Talk:Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign

1 million volunteers

This addition was reverted and restored; I just reverted it again for the following reasons: Facebook and Twitter are primary sources; RT and Common Dreams are not RSes for this claim (RT is not an RS, and CD is not independent for this claim); and in any event, the sources (including Bernie) say a million people "signed up to support", and it's unclear what that means or why it's in any way significant. Sounds like a million people clicked like or signed up for a mailing list. Unless actual RSes are reporting this claim, I don't think we should include it. Leviv ich 22:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

It's referring to an effort to get 1 million people to "sign onto a petition to support" his campaign, which is essentially just list-building and not a commitment to volunteer, regardless of how the campaign attempts to characterize it. Mélencron (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Well here's what I based my edit on https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/photos/a.324119347643076/2156495274405465/?type=3&theater It says "Thank you for helping us reach 1 million volunteer sign ups"

and in this facebook video https://www.facebook.com/berniesanders/videos/560050044499203/?__xts__[0]=33.%7B%22logging_data%22%3A%7B%22page_id%22%3A124955570892789%2C%22event_type%22%3A%22clicked_all_page_posts%22%2C%22impression_info%22%3A%22eyJmIjp7InBhZ2VfaWQiOiIxMjQ5NTU1NzA4OTI3ODkiLCJpdGVtX2NvdW50IjoiMCJ9fQ%22%2C%22surface%22%3A%22www_pages_home%22%2C%22interacted_story_type%22%3A%22565413710334575%22%2C%22session_id%22%3A%2209689b74cce973f8187bce170032b6dc%22%7D%7D

Bernie himself stated "less than one week after we began this campaign, we now have reached 1 million volunteers" within the first 20 seconds of the clip I understand that there is a difference between volunteer and signups, but Bernie has literally stated that 1 million volunteers have signed up Darkninja505 (talk) 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Political positions

I propose that rather than continuing to list various positions that we instead have readers refer to the Political positions article. That article is very complete where as this one will be hit and miss, mostly miss, and sprawl along. I know from experience that people tend to put new info in the main article because the Positions article tends to get far fewer views. As time goes on this article will grow and grow as we comment on rallies, speaking engagements, misc. news, etc. The info here should center on how Sanders' so-called impossible and almost laughable "Socialist" positions are now the norm in many discussions. Thoughts? Gandydancer (talk) 02:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree we should continue to use the main Political positions of Bernie Sanders as the main political positions (PP) article. This article's PP section should be a reasonably-sized, neutral, balanced summary of the main PP article, focusing on the positions relevant to the 2020 campaign (as determined by RSes). I think information about how his positions have become accepted over time (or his influence, impact, or legacy) is better suited for his main bio Bernie Sanders. Leviv ich 03:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Good feedback. We'll see if anyone else has something to say, OK? Gandydancer (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

It's been several days with no further comments. I'll go ahead and make the changes. Gandydancer (talk) 00:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to put this, but here is a BBC overview of the campaign. TGCP (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Deleted copy re Turner and Jackson

I recently added info re Sanders' 2nd rally in Chicago and his attendance at the Selma commemoration. I included info re Turner's speech which included mention of Jesse Jackson's run for president which Sanders endorsed. Editor Silver181 deleted my copy with an edit summary saying " ...Sanders' support for Jackson isn't really relevant at all, nor is the fact that Turner spoke. She's spoken at pretty much all of Sanders' events thus far and has mentioned the Jackson thing before." That just does not make sense at all to me. If she has been speaking all along and has even been including the "Jackson thing," it seems to me that is all the more reason to include it in these early edits that set the stage for exactly what Sanders will be using in his upcoming rallies. Gandydancer (talk) 22:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

Respectfully, I must say that I do not feel that mentioning Sanders' surrogates at his rallies is particularly relevant, nor is the fact that Sanders endorsed Jackson. You mention Nina, but what about Ro Khanna? Ben Cohen? Shaun King? As the rallies pile on, there's going to be so many guest speakers that mentioning them all is excessive. Nina, in particular, is literally one of Sanders' co-chairs. Sanders' first campaign page mentions virtually nothing about guest speakers, as far as I could tell. As for Jackson, I simply don't see how Sanders endorsing him is relevant at all. Sanders himself has not made an issue of it. It could be worth a mention on his personal page, but it doesn't strike me as relevant to his current campaign. Silver181 (talk) 13:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

That's right there are no others mentioned at Sander's page - I know that very well because I edited his page throughout his run. As you know, Sanders did not get the black vote - Clinton did. That's because he never reached out for their vote. Nina, for one, is going to change that this time around. It's important that we get these new people into our article. I'd like to include the Jackson info but that can go since you object. Gandydancer (talk) 02:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I mean, if you feel very strongly that we should mention guest speakers, you can add them if you want. I still feel as though it isn't really necessary, but if you think it is, feel free to. We shouldn't mention any one event, though, just say something like "Guest speakers that have frequently given remarks at Sanders' events include..." If we're going to do that, though, we'll need to establish some sort of criteria for what makes a guest speaker "notable enough" in the article, or else we'll just end up with a massive, unnecessary list. Silver181 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Historical significance

I noticed that most of the historical significance section on other articles of other candidates in this race were wiped out or largely trimmed down while the one for Sanders, which also contains both useful and seemingly trivial information, remains intact. Can we remedy this to ensure that all candidates get their own section or will the section for Sanders also get trimmed? Zach (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that some of the information in there is relevant: he'd be the oldest president at inauguration, the first Jewish president, and the first to have a unionized campaign. The other stuff (sixth from New York state, for example) is definitely just pointless trivia and should go. Regardless, all of the relevant info still needs sources. Silver181 (talk) 13:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Campaign employment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Campaign employment . Airbornemihir (talk) 03:52, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Pointless trivia in historical significance section

Starting a new section on this topic because the other one has not been active for weeks and happened before recent activities.

The historical significance on these sections is not some trivia page to find out a bunch of random details about the candidate. It's about things that historians of the future will likely find noteworthy about this candidate (first president of x minority, x religion, etc.) All this nonsense about "fourth sitting Senator", "older than his four predecessors", "sixth from NY" is completely irrelevant and has no business being in an encyclopedia. Should we say that he'd be the 45th white president and the 14th Democratic president as well? I tried deleting some of this drivel, but certain anonymous editors added it back in. I'm just posting this here to try to reach a consensus on this matter with other editors. The historical significance sections of most other campaign pages were trimmed down substantially for having similar hogwash, so I don't see why we should tolerate it on this page. Silver181 (talk) 22:53, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Mentioning Rogan Podcast?

Bernie just appeared on the Joe Rogan podcast, which is a new move for political candidates, as they do not usually deal with large independent creators. Perhaps it is worth mentioning somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaxasus (talk • contribs) 22:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea - I'll try to add something. Gandydancer (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Article owned by Gandydancer

Apparently my edits aren't good enough for Gandydancer who decided to unceremoniously alter or remove my contributions without any form of consulting with either I or any other editor on this talk page. It's fine, as the same behavior was instituted on her part two years ago on the Bernie Sanders article. In any event, I'll treat this page the same way as the main Sanders article and refrain from editing it again now that I've been informed that Gandydancer owns it. Informant16 10 August 2019

I am sorry to hear that and I hope that you will reconsider. IMO you have been doing a lot of good work here but considering that we are hardly into the campaign we can't possibly include everything the candidates do as they work to get their issues out to the public. I did not exclude anything you have added but I instead cut it back to a mention in the forum appearances. Gandydancer (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Inaccurate length prance

I did not see Gandydancer's edit summaries before leaving my last comment. She argues that "we have months to go in this campaign and we can't possibly record everything that happens", which makes no sense when you consider the article was slightly over 40,000 bytes after Sanders had been running for well over five months. If this same pace of contributions had been repeated, it'd probably be around over 80,000 bytes by January and 120,000 by June, which still would have made it shorter than the Bernie Sanders 2016 presidential campaign article. And in the event that he won the nomination, such additions could have split to another article, a la Barack Obama 2008 presidential primary campaign. So her claim was a good cover ahead of her self-imposed ownership of the page. "Forget consensus. If I don't like it, it goes." Personally I'm tired of being the sole or one of few consistent contributors to a page and then having to acquiesce whenever an individual or set of users decide that I don't know what I'm doing. I look at what's been done on here before by others ahead of any edit and I don't appreciate being underutilized. But I'm not going to edit war or argue on the talk page anymore. I just write how I feel after being disrespected and refrain from assisting this page further. - Informant16 12 August 2019

rally music

can't find any detailed current articles on campaign music but I've observed them play Neil Young "Rockin in the Free World", Doobie Brothers "Takin It to the Streets", Sly & the Family Stone "Everyday People". Doug Grinbergs (talk) 06:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Mistake to look out for

Hey there have been a bunch of recent articles stating that Bernie is the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the popular vote in the first three primary states. Any additions to an article like that is a honest mistake due to the inaccurate headlines. In 2000 Al Gore won every state although Senator Bill Bradley was his only opponent. In 2004 John Kerry won the first three states before losing to John Edwards in South Carolina. However, if Bernie wins in South Carolina then the statement "he was the first Democratic presidential candidate to win the first four primary states in a competitive primary" can be added as it would be accurate. - Jon698 (talk) 00:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - MrX 🖋 02:10, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Mention that he advocates for a legalization of marjuana?

On his official Youtube channel he advocates for legalization of marijuana on day one. This is not even mentioned in this article. Do you think it should be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrconter1 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)