Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Paddy Power Odds

I know everyone here is a bit sick of celebrity candidates and all, but I'm wondering what we should do about the odds given by Paddy Power that've been covered by two sources: Business Insider and Inquisitr. The two articles were a few days apart, so they don't share all the same candidates, but they've each listed the following potential candidates (listed from most to least likely by the site): Mike Pence (R-IN), Paul Ryan (R-WI), Marco Rubio (R-FL), Trey Gowdy (R-SC), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Jeb Bush (R-FL), Mitt Romney (R-MA), Rand Paul (R-KY), Tom Brady (I-NY), Condoleezza Rice (R-CA), Leonardo DiCaprio (D-CA), Ivanka Trump (I-DC), Chelsea Clinton (D-NY), Kevin Spacey (D-CA), and Vince McMahon (R-CT).

They also both mention Gary Johnson (L-NM), so we could potentially add him to declined candidates, since these would be two sources speculating about him. What is everyone's take on these? Some of them are clearly preposterous, Paddy Power themselves give McMahon 200/1 odds, for example, but Pence is given 7/1 odds. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:35, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Odds are just like predictions or dreams, if you will. It's like adding Justin Bieber on potential candiates because PaddyPower gave it a 8/10 odds. It's WP:FANCRUFT and unnecessary. It should only be candidates who have expressed interests or have given the impression of running. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:35, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeremy Gable??

I'm only posting to this because the warnings before saving an edit scared me lol. Jeremy Gable is listed as a declared candidate. While he did apply, he's not eligible because he was not born an American citizen. In addition, the source given violates WP:BLPPRIMARY because it lists his personal address in the source. He should be removed because he's not an actual candidate. Secondly, can we remove all the celebrity "candidates"? It's kinda ridiculous. While Donald Trump was a celebrity candidate, he actually had a legitimate campaign from day one. All the celebrities listed, Kanye West, Dwayne Johnson, Tim McGraw, and Katy Perry, will probably never have a legitimate campaign. I usually avoid editing political pages but I felt I needed to comment on this.--Rockchalk717 06:44, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Sources say otherwise. It's the same exact thing with Donald Trump. He was a wealthy businessman who ran a TV show. He was known worldwide and even has his own Walk of Fame star. To exclude other celebrities because they don't have the chance would have been the same excuse used for 2016 and look at what happened. As for Jeremy Gable, his parents could had been born in US and would be constitutionally eligible to run for presidency. We don't have enough info. As for the source, I haven't checked it yet. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 07:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Plus, something like the 2003 Hatch Amendment could be ratified before the election. Almartello (talk) 16:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 February 2017

Zmifdal (talk) 05:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear to whomever this may concern

    The information on this page is almost shockingly wrong. there are several democratic candidates that have never declined running under that category. it is my hope that this page cleans up its act as many Americans are looking to it with interest, and will continue to in greater velocity over time.

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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 06:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump confirms 2020 run

Reckon there should be a mention of this somewhere? In yesterday's swearing in ceremony for his staff he said "We're going to do great things in the next EIGHT years", emphasizing the 'eight'. Bigeyedbeansfromvenus (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Trump STARTS 2020 run

Apparently while we discussing this, Trump filed with the FEC. Also, his campaign committee is paying for a rally in Florida, which is both notable and historic as the earliest in history. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Please remember, the election campaign has officially begun. I don't like it one bit, but there you are. the GOP section should reflect this. It's NOT WP:Crystal nor wild speculation. I wish it was, but it's real. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Given both sources that say Hillary's a potential candidate for 2020 assumed she would win the 2016 election, should we remove her? If so should we wait until she officially loses the election? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt she'll run again in 2020. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't assume one way or the other. If there are sources suggesting she might, we include her. If not, we don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As of now we don't have any up to date sources. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Until you have a reliable source that states she will not run again, do not remove her. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one that needs a reliable source that she is a potential candidate. The current sources only reference her being a potential re-election candidate which obviously isn't possible. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And why isn't it possible? That sentence right there is opinion-based and so was your initial edit summary. The sources given say she might run for 2020, but there are no sources that say she will not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 11:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read the sentence you're calling opinion-based? "The current sources only reference her being a potential re-election candidate which obviously isn't possible." The key word in there is "re-election." Obviously she's not going to be running for re-election in 2020. So any sources describing that scenario can't be used. We need a source written after November 8 that suggests she might run in 2020. Earthscent (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

She said that someone else would be the first female president in her concession speech. Doesn't that completely rule put her candidacy in 2020? "Now, I, I know, I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but some day someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now." It is vague, and can be interpreted in many different ways, but I think she is basically declining a 2020 run. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't add Clinton, unless there's a reliable source. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary can't run again. It appears her health and the health of her adviser Bill Clinton are an issue. Please use your eyes and your heart if they were your own parents, and remember what 4 additional years can do to disease progression. The Clinton Foundation is losing support (down 37%) so she will not have the finances she once had, there is still a question as to whether or not the FBI is still investigating her and we won't know the ramifications of that for some time now. All politics aside, just remember 4 years is a long time for a senior who already has medical problems, be fair and admit that much at least. However we do know that one of her friends and donors has said that he feels they are done. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/01/clinton-pal-mcauliffe-says-hillary-is-done-with-politics-oh-and-hes-looking-forward-to-working-with-trump-n2253121 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about "she can't run". It's about reliable sources, not opinions. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

She's never running again, please remove her from speculative candidates. https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-never-run-office-again-confidante-205846848.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Clinton is there again, with the same sources, and I question the reliability and timeliness of the sources. She challenged election results to 'keep her options open'? That doesn't seem like serious speculation on a future election to me, so much as using such a prospect to boost another story. We could argue the press attention itself counts, but there is also press attention towards MANY of the declined candidates as well, some of which have not declared fully 'Shermanesque' statements. Also, as another editor stated above, her statements during her concession seemed to strongly indicate she wouldn't run again. At the very least, I think this conversation needs to be more ongoing. --71.194.19.81 (talk) 11:15, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

• WP:CRYSTALBALLL3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg?

I am reading speculation that Pete Buttigieg might run for President someday, but the articles did not specify 2020 or any timeframe in particular. Should he be mentioned? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenorTwelve (talk • contribs) 06:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

• Not based on those sources, because they don't refer to him as a potential presidential candidate for 2020. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

FULL protect this page for several months

So that more community and ArbCom time is not wasted on CRYSTALBALL and pointless edits. I am seriously considering PROD, seeing as this article was last PRODd some time ago, before the election was decided. I will look at all the previous AfDs first and look at the arguments and the turnout to determine if the exact same consensus will reach, so as to avoid BLUDGEON and POINT. But seriously, IMO, why does this article exist?? You can barely write about a movie that is going to come out in 2 years without haviogn to run the AfD gauntlet. P.S. this 1RR, does or does not apply to PCR, PCR, and other such anti-vandalism authorities such as myself? In the anti-vandal capacity I have many times crossed 3rr, but as I had to no interest int he matter other than vandalism, I always assumed it was okay. I don't want to be blocked. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:18, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"But seriously, IMO, why does this article exist??" This article exists because unless Yellowstone Supervolcano erupts, or there's a civil war or something, There will be a presidential election in 2020. This is extremely notable. The Presumptive nominee for one of the major parties has already gotten a campaign up and running and there's a rally for him taking place tomorrow. I don't like the situation very much but that's not up to me. It's up to Trump.

Sweet, some authority. So many people here are so far up their own a ss they think Jack Fellure and Jeffrey Sharp count as candidates just because "we don't assume one way or the other". Including them is un-encyclopedic and idiotic. At some point common sense has to take over. The only candidates being mentioned should be Trump and then a FEW (not 40) Democrats. Crewcamel (talk) 04:24, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Do I need to remind you of civility? If you're here to be uncollaborative and throw derogatory remarks, you shouldn't be here. To answer L3X1, PROD is proposing a deletion. I don't see how this article qualifies as such since the article already has sufficient content to stand its own article (minus the candidates). Full protection is seriously unnecessary. This article is not being abused by IPs, new users or regular users. Therefore, it is also unqualified for a full protection. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 04:42, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Crewcamel remember to keep civil or some "sweet authority" may pay visitations onto your talk page. I hope you're not talking about me, because the rest of your statement basically defines not me. So I'll ignore it and not take it personally. Callmemirela, thanks for the reply. I know the vandalism is low, but I was planning on Full so that nobody could edit and start and edit war. If any vandalism pops up, I'll ask for SEMI. As for prod, it is probably too early for an AfD, but I do think another one should be held near the end of next year. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 03:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I am against nominating it for deletion regardless of which process you decide to take, but that's your call. As for the full protection, page protections are meant to prevent further damage when it has already been disrupted enough times. It is not meant to prevent such occurrences when they haven't happened. There are few rare cases such as SPI investigations and whatnot. However, this page doesn't qualify for it. Should a user or users begin to edit war, they should be reminded of 1RR, be warned if continued and subsequently reported at AN3 if they refuse to stop. Full protection is very rare. If that were to happen, it would be numerous users (and I'm talking regular users such as myself and users with more experience) reverting without stopping. It hasn't happened, so full protection is unnecessary. Should a user revert, they should be reminded to take it to the talk page to discuss the matter. I hope I've helped. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

We should have a discussion as to what this should look like for the next couple of years. I keep on mentioning this until I'm blue in the face. I think this should be basically a "primer" on how the system works, for now. But they keep reverting me when I try.

AS to the candidates, aside from Trump, all the candidates on the Republican side are fantasy. Dwayne Johnson was probably kidding when he said he was considering a run. As to the rest, they're the hopes and dreams of pundits. On the Democratic side, all the candidates listed are speculative, but they are mentioned in the press. There should be all the possibilities there, as this article, at least until a year and a half from now, an exception to the usual rules for WP:Crystal, because it's so fluid at the moment, and its two years before most of the Democratic field is known, and slightly more than that before the debates start.

WE cannot be encyclopedic yet, but we can, at least, be a place where the casual reader can have a decent overview of the situation that can be easily skimmed in a few seconds. That's all we really need, except for this:

We need to split the article into: Timeline. the Trump campaign, and the Democratic Primaries. AS to third parties, unless some Libertarian wins the governorship of something, who cares?Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

It's far too early to speculate on the viability of third parties. We have no idea if a viable libertarian or independent candidate will run, or how well they will do, so they should be included. We're including Jack Fellure for God's sake! MB298 (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Include Democratic and Republican in infobox?

Should the infobox feature TBD Democratic and Republican candidates? I disagree per WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:UNDUE. MB298 (talk) 20:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with MB928, and I've removed the "TBD"s from the infobox. Even readers unfamiliar with the U.S. political system will understand that the reason the candidates aren't listed in the infobox is that the election won't take place for another 3 years and the candidates haven't been selected yet. And if the candidates haven't been determined yet, it should go without saying that their home states and running mates haven't been determined either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Katy Perry and Tim McGraw

Could we please apply some editoral standards and not include silly speculation about celebrites like this? The inclusion of Dwayne Johnson is an exception as he actually stated he might run, but using ridiculous clickbait articles as references diminishes our credibility. JJARichardson (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Jay Inslee

https://politicalwire.com/2017/02/21/jay-inslee-president/ http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/inslees-profile-lifted-with-states-legal-victories-on-immigration/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3022:1:6C00:E84F:8D29:CA54:AFC5 (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done. MB298 (talk) 00:32, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyonce and Jay-Z

I have some articles speculating that Beyonce and Jay Z may run for president as Democrats. I'm considering including them unless anyone objects. I'll look for other celebrities if i find them.

http://www.newser.com/story/236832/beyonce-2020-is-exactly-what-democrats-need.html

http://yournewswire.com/jay-z-beyonce-2020-presidential-bid/

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/17/jay-z-to-run-for-president-in-2020

http://heatst.com/politics/president-beyonce-the-democrat-celebs-most-likely-to-run-in-2020/

Crewcamel (talk) 05:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm running too. Come on people. Lets try and keep it serious. L3X1 My Complaint Desk 17:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

That would violate WP:NEUTRAL. If Kanye West and Katy Perry count as candidates then i don't think it would be fair to exclude Beyonce. That, or we purge this entire page and have different standards for what counts as a candidate. idk Crewcamel (talk) 20:15, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think anyone considered a "celebrity" should be included unless they have shown considerable interest in running (such as Kanye and Dwayne Johnson). MB298 (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Gary Johnson As A Declined Candidate

Why was Gary Johnson removed as someone who declined to be a candidate? I remember him giving a Shermanesque statement about 2020. PiratePablo (talk) 01:16, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There are no sourcces speculating that Gary would run, and therefore there is no reason to mark him as declined. Alec Holbeck (talk) 03:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Makes sense. PiratePablo (talk) 22:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

He may be retracting on his earlier statements:

• http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-for-president-maybe-2017-2
• http://www.businessinsider.com/poll-mark-cuban-trump-2020-2017-2
• http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-mark-cuban-twitter-2020-2017-2
• http://nypost.com/2017/02/12/trumps-white-house-eyes-potential-foes-in-2020-election/

MB298 (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Until Cuban officially states he is interested, I think we should leave him in the declined section. At the moment this could be seen as him simply trolling Trump (which wouldn't be shocking for Cuban). Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

While he may have some disagreements with the president, it's worth noting that Cuban is currently an Independent; neither Democrat nor Republican.

While that is also true- Cuban is being mentioned as a potential Democratic candidate. Much like Bernie Sanders was in 2012 and 2016. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 21:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not remove sourced information

Nobody owns this Wikipedia article, contributions shouldn't be removed because the sources were published prior to the election.MeropeRiddle (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Your sources were from prior to the election. The rule is that for a source to be included, it must be from after the election.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 21:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump again

It is clear that Trump is technically a candidate for reelection. The rules for presidents are different from the rest. Obama didn't announce until May 2012, AFTER he had won the nomination.According to USA today. "In 1996, of course, Bill Clinton never bothered to announce he was running for reelection." He just filed the papers, like Trump did, and started raising money, like Trump did, and when the time came, he did not object when the several states put his name on the primary ballot. (He did have to agree to let his name in New Hampshire, so I guess that's something). yeah, Obama filed the paperwork in the spring of the previous year, and did a youtube video, in which, according to the Voice of America" "...is conspicuous in that nowhere in it does Obama appear making any new formal statement about his bid for another term or about his policies."

So it is clear that the rules are different for incumbent presidents than it is for "regular" candidates.

So let us have a consensus and a discussion (so we don't have an edit war and some here get mad at me) on the subject of : Let's acknowledge that Donald Trump is a candidate for re-election, even though he didn't say the magic words.

He has had a rally paid for his reelection campaign. That should be enough. Anyone disagree? Why doesn't his campaign's existence (and that rally in Florida) prove he's at least "exploring the possibility?"

Have at it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump filed his own substitute document with the FEC and held a rally. He stated that the letter wasn't a "formal announcement", but that doesn't negate the fact that he acknowledged reaching the legal threshold requiring an FEC 2, the statement of candidacy, which he acknowledged the document was for. "please accept this letter as my Form 2 for the 2020 election in order to ensure compliance with the Federal Election Campaign Act. See 52 U.S.C. �30102(e)(1); 11 C.F.R. �100.3(a)(1). " is an acknowledgement of his candidacy.MeropeRiddle (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

A candidate is officially recognized as declared when they, themselves, declare. He hasn't officially declared, and holding a rally/fundraising (considering non-declared candidates do the same) isn't enough to be considered a declared candidate. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:32, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

So would you consider him exploring? How would you have put Clinton in '96 or Obama in '12 before they announced "with a speech?"Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

They would've been potential candidates. Trump is a potential candidate. We know he's planning on running- but things can happen that'll stop him from running.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Jeff Merkley

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/democrats-2020-presidential-field-235335

I can't seem to find another recent source that doesn't link to the article. MB298 (talk) 04:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Celebrity speculatives...

Okay... I was hoping this was not going to be an issue, but now this is seriously getting ridicilous...

I can understand speculations around celebrities like Katy Perry and Dwayne Johnson, as Johnson has expressed interest and Katy Perry have long been active in campaigning for Democrats. But DiCaprio? Beyonce? Meryl Streep?! There has to be a limit somewhere!

I think there needs to be something done about what sources we should follow when it comes to adding celebrities as speculative candidates before (mostly) the Democratic section gets filled with 50 celebrites and only 20 actual politicians. Again, I can understand adding Katy Perry or Tim McGraw in there, but now this is REALLY getting out of control.

(TheWiselyStupidOne (talk) 06:13, 28 February 2017 (UTC))

This will be needing lengthy discussion. As you can see through the AfD, we need to discuss how and when to add any candidates. Most sources just speculate. I believe that constantly adding candidates regardless of career is becoming way too much. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 06:37, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I dont think we need a lengthy discussion. We'll just be wasting everyone's time. Everyone knows Leonardo DiCaprio should not be in this article and there is absolutely no chance Katy Perry or Jack Fellure will run a significant campaign that merits mentioning. It is also, in my opinion, absurd to specify Oprah, Tom Hanks and Jeff Bezos will not be running for president.

WP:Snowball The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start.

WP:Common: Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective(i.e.: We need common sense not more rules) Crewcamel (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

When it comes to these people, I do think it's extremely unlikely that they will start up a campaign. I added them because they met the criteria of having two or more sources speculate about them post-election. I figure that we should remain neutral with who should and shouldn't be added. We could add more requirements (like not counting speculation based on social media posts) or require that they must have held prior political office. However, the prime argument against this change would be that the current president was thought of as an improbable joke candidate a few years back. Roseanne Barr ran for president in 2012, too. And of course there's Reagan, Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson, and Al Franken all being different degrees of "famous" as they all sought political office. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ya i get it. I was trying to add celebrities earlier to find out how ridiculous this page could get before everyone agreed that enough was enough. I really want people to take a hard look at this page and consider what a joke it is. Crewcamel (talk) 23:12, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Beyoncé as president seems ridiculous. Then again, Trump happened. I think we should only include candidates who have truly expressed interest in running and not speculate since it gives a gossipy feel to the article when this is an encyclopedia. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:36, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Oprah

Oprah is listed as declining to run. This is no longer true and she should be listed as a potential candidate. [1] Prcc27❄ (talk) 23:34, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2017

Oprah needs to be on the publically expressed interest part of the democratic section Tepig4321 (talk) 00:03, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —MRD2014 📞 What I've done 01:26, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The Mess of the Candidates Sections

Looking over the candidates sections- it is extremely obvious we need something to change. Besides including celebrities who are beyond unlikely to run (though Crystal Ball), we need to set a new guideline. One thing I think we should do: DO NOT post any source unless it specifically talks about one candidate (and of course- we stay in line with the two- to three-source rule, but add this one on to it; this would also include declined candidates- though they would only need one source instead of two). IE the sources for Warren talking about how she'd be a good candidate versus Tammy Baldwin- who doesn't have any sources talking about only her, or where the majority of it is about her. This would at least make the entire thing more manageable, and it would push the celebrities and odd candidates out of the way.

NOTE- I did the page like this quickly based on the current sources, and then reverted it back to original form. Some of the people I deleted could easily have new sources (IE Cuban and Booker). Here is the result: http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=United_States_presidential_election,_2020&oldid=768307052 As you can see, the number of potential candidates goes from 50 (that is WAY too many for March three years before the election, even with Democratic chaos at the moment) down to 15. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea, my only issue being that sometimes certain potential candidates will be excluded, despite them being pretty seriously discussed as likely participants in the race. For example, Sherrod Brown and Chris Murphy would be left off the page under these rules, despite the Trump administration listing them as some of his more likely challengers in 2020. All the articles based around this announcement also happen to mention the other two on his shortlist: Mark Cuban and John Hickenlooper. I figure we should also keep people featured in hypothetical polls like Andrew Cuomo, Julian Castro, and Tim Kaine. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:51, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I see your point- but for a lot of people you can find individual sources. IE for Brown and this for Murphy.

Though I do agree- if someone has been featured in an Independent nation-wide poll then he/she should be included. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

I do not foresee any problem with keeping those very speculative candidates at first. Anyway that's just my opinion, because I love to analyse such things very closely. --Seneca Quayle (talk) 10:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2017

Lindsay Graham as speculative 2020 Presidential Candidate for Republican Party Ben Levitt (talk) 18:52, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2017

Hello! I hope you're having a good day. I saw a few articles saying that Starbucks CEO Howard Shultz could run for POTUS. He's stepping down from his CEO position soon, and he seems to be more poltically active since President Trump assumed office. Thoughts? FuturePresident (talk) 22:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:27, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Schultz has already declined that he's interested in running- I'll be adding him to the declined section. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

For some reason, Kamala Harris is in the declined candidates list and the source for why she declined doesn't clearly say she did. This needs to be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolothegeneral (talk • contribs) 04:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Interviewer: After the Nov. 8 elections, the Democrats were gobsmacked by the results. What does it say about the state of the party that, within a week or two of presidential election 2016, your name was being bandied election for the presidential election of 2020?

There was a lot that happened during the course of the election. I’ll leave it to the pundits to analyze exactly what it all meant. But in terms of the state of the Democratic party, I strongly believe that the commitment that we are all making as we go forward post-11/8 — which is what I call it — in this post-11/8 world, we have to recommit ourselves to some of the fundamental principles and priorities of the Democratic party, including coalition building, which means bringing all of who we are as Americans together, by bringing together Latinos and African Americans and women and people who care about choice and people who care about the environment and people who care about labor and people who care about children’s issues. When people wake up at 3 o’clock in the morning concerned about something, it is never through the lens of them being a Democrat or a Republican. In fact, it always has something to do with their health, the health of their children, can they keep a roof over their heads, are they going to be able to retire with dignity. We’re going to have to get back to really all of us remembering that, and we have to speak to where they are, and we have to see them and understand the lives they are actually living.

Interviewer: So why your name in that context?

I don’t know why my name is in that context. I’m focused on being the junior senator from California and very proud to be representing our beautiful state.

The above is the text where she declines. She says she doesn't know why her name is in the context, and she's focused on being the junior Senator. That counts as declining. Until she says she's interested, or she's not sure- she should be considered a declined candidate. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo and What to Do About Media Speculation of a Declined Candidate

Cuomo has declined that he will be running in 2020, insisting he's only going to be running for reelection for Governor of New York in 2018, yet sources are still speculating that he'll run, some even acknowledging that he has denied the rumors. Essentially, this poses the question: once a candidate is placed in the "declined" section, can they be moved back to the "speculative" section (and if so, under what circumstances)? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 20:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The way I think we move a candidate back to "Speculative" is:

• The candidate has said they're open to running

OR

• The candidate has stated they're interested in running

Other than that, I don't think we should move someone to speculative. Inside anonymous sources can be pretty easily hoaxed or be wrong, so it's better to hear it straight from the candidate on whether or not they're running or open/interested in it. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 21:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

2016 Election

Look at this archive of the 2016 election[2] It isnt perfect (it lists Peter King as declared even though even he never ran) however it still looks more aesthetically pleasing than ours. I suggest we follow its example and remove the "Wikitable Sortables" and all or most pictures from our article to make it easier on the eyes. Maybe remove the national polling as well. Having Oprah up 7 against Trump will give readers the impression that no one on this page knows what they're doing. Which is true btw. Crewcamel (talk) 06:25, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders Image Proposals

Okay so I've found either more recent and possibly even more high quality images that could be more suitable for Sanders's entry:

• 
  Keep current
• 
  Option A
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C (official portrait)
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G

Either Current, C, or D. However at this stage of the election it really doesn't matter. Let's wait until 2019. Crewcamel (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2017

Remove Hillary Clinton as a potential candidate and make Andrew Cuomo as a potential candidate. 96.250.214.41 (talk) 22:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:39, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump's campaign

The committee exists, it has already hosted several rallies, and the President has said he plans to serve 8 years. As I've said again and again, Clinton didn't announce until a week before the convention. This means that he has shown interest and should be listed. There was consensus that the article not be deleted. What more do you want? Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump gives editors the jeebies. They don't want to see him. I'd be the last person to vote for a con like him, but i'm still not afraid of being objective, even if it means incuding him as a potential candidate Crewcamel (talk) 05:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, but every time I post a link to the article someone takes it down. They then blame me for causing edit-warring. Could someone explain that?Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

The editors who spend the most time on this page are afraid and repulsed by trump. They don't want to concede that Trump 'may' run for a second term. Therefore they don't include him as a candidate. Crewcamel (talk) 23:11, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am afraid and repulsed by Trump, but I know that the election cycle is new and is going to be TRUMP TRUMP TRUMP now and until something extraordinary happens. This is not WP:Crystal ball, or fan gruff or anything like that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump's 2020 Campaign

Someone recently added Donald Trump as a declared candidate, citing http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/838/201611070300117838/201611070300117838.pdf as a source. However, I looked at this link, and it appears to me that there's nothing about Trump, only Jack Fellure. Trump has submitted a file, but it's at http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg?_201701209041436569+0, and it says that "[it] does not constitute a formal announcement of [his] candidacy for the 2020 election," so I don't think that he counts as a "declared candidate." PiratePablo (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

At the moment- he doesn't count. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he does. Incumbent Presidents operate under a different set of rules than others. Right now, there's a pro-trump campaign and an anti-trump campaign, and the pro-trump campaign is raising money and holding rallies, either directly or through affiliate groups. There's one today and DC and a bunch of other cities. AS I have said before, Presidents don't HAVE to declare officially to run for renomination. They just have to file the paperwork and raise money. Trump has done that. Clinton didn't announce until just before the Convention in 1996. But he did have an organization long before. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

An organization doesn't mean he's an official candidate. If anything- it just means he's exploring. See: Roy Moore in 2012. He formed an organization but ultimately didn't run. Seriously, at the moment- Trump hasn't stated he's running in 2020, and he hasn't officially filed anything saying that either. So he doesn't count as a declared candidate. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Vote 4 DJH2036. It's possible that Trump won't run for reelection; therefore, he's not a declared candidate yet. Is it probable that he'll run? Yes. But it's not definite. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball. Until Trump has confirmed that he's running for reelection, he's not a declared candidate. PiratePablo (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

So put him in the "expressed interest" section. The point is, there is a campaign organization and the link needs to be here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:45, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Libertarian Party, declined to run for President

Gary Johnson, Governor of New Mexico, 1999-2003; businessman; candidate for President in 2012 and 2016

100.6.182.47 (talk) 01:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Johnson hasn't received any real speculation from a notable source that I've found. So he can't be included. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Albuquerque Journal is reliable. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:21, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

2020 Polls

PPP just did a poll in which they had Donald Trump get 41% against Mark Cuban, who had 40% (undecided had 19%). This should be added to the general election polling section.

I'll add it once it is officially released (raw data). This should be soon. MB298 (talk) 03:10, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Harvard-Harris polling just came out with a new poll (March 14-16, 2017) for the 2020 Democratic field: harvardharrispoll.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Harvard-CAPS-Harris-Poll-March-Wave-Limited-Top-Line-Democratic-Party-Leadership-03.17.2017.pdf. See page 15 for details. Results: Bernie Sanders 14%, Michelle Obama 11%, Elizabeth Warren 9%, Hillary Clinton 8%, Mark Cuban 4%, Andrew Cuomo 3%, Oprah Winfrey 3%, Cory Booker, Someone new 45%. Please add to polling section. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peakpoultry (talk • contribs) 21:26, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:DUE

Can we please drop these people: Dan Rattiner, Jack Fellure, Jeffrey Sharp? We're giving them undue respect by including them. If they want to be here they have to earn the respect necessary first. I am happy however, that you all found the stomach to include Donald Trump as a possible candidate. Considering he is holding 2020 campaign rallies and has filed his FEC, i believe we should take it a step further and include him as "declared".

We all need to make sure this article is as objective as possible while also taking due respect into account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 06:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that Trump is already a declared candidate. I'm sure not everyone feels that way so I'll wait and hear what others have to say before editing. Prcc27 (talk) 14:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Excessive summaries of candidates

I want to shed unnecessary background that candidates are being given. But i want a consensus before i make any edits. For example:

• Jerry Brown, Governor of California since 2011 and 1975–1983; Attorney General 2007–2011; Mayor of Oakland 1999–2007; Secretary of State 1971–1975; candidate for President in 1976, 1980, and 1992
• Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State 2009–2013; U.S. Senator from New York 2001–2009; First Lady of the United States 1993–2001; First Lady of Arkansas 1979–1981 and 1983–1992; candidate for President in 2008 and Democratic nominee in 2016
• Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont since 2007; U.S. Representative 1991–2007; Mayor of Burlington 1981–1989

It's too much information. It should be more like this:

• Jerry Brown, Governor of California since 2011
• Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State 2009–2013, Democratic nominee in 2016
• Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont since 2007

Notice how the second one didn't give you eye cancer

If no one answers my suggestions within 24 hours ill complete them myself. WP:BOLD encourages me to do soCrewcamel (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Granted, some of those listed are pretty long, a line needs to be drawn somewhere (and it sort of already has, we already exclude certain aspects like former positions in state legislatures or other local levels). Governorships, Congressional time, failed campaigns, and mayoral terms seem reasonable to me. Some people like Tim Kaine or Jerry Brown have simply maneuvered their way through politics for a while. But eventually it becomes a matter of opinion of what denotes a mention. What part of their resume should be cut out? Would it not be notable enough, for example, to point out Hillary Clinton's time in Congress or that if she were to run, it'd be her third time doing so? That's just my two cents. And I apologize, I didn't see your suggestions till now otherwise I would've chimed in earlier. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

You need to wonder less about what merits mentioning and more about what the purpose of including their job history even is. It is not meant to describe their resume or hint as to how they've maneuvered their way through politics.

• Jerry Brown, Governor of California

This is meant to very very briefly tell the reader who this person is. (Are they a politician? or an actor? a singer?). Once they read "Governor of California", it's clear that this person is an established politician who holds high office, they do not need to know more. Crewcamel (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I would include current/most recent office and past campaigns for President. so it would look like this

• Jerry Brown, Governor of California since 2011 and 1975–1983; candidate for President in 1976, 1980, and 1992
• Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State 2009–2013; candidate for President in 2008 and Democratic nominee in 2016
• Bernie Sanders, U.S. Senator from Vermont since 2007; candidate for President in 2016.

This way, people can read about how they preformed in previous presidential campaigns and its an easy reference point. This is particularly potent for candidates such as Jerry Brown and John Kerry, who the average reader may not be aware was a presidential candidate. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 15:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 March 2017

RyanKeesler (talk) 15:28, 30 March 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. DRAGON BOOSTER ★ 15:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Format

Could we change this:

Name	Born	Current or previous positions	State	Announced	Ref	Notes
Jeremy Gable	May 10, 1982 (age 42) Lakenheath, England	Playwright	Pennsylvania	May 11, 2015	Not a natural born citizen

(yuck)

to this:

Declared

• Jeremy Gable, Playwright from Pennsylvania

I think it looks a lot better Crewcamel (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

If he is not a natural born citizen, nor even a citizen at all (he may just have a green card, I dunno), then he's not a candidate for president and should be removed.

Im not talking about him specifically, hes just an example. There's a lot of candidates with wiki tables. Crewcamel (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

If no one answers my suggestions within 24 hours ill complete them myself. WP:BOLD encourages me to do soCrewcamel (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically, something like the Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment could pass between now and 2020, which is generally why candidates are included even if they can't hold the office legally. On Crewcamel's suggestion, I would agree. The current format is an eyesore. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Theoretically, it CAN'T. It would take two-thirds of each house of congress, and three quarters of the state legislatures to pass. With a Republican majority in each house of Congress, it would have as much chance as a "Trump for King" amendment. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

No. This is what we always do for the major parties. Why wouldn't we have galleries for minor parties?--Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 15:27, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Because WP:DUE. Dan Rattiner, Jeffrey Sharp, and other minor party nobodies havent earned the respect to be included in an encyclopedia. If youre gonna revert edits i think you should at least be right in your reasoning. """We always do this for major parties. Why wouldnt we have galleries for minor parties""". There are zero future election articles with pictures for the candidates. The 2016 election page didnt add a gallery until mid 2015 when the campaign was actually underway. This campaign is not underway. Crewcamel (talk) 21:16, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Consistency

If you compare this page to current and previous political articles there are some glaring differences. One of them is that this is the only page that has pictures of the candidates, much less pictures of people who's only tie to politics is that they filed their FEC.

2013 version of 2016 Election [3]

2014 version of 2016 Election [4]

2015 version of 2016 Election [5]

Governor races 2018.

Senate races 2018.

None of these articles have any pictures of the candidates. The 2016 Election pages didn't add pictures until prominent individuals began declaring their candidacies.

→→I think this is a good reason to remove pictures of third party and celebrity candidates. I also think it's a good reason to consider removing pictures of candidates altogether. Does anyone agree/disagree? Crewcamel (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't really think that that's a strong reason to remove information. Alec Holbeck (talk) 11:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

problems

I have been threatened to be blocked because I do "disruptive" edits. They are not disruptive, and so I am reprinting some disucssions on this topic from elsewhere followed by a call for consensus.

2020 election and Trump

Could you explain why Donald Trump doesn't deserve to be mentioned as a Republican candidate for president? I know there's a tiny sentence, but under the "Republican candidates" section, Jack Fallares, a barely notable nobody, is given a major table with a big picture and everything, while Trump isn't. Why is that? He has a formal committee, he's raised millions and he's already had a rally. That makes him a candidate. Bill Clinton didn't announce his candidacy until The day before the '96 convention started. I know it's too early, but It's not my fault, it's HIS.

So put the thing back, okay? It has nothing to do with opinion, it's just a fact. Trump is a candidate, he's the president, and he's thus the presumptive nominee. If something unique and unusual happens to change that, then a Republican will still be president and the presumptive nominee. If it happens, then we'll change it. Easy peasy.

Now as to the "Great Mentioner", it's a good (and encyclopedic) way to explain how the process works. Since the McGovern/Fraser reforms of 40 years ago, the presidential election cycle has been pretty stable:

Year one: Everyone in the media tries to ignore it (people who announce this early are hobbyists and weirdos) Trump is unique. I can't explain him. The great mentioner starts mentioning, and people mentioned laugh it off.

Year two: prospective candidates contact the media to see if the race is worth it. Which is why they came up with exploratory committees. These things cost money. The parties start making preparations for the conventions and debate schedules. "Serious" candidates start getting their asses in gear. Jimmy Carter announced in 1974.

Year three: This is the reality show. Starting with the 1984 election, the debates have started six to eight months before the actual voting starts. There are real candidates with real campaigns. Thanks to early voting, the primaries start in December!

The Democratic race is wide open. Right now, everyone's still in shock. The grass roots in the party are furious. But the emphisis is on Trump's chaotic new administration...and it should be. Nobody really wants to deal with this right now. What's going on right now is basically vandalism with actual references. Not me, I'm just trying to get the thing in such a shape that a reader can scan the thing and get a decent understanding of what is going on in about ten to fifteen seconds. Is that so terrible?

There's going to be a 2017 version of this, which is going to be totally different than the 2018 version, which is going to be different....the damn thing's in flux. There are lots of articles which are not. Most of them in fact.

So PLEASE stop deleting my edits....Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: First, the article isn't yours, so stop pushing your POV into the article. Jack Fellure will remain regardless of his status in society. Secondly, Trump has sent in an info indicating he intends on running, he hasn't declared his candidacy. Thirdly, your recent edits were not neutral. Nowhere is it helpful or even encyclopedic to tell readers that "some in the press retell the myth of the "Great Mentioner"" or that "[w]ith no incumbent, or indeed a front runner, the Democratic presidential race is wide open." or even to say that "[i]t is traditional for politicians and celebrities who have had their names mentioned as possible presidents to feign interest in running whether their hopes and dreams include a race or not, especially before the midterm elections, where politicians might be running for reelection or doing their jobs, and celebrities have to get on with their careers." This not neutral, WP:FANCRUFT and, in fact, an opinion. This is an encyclopedia, not a press show. Going on to explain how the election "works" is unencyclopedic. Fourthly, no, I will stop reverting you if necessary until you abide by policies. And PLEASE stop talking to me about how elections proceed. I really don't appreciate comments such as "The Democratic race is wide open. Right now, everyone's still in shock. The grass roots in the party are furious. But the emphisis is on Trump's chaotic new administration...and it should be." Please stop expressing your opinion about the election. It's not the first time you've talked to me like this. I don't care. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Not to intrude, but the answer is simple: because he hasn't formally announced that he will indeed run. The "Great Mentioner" bit doesn't prove that he intends to run, nor does it even explain the significance of the changes made 40 years ago that were mentioned as making modern elections more stable than those of say 1976 (which for some reason is being related to whether or not Trump is running). It fails to explain the motives and methodology of his announcement, and generalizes them to just him being "mentioned" before continuing to explain that he is unique allowing him - and he alone - to survive the early announcement and make it into the presidency. Yes, the media does speculate on next election's candidates, and the incumbent president is always mentioned, and even if almost every incumbent goes for a second term that doesn't prove Trump intends to run. I don't ordinarily come onto people's pages, but I'm speaking up because you can't just keep WP:POV pushing. I've seen you edit warring, and pushing similar issues in the past. It's not cool. Psychotic Spartan 123 04:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There's the rally. The rally happened. That is neitherWP:FANCRUFT, nor an opinion. There's tons of references and it was covered extensively by the media. In 1996, Clinton did not formally announce a candidacy until a few days before the convention. In past articles, it was more than enough to have an organization which actively raised money.

Spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on a rally which is run by the campaign. To quote NPR: "A White House spokeswoman called it a campaign rally for America." How is it POV? The criteria for being a candidate has been fulfilled in Trump's case. He's sent a letter to the FEC, he's set up an organization which is currently raising money, and he's had at least one (large event) in relation to it. Whether or not he changes his mind in the future is irrelevent. It's the situation as of now. The "five major polls" thing doesn't matter, because until he withdraws his candidacy (like Harry Truman in 1952 or LBJ in 1968), there will be no polling on the Republican side. At least for the foreseeable future.

That is also not WP:FANCRUFT. What is, is putting Dwayne Johnson up there as saying he was interested in running. At this point in the cycle, the election is basically little more than fantasy football. That is not POV, that is also a fact. We should acknowledge this. Should it be less snarky? Sure. But right now, the page is a mess. Should there be another page somewhere where we can go over what we want this thing to look like? I would like that very much. I mean no disrespect, I'm just very passionate about Wikipedia. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017

Please stop making disruptive edits.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

The facts:

• Donald Trump is an incumbent president, and will remain so until the end of his term or and will otherwise leave office only due to extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances.
• No one-term President has refused to run for re-election since Rutherford B. Hayes in 1880.
• Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Bill Clinton did not become "official" candidates until shortly before their nominating conventions in 1964 and 1996 respectively, although they too had campaign organizations set up. LBJ did the same thing in 1968 prior to his withdrawal from the race days prior to the second primary of the year. Barack Obama didn't formally announce (although he too set up a reelection committee well before) until the middle of the primary seaso±n and after he had amassed enough delegates to clinch it. These are genuine precedents.
• Donald Trump has a campaign committee for 2020 set up. It is currently raising money and financing and promoting rallies for him.
• Donald Trump has mentioned on several occasions that he wishes to be president for EIGHT years. Thus expressing interest.

Thus, President Trump must be included as a potential Republican candidate. To say is is not is unencyclopedic.

This article is not the property of Callmemirela nor of myself. All I wish is to set up an easily updateable article that explains the process and reflects the current state of affairs.

Is there a consensus on this or do the majority here wish to continue to ignore Trump and make the GOP section look bad? More on the Democrats later.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no consensus because Mirela is afraid of Trump even though she's Canadian . Crewcamel (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

This fact becomes overwhelmingly obvious if you have ever visited https://twitter.com/mirela_sablic. There's thousands of anti-Trump tweets by her here with almost nothing else, and yet somehow people think she's fit to run this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.38.230.230 (talk) 10:34, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump should be included as a potential candidate. Earthscent (talk) 14:46, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

I actually think Trump belongs in the expressed interest column. Prcc27 (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump included as a Republican Candidate?

I want to (and have tried repeatedly) move the picture of Trump and the section titled "the advantages of incumbency" to the Republican "expressed interest" section as well as adding a link to the article on his 2020 campaign in the same place. Does anyone object to this? If anyone does, please put a detailed explanation WHY below in next couple of days. If no one does, then in 48 hours I will make the changes I have suggested. Because, that is CONSENSUS. Any objections?Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Reputable Sources

I think more reputable sources should be used for speculative candidates. The ones ive taken issue with include, Red Alert Politics, Breitbart, Salon and Paste magazine (a music and film publication).

I also wonder if people posting sources are even reading the articles. Many of the articles dont directly mention the candidate as possibly running for president in 2020.

• This article [6] exclusively speculates that Trump chose Nikki Haley for UN ambassador to prevent her from challenging him in 2020. It doesn't say she may run anyway.

• This one on Bernie Sanders [7] does not mention anywhere he will possibly run for president.

• This one shows a hypothetical possibility.[8] It shows some merrit to the possibility of Sanders running in 2020 due to His popularity growth.

Crewcamel (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• A reliable source is one that is considered reliable when it makes assertions of fact. That's what allows us to state factually that which can be found in reliable sources. Once a source that is considered reliable on factual matters starts to speculate, it is speculating, not asserting facts. Reliability doesn't even come into it then: if it was that reliable, then it would be a fact, not a guess. Wikipedia publishes information. Guesses are not information. Largoplazo (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• would this article work? I don't think i found this on Sen. Sanders http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-2020_us_5874b7f1e4b02b5f858af58a JDPEG (talk) 22:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

That would work, yes. Crewcamel (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Rand Paul

Okay, since it keeps being undone, I think it's ridiculous to keep Paul as "speculative" and not "declined" in the Libertarian section. He declined a Republican run, yes, but it's very unlikely he will ever mention a Libertarian run. Really, it's just the Libertarians that adore him and want him on their ticket (not dissimilar to other libertarian-leaning Republicans in Congress like Justin Amash or Mark Sanford), he will likely never address the possibility of running for them. So him expressing that he doesn't want to challenge Trump in 2020, I figure, is enough to have him be considered "declined" as a Libertarian as well. It's different from what Sanders said, where he specifically ruled out a third party run (specifically as a Green or Independent) but left the door open for aiming for the Democrats' ticket again in 2020. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That aside. I have a problem with the Republican section. He didn't decline to run in 2020, he declined to run against Trump in 2020. However, the section is currently treating Trump as an interested candidate rather than a declared candidate. I personally think Trump should be listed as a declared candidate since he has in fact declared his candidacy. Otherwise, Rand Paul shouldn't be listed as declined since he didn't technically decline altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the best way to go about this is to list Trump (and Pence) as a separate section at the top of the Republicans, listing them as the "Presumptive Incumbents," or something, since it is likely that they will continue to head the ticket barring some extraordinary change of circumstances. In that case, Paul has definitely declined, as Trump is all but certainly running for reelection. Think of it like this: Trump has stated he will run for reelection, Paul has said he won't run against Trump. Until one of them says something different, Paul ought to be listed as "declined." IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

A "presumptive incumbent" section should do. Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding Gary Johnson

Should Gary Johnson be listed under Libertarian Party -> Declined candidates to run? — Preceding unsigned comment added by username (talk • contribs) 21:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

• This is from way over a month ago. I gonna time stamp it.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2017

71.34.184.229 (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton , First Female Presidentaia Nominee of a major political party. in January 2017 Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was launching a liberal tv show following the 2020 election. she is a likely candidate for 2020 presidential election

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we remove General Election polling with declined candidates?

Should we remove General Election polling with declined candidates? (Such as Trump vs. Biden, Booker, Franken, Cuban, and Winfrey.) Crashguy42 (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidates change their minds all the time. I don't doubt people like Cory Booker, Al Franken, or Mark Cuban will jump into the race eventually (Biden has even gone back and forth for 2016 AND 2020). Besides, they're hypothetical polls at this point. In 2013, early general election polls included Joe Biden, Andrew Cuomo, Howard Dean, John Kerry, Elizabeth Warren, Sarah Palin, and Paul Ryan. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 19:05, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

If candidates change their minds all the time then why have a declined section at all? What's the point of telling readers they're not running?

The "declined" section is basically an extension of the "speculative" section that includes more potential candidates that sources have spoken about, but who have made comments saying they don't intend to run. People like Mark Cuban have denied, then expressed interest, then denied again. People change their minds. Regardless, I don't think hypothetical polls should be removed just because the person in question has said they won't run three years from now. To me, that just doesn't make much sense. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 01:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A good idea might be to just move the polls with declined candidates into a hypothetical polls section. That way it isn't hard to pull them out if someone changes their mind. Alec Holbeck (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely yes Crewcamel (talk) 22:17, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

The status quo is fine and it's still useful information. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think the way its done on this page is how we should do it on this page. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

CAN SOMEONE MOVE WARREN TO DECLINED???? AS OF (4/19/2017) ON MSNBC SHE HAD OFFICIALLY DECLINED TO RUN — Preceding unsigned comment added by USAPATRIOT123 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Incumbent section

Unless there's a source that says Pence is seeking the vice presidency in 2020 he should be left off of the incumbent section for now. Prcc27 (talk) 12:41, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not he's seeking reelection (even though he almost certainly is), he will still be the presumptive incumbent in 2020. Barring death, resignation, impeachment, or military coup, Pence will remain as the Vice President during the election. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 19:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's inappropriate and redundant to have two pictures of Trump in the article. The picture of him at the beginning of the article should be removed IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 18:24, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

As to Pence, the 2020 campaign committee's website is selling "Trump/Pence" knicknacks. Plus there's precedent: In 1956 and 1972, the incumbent vice president was nominated for reelection despite the president's not wanting him on the ticket. But remember, this is all provisional until the official announcement, which may not even take place. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:56, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Declared Presidential Candidates

Should these people even be mentioned as serious contenders for their party's nomination?

Democratic:

Rocky De La Fuente

Geoffrey Fieger

Republican:

Jack Fellure

Or, as I like to call them, "Who?"

Fringe candidates have no chance in the general election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wvrspence (talk • contribs) 10:48, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

This isnt a fight youre going to win. We kept lady gaga as a candidate for a month because no one wanted to break the rules Crewcamel (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be an Encyclopedia, not a forum for politics. Thus, its not our obligation to discern which candidates have a chance of winning or not. RealEdgeofnight (talk) 15:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If i filed my FEC and officially declared my candidacy could i be included? Crewcamel (talk) 23:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

If you don't have a Wikipedia page then no. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sanders third party decline?

Where does he decline a third party run in his 3 sources? I skimmed through each but can't find any statement.Crewcamel (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Towards the end of the third source (https://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/29/will_we_be_feeling_the_bern), he is asked if he would ever consider a third-party run and he responds by saying that he is "serious about fundamentally reforming the Democratic Party". --Awesome335 (talk) 01:21, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah i see it. He says "Recent years, Democrats have been more sympathetic. So right now I would not have accepted the position of leadership if I was not serious about fundamentally reforming the Democratic Party. So that’s where my head is right now." All he is saying is that he's become more sympathetic towards democrats. He isnt declining a third party run. Im gonna take it off. Crewcamel (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Declined candidates

I plan on purging some of the declined candidates. A lot of the sources are just saying that xxx should or could if they wanted to. They aren't really gathering evidence and theorizing that they will run for president (which is the definition of speculation).

Some of the candidates include (with their bogus source): Nikki Haley [9] Rand Paul [10] George Clooney [11] Kamala Harris [12] Joe Kennedy [13] Gavin Newsom [14]

And some others Crewcamel (talk) 05:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2017

Remove Warren not running, the Free Beacon is not a credible source. If the video in the article is real, it can be found somewhere else. According to MBFC, it has a right bias and mixed factual reporting. They may have made this up because they do not like her and do not want her to run Bird25 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

References

McMullin

In both of the sources *voters* are hopeful he'll run in 2020. The sources themselves don't speculate he's a potential candidate and therefore he should be removed. Prcc27 (talk) 05:57, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Booker

I think Booker should still be listed as a declined candidate since IMO he didn't step back on his declination enough. Either way, the person that added him has ruined the alphabetical ordering of candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 21:54, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Should Michelle Obama be listed as a speculative candidate?

Early speculation about Michelle Obama being a candidate for Democrats should be noted or not? Brian Everlasting (talk) 23:03, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

She was included in a national poll so yes. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not, there should be multiple reliable sources that discuss the likelihood of her running. Polls can do whatever the hell they want just for fun without any basis at all. Reywas92^Talk 00:19, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

We agreed awhile back that using national polls would be fine. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Candidates

Does anyone agree that this is a problem?

• Jerry Brown, Governor of California since 2011 and 1975–1983; Attorney General 2007–2011; Mayor of Oakland 1999–2007; Secretary of State 1971–1975; candidate for President in 1976, 1980, and 1992
• Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State 2009–2013; U.S. Senator from New York 2001–2009; First Lady of the United States 1993–2001; First Lady of Arkansas 1979–1981 and 1983–1992; candidate for President in 2008 and Democratic nominee in 2016

What should we do about it? Crewcamel (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree they list a large number of positions. For Clinton, First Lady of Arkansas should be removed; for Brown everything but Governor and his presidential runs. MB298 (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

ill count that as consensus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crewcamel (talk • contribs) 02:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't have minor positions. Major positions should be Governor of a state, Senator, Representative, member of the Cabinet, and mayor of a city that is one of the 100 largest in the country. It should also list previous runs for President (all of them). This makes more sense than trying to list every position someone's held. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC) ```

Why would we need to list more than 1 thing? If readers are interested in knowing what position Sherrod Brown has held other than Senator, they can visit his webpage and find out. Crewcamel (talk) 18:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Because we always list the major positions and it makes it easier for people reading the page to know the major stuff they've done. Minor things like city councilman doesn't matter. Major stuff like US Senator does. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

polling info for declined candidates

User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords added info for hypothetically polling declined candidates vs Trump. I think this polling info isn't useful and should be deleted. Does anyone agree/disagree with me? Brian Everlasting (talk) 15:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't add anything. Mr. Everlasting here removed information and I reverted his edit. We've already had this discussion, my opinion remains the same: early 2017 polls are purely hypothetical and we shouldn't exclude certain polls just because they include someone that said they aren't running in an election that's still more than three and a half years from now. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes i think it should be removed. At a minimum polls that are 2+ months old should be removed. Crewcamel (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand this at all. Elections are continuous events that change over time, not just snapshots of two-month periods. Awesome335 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, a two-month expiration date on polls seems both unnecessary and arbitrary. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 19:56, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Polls shouldn't be removed. They offer a glimpse into how the public is going along the way, even with declined candidates. Plus people who've declined now could very easily turn back and say they're running. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 19:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)