one does not then have to go do his own research to confirm the credibility of this source. Finally, I don't know that something being "widely" reported is a fair standard because it is perfectly reasonable to expect that no major media outlet is going to write a story about Walter Mondale's endorsement - even current U.S. House members can endorse someone with a gap of months before anyone notices. So this falls to minor media like this guy, who I think has done a good enough job to be considered credible.

I'm putting Mondale back for now - if you still think I'm wrong, feel free to remove him (and I won't replace him), but in that case I would appreciate a little more explanation because I might be out of my depths in terms of judging what constitutes credibility. PotvinSux (talk) 22:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I appreciate your courtesy in yielding to me and will exercise it. I'll be happy to add a few more words of explanation.

First: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources emphasizes the necessity, in most cases, for editorial control (i.e., there is some established editor/publisher apparatus through which content is meaningfully vetted). "Citizen journalism" and blog networks don't really have this, in most cases.

Second: An additional principle here is that when dealing with content affecting living people, a heightened standard of reliability is needed. (I have no doubt that Mondale is a Hillary supporter, as he endorsed her in '07, but it's the principle of the matter I'm concerned with).

Finally: We can't "read between the lines" to make an endorsement where there isn't a clear one. "Endorsements" are unequivocal. They may not necessarily use the word "endorsement," but they will be unmistakably clear ("I will vote for"; "I am a supporter of"; etc.). Trying to tease out an endorsement based on a reporter's question and an interviewee's non-unequivocal answer is not enough. We really shouldn't need to be "judging what constitutes credibility" )(if it's a real endorsement, it'll be facially obvious). This is doubly true when we are dealing with personalities.

(I think ultimately Mondale will make a clearer statement, and we can include it then). Neutrality^talk 23:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That was informative!PotvinSux (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please add these endorsements under Bernie Sanders, and to his main campaign article's endorsement section?

https://berniesanders.com/artists/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.107.74.186 (talk) 02:49, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln Chafee

I moved Lincoln Chafee's section to its proper alphabetical place. I also removed the reference to the Robert Byrd endorsement because the testimonial from Robert Byrd says nothing about endorsing him for President. It's general praise of Chafee's record, but the fact that someone praised Chafee's Senate record eight years ago doesn't imply an endorsement for president. Nor should we say that Chafee has "no" endorsements; it's possible he may have some endorsements from not-particularly-famous people which we don't know about or are too obscure to be listed here. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:13, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I still feel there no point revived Lincoln Chafee for main reason, There no Endorsements for him at all even there several people still endorsed him according to Democratic National polling are still said his appeal is very low on him by (usually) 0 to (very rare) 2% along with Jim Webb that unlike him got least two individals that endorsed him. 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:255C:1E63:AECF:E18E (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• In that case, I think we should just leave Chafee off the Endorsements for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 page unless and until he receives a notable endorsement. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Templates?

Could we have it so Presidential endorsements were in a template so that there aren't discrepancies between what's on the candidate's campaign page, and this page? Just a thought. Grammarxxx ^{(What'd I do this time?)} 05:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

• You wouldn't need templates. You would just have to put in anchors in the text marking off sections and do a selective transclusion of this page as it is. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
• Well I went ahead and boldly made the changes. Now the individual campaign pages will automatically update when this page updates. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Amy Schumer

She's supporting Hillary according to this interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpSk6dLbkGM 121.99.35.210 (talk) 15:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)