Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Add Michael Bloomberg

There has been sources since May and has resurfaced this month about Bloomberg being a potential candidates for the Democratic Party. Should we add him into potential candidates? Gore didn't deny nor support his presidential run rumor kinda like Bloomberg so can we? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the rule is two reliable sources within the last three months. If you can achieve that I say go for it. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Should Clinton be considered the favorite?

The last few edits to the page have revolved around Clinton being considered the Democratic- as well as national- front runner. However, due to recent events (Sander's growing support, Clinton's falling support, Joe Biden's potential candidacy, and the emergence of multiple Republicans) should she still be classified as such? Counting her as the early favorite (prior to the start of her campaign, she was seen as the favorite without a doubt) makes sense. But is she still the favorite now?

I support classifying her as an early favorite, but making a note that she has lost much ground since the beginning of the campaign- while Bernie Sanders, who has garnered the largest crowds of any candidate in the field, has quickly closed the gap quite a bit.

Thoughts? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Clinton (or anyone else) should only be described as an early or current favorite here if reliable sources are cited that state exactly that. What might "make sense" to you, or how you would "support classifying her", is immaterial unless you have reliable, published sources to cite. General Ization ^Talk 03:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I feel like using the word "favorite" is inherently bias regardless of how many organizations say it. Also, in my opinion, using "favorite" is getting dangerously close to WP:CRYSTAL territory. There is still so much time between now and the actual elections that classifying anyone as a favorite basically amounts to a best guess. So many things can happen, campaigns can implode, candidates can withdraw for various reasons, etc. Frontrunner would be a much more accurate term in my opinion as that uses actual verifiable numbers. Clinton is still the frontrunner (and has been for the entirety of this election season). --Stabila711 (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Personally I don't think she's a front runner anymore plus with her favorable ratings going down due to her email scandal and Sanders' surge I feel like in a few months she will not be considered a front runner. I think calling Clinton a front runner is a yet too soon if not it doesn't apply to her. If we decide to keep her as a front runner we should acknowledged that Bernie Sanders is polling fast and even faster than Clinton. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I view the term "frontrunner" as a purely numbers based designation. According to polls (Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries), Clinton is leading other Democratic candidates by around 20 percent. By comparison, Trump is the Republican frontrunner as he is leading in the polls. Should we acknowledge that Sanders is rising in the polls? Yes. However, Clinton is still the frontrunner in my mind since that term is numbers based, not opinion based like the term "favorite." --Stabila711 (talk) 05:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I view the term as the favorite or the most likely to win the nomination. Trump is just a minor flang on my mind. Clinton seems to be going down with Sanders and Biden. I think the least we could so is acknowledge on this page and Clinton's campaign page something about Sanders leading or catching up to her. In this page for instance we should add about the "Sanders Surge". --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia should reflect what the sources say, and should take the historical view, not just the only-today-matters view. Clinton was the frontrunner for the dem-nomination in 2007, and early 2008. She became the frontrunner for the 2016-race, all during 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and most of 2015. She is still the frontrunner today in August 2015, per these sources.

• "Obviously, Hillary Clinton is the Democratic frontrunner".[1]
• "Hillary Clinton, the party's dominant frontrunner".[2]
• "strongly against Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire".[3]
• "the Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton".[4]
• "used Hillary Clinton's name to knock the Democratic frontrunner".[5]
• "Democratic presidential frontrunner".[6]

So per the WP:SOURCES, even in August 2015 it is still the case that Clinton is not merely the frontrunner, but the "dominant"(CBS) and "obvious"(WeeklyStd) frontrunner, for the dem-party-nom. She has been for a long time. What is changing -- and per those same sources listed above wikipedia can reflect the recent changes -- is that Clinton is facing more-credible threats to her polling-numbers (if not to her endorsement-count and her fundraising-lead) from Sanders, specifically in NH where a few polls have even put him in the lead. Clinton's overall approval-rating has gone into negative territory, unlike in 2013 and 2014 when she was perceived as a net positive nationwide. Wikipedia should reflect these changes; basically, Clinton was the massively-dominant-frontrunner in 2014 and earlier (cf GWB in 1999), but has lost some of that and is now more like a weak-but-still-clear-frontrunner (cf Romney in 2011). But Clinton is still way more GWB'00 than she is Romney'12 -- she will get a vigorous challenge from the more liberal Sanders'16, just as GWB got a challenge from the more liberal McCain'00, and Clinton'16 might even lose NH. But she has the funds and the endorsements locked up; Sanders cannot, at this point, unseat her as the 98%-likely-dem-nominee, barring some kind of unforeseen new scandal, or some kind of medical emergency, or similar sort of unpredictable-but-not-inconceivably-unlikely real world drama.[7] (See comments at that link by Nate Silver in particular.)

    Anyways, our personal opinions must be kept aside, so we can concentrate on neutral prose: Clinton is the frontrunner, per the six sources above, no question about it. Do we have any wiki-reliable sources, that say Clinton is NOT the frontrunner? If so, we should quote them too, but using WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and following WP:UNDUE so that we don't lend too much, nor too little, emphasis to the idea that she is a weakening-frontrunner-and-or-maybe-not-even-truly-a-frontrunner-anymore.

    On the repub side of things, there has never been a repub-nomination-frontrunner (for longer than a couple of months), although there has often been a nominal-poll-leader: Trump in Aug'15, Bush in June'15, Walker in Apr'15, Romney in Dec'14, with Huck/Paul/Christie taking turns as "Number One" during most of 2014 and most of 2013, albeit Rubio was briefly the polling-leader in early 2013. That situation is nothing like 2012, when Romney was the polling-leader and the weak-frontrunner from winter'08 all the way through summer'11. There *is* no steadily-at-the-top-polling-frontrunner for the repubs, and they have no endorsement-frontrunner either, which is more important. At least half-a-dozen repub candidates have eight-figure fundraising vehicles backing them already, whereas only Clinton and Sanders have that on the dem side.

    Last but not least, Clinton has never been the general-election-frontrunner; that contest has always been described (in WP:RS that I've seen at least) as a toss-up coin-flip outcome, in 2013 and 2014 and 2015. She may have a slight edge in national-polling-nums, over the repubs, but that is NOT how presidential elections via the electoral college and the swing-states actually work; Clinton is the polling/fundraising/endorsement-frontrunner for winning the dem-nomination, but she is at best a narrow-statistically-tied-shot at winning the general election, versus four or five repub candidates. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Gore

Sources are saying that close associates to Gore stated that he will not run for president. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

I think right now listing him as a "potential candidate" is acceptable as there have been rumors to that effect. He himself has not expressed interest which is why he isn't grouped with Biden but I believe the rumors from multiple sources qualifies him to be listed as a potential candidate until we get confirmation either way from Gore himself and not just people associated with him. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

If we have WP:SOURCES that quote people close to Gore saying he won't run, we can include that here. "According to SRC, as of MM/YYYY Gore is unlikely to run." But there has also been recently-renewed speculation... not by wikipedians on talkpages but in the WP:RS as Stabila711 points out... about a the potential for Gore'16 actually happening. We can record that as well, as long as we are careful to avoid WP:CRYSTAL. "According to SRC, as of MM/YYYY Gore could feasibly run." See WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. But we definitely shouldn't just delete Gore, nor should we list him as a definite candidate. He is a candidate about whom reliably sources have speculated. See similar group at Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012#Speculated, which is about where Gore'16 will end up, if he does NOT end up running. Of course, if he DOES end up running, he'll be in the subsection above that one. Time will tell; in the meanwhile, we can say that the wiki-reliable-sources have been spreading speculation, but that some other wiki-reliable-sources have been downplaying said speculation. Here is an opinion-column from 2011, speculating about Gore'16, which doesn't quite count as WP:RS since it was an op-ed rather than a news-journalism piece, but is indicative that Gore'16 speculation is not just a recent phenomenon.[8] 75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:OFFTOPIC

There is some information in the background section that feels like it is off topic. I'm specifically referring to the statement "During his second term, President Obama's approval ratings have been listed by Gallup as between 40 and 50 percent" and the entire sub-section, 2014 midterm elections. While the information is undoubtedly encyclopedic, I don't think it really fits within the 2016 Presidential election article since it doesn't explain how we got here or why Obama isn't running for re-election, or otherwise provide relevant background for this particular election. Unlike the grammar and style changes I just made, this would be a bigger change to the article so I would like to hear what others say before removing this info. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:07, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Etamni, the approval-rating of the sitting president is directly tied (in the statistical correlation sense) to the party that wins in 2016. If the country-wide approval rating of Obama D-IL were to fall into 35%pro 45%neg territory, the 2016 candidacy of Clinton D-NY would be adversely impacted. By contrast, if it were to go the other way, and look more like 45%pro 35%neg, then Clinton D-NY would likely win by a landslide. See also, "a rising tide lifts all boats" and other homely homily parables. In the political realm, this is usually dubbed the coat-tail effect: if the outgoing potus is popular, the incoming potus of their party has a better shot. Along the same lines, if the incoming potus is popular, the down-ballot members of that same party (senator/usRep/stSen/stRep/mayor/sheriff/etc) have a better-than-normal shot at winning their races. Anyways, the Obama approval-ratings do matter for the 2016 presidential general-election-contest, even though he won't be running for a third term; specifically, they are a reflection of the countrywide satisfaction with 'generic dem' candidates and policies. I can source if you need more, but a bit of googling may be enough to satisfy you. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm certainly familiar with how the popularity of the sitting president can affect elections; just wasn't thinking along those lines when I read the article. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Zoltan Istvan

The article lists Istvan as "founder of a proposed Transhumanist Party", which is a contradiction in terms. If the party has only been proposed - i.e. not actually founded yet - then by definition it can't possibly have a "founder". I think this "title" should be removed unless he actually goes ahead and founds the party. Jah77 (talk) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

From some WP:OR, I can say that there are in fact three 'Transhumanist Party' groups, at present: one founded by Zoltan Istvan in the USA, one founded by basically-unrelated people in the United Kingdom, and one (about which I have very little info) founded in Germany. There is not, legally speaking, yet an actual Transhumanist Party in the USA, in the sense that there is legally a Green Party (United States) for instance. Istvan is running for president in 2016, and has filed his FEC form 2, and thereupon has listed the "Transhumanist Party" as the campaign-group supporting his candidacy... however, this is not kosher with FEC rules, which require that the campaign-group include the name of the presidential candidate, aka something like "Zoltan For America" is needed. There are also documents filed with the California sec-state, where the Transhumanist Party (USA branch) is attempting to qualify for ballot-access in the state of California. So, at the end of the day the phrasing "founder of the proposed Transhumanist Party" is pretty much correct. Istvan is the founder. It is still a proposed party, not (yet) legally recognized by the FEC as a federal-level political party, nor (yet) legally recognized by the state of California as a state-level political party (you can have one without the other e.g. you can have a state-level party that runs candidates for state legislature slots but has no federal candidacies). As I understand it, Istvan's goal is to get ballot-access in 2016, and official party-recognition at both state-level (as many as can be achieved) and federal level, and then later run "for real" in 2020, plus possibly run in 2018 for a non-presidential office. Hope this helps clear things up. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm aware of the situation with the Transhumanist Party in the USA, but my main point was that the title "founder of a proposed party" sounds silly and is completely unnecessary in this context. Istvan is already referred to as a writer, futurist and transhumanist philosopher, which in my opinion is a perfectly adequate description. I think the whole Transhumanist Party thing should be left out of his title in this article unless the Transhumanist Party becomes an actual legal party. At the moment, it sounds more like an attempt to make the "party" sound more official and significant than it really is. Jah77 (talk) 14:58, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The party is a proposed party, not yet legally recognized, so it's conceivably a bit premature to list it here in this article about the potus election; it is also, however, Istvan's primary job-title at the moment, and thus deserves properly-weighted-but-prominent mention in the article about him. So in the intro-sentence, we should call him a writer and futurist (he's not a 'transhumanist philosopher' methinks... unless of course that is what the WP:RS refer to him as in which case I withdraw my objection). But the second sentence should be something like this: "Istvan is the 2016 presidential candidate for the Transhumanist Party, which he founded in 2014; his campaign is attempting to get ballot access for Istvan in 2016, and for future party candidates in 2018 and 2020." Of course, this conversation really belongs on Talk:Zoltan Istvan, so I'll stop here.  :-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I removed the "founder of a proposed party" from his title. The Transhumanist Party may indeed be worth mentioning in Zoltan Istvan's own article, but doesn't really belong here until it becomes legally recognized. Jah77 (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Should Joe Biden and Lawrence Lessig be moved to announcement impending

I was reading this article on CNN -> [9] and close Biden and Democrat officials are saying that Biden is expected to make the announcement in the first week of October. Should he be moved to announcement impending. Same thing with Lawrence Lessing, he said he was going to make the decision of running within the week of Labor Day, that source is here -> [10]. Should they be moved to announcement impending? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:42, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't confirm that an announcement is pending for either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mitt Romney to run?

So these sources -> [http://www.wnd.com/2015/08/big-name-republican-to-jump-in-race-challenge-trump/], [11], [12], [13] they are saying that close Romney aids are stating that Romney is thinking about another presidential run in 2016 to go against Trump. Should Romney be added to potential candidates? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Is there any other indication from a second person regarding a run by Romney? Every one of those articles cites the former Trump aid as the source. If there is another person who says he is potentially running I would say add him but a rumor spread by one person may not reach the level of scrutiny needed for a reliable source. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a source from CNN stating that Roger Stone stating that Romney is considering a 2016 run. Here is the source -> [14] --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Stone is the source for all those articles. He was the former Trump aid I alluded to. Is there any other indication from someone other than Stone that Romney might run? If there is than I say sure, go ahead and add him. Else it just looks like a rumor being spread by one person that just happens to have been picked up by multiple news organizations. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:13, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Romney has previously declined, so we would need a clear indication from Romney himself that he is rethinking his decision not to run. The consensus on "declined" candidates is that they stay on the declined list unless they themselves confirm they are reconsidering the possibility of a run, even if there is speculation from outside sources.--NextUSprez (talk) 03:30, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig question

Will Lawrence Lessig be under Candidates featured in major polls or Other candidates? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:37, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Other candidates as he has yet to be featured in any major national poll. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Giving Bernie Sanders some credit

In the latest, Sanders is leading Clinton in the New Hampshire polls. I know she's still the "front runner", but in the Democratic Party lead it just talks about Sanders gaining large crowds. Sanders has done more than draw crowds such has running in a neck and neck race with Clinton. Perhaps the lead could say something about: "Some state that Clinton is the Democrat's front runner, but has gained competition from Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders who has been leading the New Hampshire polls and been pulling in large crowds". Something like that. Because it's true. I think we need to give Sanders some credit. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps it can be tacked on to the end of the current statement? So it can read, "Sanders's campaign stops have been drawing the largest crowds of any of the candidates in the run for president and polling numbers have indicated that the gap between Clinton and Sanders is narrowing." Throw in another citation to that sentence and you should be good to go. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

How about sources about Sanders leading the New Hampshire polls? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:13, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Those will work just fine. --Stabila711 (talk) 02:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Brown?

Some have floated Gov. Jerry Brown as a possible contender in the race. This may or may not be related to that: He said if he were Joe Biden, "I'd probably give it some serious consideration." He has previously said no, but this may be a sign he may be reconsidering. He did say he was busy with wildfires, the budget and a large economy and is focused on that. (However, the quote about Biden may also be interpreted that he wishes he could run but wants Biden to do so because of his age--and I may be wrong)

Keep an eye on him. He may run or he may not. He said in March that if he were ten years younger today, he would definitely run. I don't know whether there were intentions within the statement in the first paragraph I quoted that suggest his mind may be changing on this or not, but I wanted to throw this idea out there.

Does this qualify as speculation? Or are larger sources required to meet the eligibility criteria for this list? Newt Gingrich (on Breitbart) San Francisco Chronicle: The next two aren't as reliable (I think), but are involved in speculation: The Daily Caller US News and World Report Tenor12 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, reference 2 and 5 are over three months old and can't be included per the criteria that says they must "have received speculation in at least two reliable sources within the past three months." Reference 4 doesn't mention Jerry Brown at all. So we are down to the the first nbc reference, the one from breitbart, and the one from usnews. I think we can discount usnews as it is not speculating that Brown is running but instead speculating that he should run if Clinton implodes. I see that as a big difference (and I admit that I may be cutting hairs here and anyone is free to disagree with me on this point). Now, for reference number 1 (nbcnews) I read that as more of an endorsement of Biden by Brown than speculation that Brown is running. So, so far, we really only have one source, from breitbart, that speculates that Brown could enter the race that was published within the last three months. After searching Google, I can't find that second reference that is necessary to include him. So for now, my opinion is that he has not meet the level of speculation necessary to be included on the list of potentials. Should we keep an eye on him? Absolutely. But for now, I don't think he should be listed. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:13, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

References

Ok, thank you! Good breakdown! :) Tenor12 (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Include this man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Braun,_Democratic_Presidential_Candidate,_2016

So this article has appeared on Wikipedia. It was created today (August 18, 2015), and I'm unsure if it should be included. Does Harry Braun have the publicity needed? What do y'all think? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:04, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Nevermind. This is now pointless as the article is likely going to be deleted. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, just because his dedicated campaign-article may get deleted (aka become WP:FAILN in wiki-jargon), does not mean that he shouldn't be mentioned here. Demonstrating WP:42 requires multiple in-depth-sources, but being WP:NOTEWORTHY only requires one sentence in one WP:SOURCES mention, to be worthy of inclusion on *SOME* wikipedia article. He probably got enough press about his 2012 campaign, to be mentioned in one of the subarticles about that election cycle.[15][16] He does seem to be running again in 2016, although the FEC mis-read his handwriting, and has him listed as "Harry Braul" in their dataset.[17] But I'm not finding any sources yet about his 2016 campaign, and the wikipedia article says he filed in May but is launching in August. Maybe he will achieve WP:NOTEWORTHY status (for inclusion the Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates,_2016#Other_candidates article rather than this one methinks), if the press covers his campaign-launch. Or maybe there already are some WP:SOURCES about his campaign, that I just didn't find? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

If his article is kept, we probably should add him, but lets wait until the AFD is over. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 13:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig

With a couple of sources citing that he will make his an announcement if she's going to run or not on Labor Day 2015 should we move him to announcements impending? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Including these candidates

There are two candidates running for President in 2016 on for third party nominations.

Darryl W. Perry for the Libertarian Party.

Kent Mesplay for the Green Party.

However, clicking on these links sends you not to their individual pages- but pages on something related to them. IE Mesplay's sends you to the 2008 candidate's section, while Perry's sends you to the Tea Party (the actual party, not the movement) page.

Should these candidates be included? I say no, as they don't have individual pages. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:24, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we shouldn't include them. A redirect is not a substitute for a stand alone article.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

USA 2016 candidates

Where is mention of Donald Trump or his picture under this category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.114.154.89 (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

• @208.114.154.89: The candidates are in alphabetical order by last name in order to maintain a neutral point of view. Trump is there under the Republican candidate section. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Remove Barr?

Should Roseanne Barr be removed? She seems to have endorsed Bernie Sanders on Twitter, with a followup tweet that says she isn't running. Should we remove her due to this? I'd say so. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find those particular tweets; if you can provide links that would be helpful. --Ariostos (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the main Tweet: https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/606867807326765056. And here is the subtweet: https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/606870680357855232. To me the last tweet says she isn't running, mostly due to the fact that she didn't deny that she wasn't and she was talking him up. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, she should not be removed. The Peace and Freedom Party does not nominate someone until after the Democratic convention next year. Just because she is promoting a candidate in the Democratic primary does not mean she is not going to end up running on another ticket, especially given the unlikeliness of Sanders receiving the Democratic Party's nomination. Until we have independent sources indicating that she is not running, we should keep her up.--TM 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TM that we need a more definitive "I'm not running" statement from Barr before we remove her.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I will look for a definitive no, but I agree with y'all.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Parties being the ones who could win only?

Should we only include the Libertarian and Green Parties in the third parties section, and leave the rest for the main third party article as none of them have enough ballot access to qualify? This has been done for previous elections (2008 and 2012), so should we do it for this one? Or should we wait until other parties obtain enough ballot access? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on the Prohibition Party and Independent candidates that don't have ballot access in any state but opposed to removing the other third party candidates. Theoretically, all other third parties listed have enough ballot access to win the presidential election. If none of the candidates get 270 votes then the House votes for the President based on the top 3 candidates. It's possible that all a third party candidate would have to do to make the top 3 is win 1 electoral college vote, and from there they could when the presidential election! Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm the one that added the Ballot data for the parties and the Veterans, American Freedom parties, and while OPPOSED to removal, I can understand the reasoning as outlined as that is what we ultimately did after the 2012 Presidential election. For the time being the only parties that are being included in that section are those with ballot access, the exception being the Prohibition Party because they should be on the Mississippi ballot shortly (they were rejected on a technicality). Later in the year (or next) when the admission dates for ballot access are beginning to pass however we should definitely redefine the criteria to a stricter standard (say 135 Electors), and then once admissions have closed, to the basic standard of 270 Electors, a three-phase system. This way we can take into account that most of these minor parties or candidates will not be able to attain decent ballot access until around next Summer given the efforts required, while giving a fair shake to everyone. --Ariostos (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good plan, but I think we should set the guidelines as something like this: once at least a certain amount of parties obtain 100 possible votes (I'd say five parties) then we remove those that don't have that amount. But I think thats something that we can discuss later down the line. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say including the Prohibition Party because you think they will be on the ballot in Mississippi is WP:CRYSTAL and if that's the reasoning we're going with then I think it should be removed! Also, did you guys completely ignore what I said about it being possible to win the presidential election with only one electoral college vote? I think the third parties need to be left alone unless they don't have any ballot access. Prcc27 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this has been done before. The idea is to only list people who have a shot at winning. The odds of that even happening are astronomical, and more than likely a party that doesn't have ballot access in enough states to win will not finish third in the election. So early in the election season its hard to say who'll have a chance outside of the obvious (Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutions). Its a good idea to list only the ones who have a chance, but at this point we should list all of them. As soon as a few more parties get 50 electoral votes, we should cut it down. Once more get 100, we should cut that down too. And once people stop applying to be listed on ballots, we'll list the parties/candidates with 270 electoral votes. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vote 4 DJH2036: Well if you want to get technical the odds of any third party winning are close to "astronomical" AFAIC. When was the last time a third party candidate got at least 25% of the vote in any of the states? (1992). When was the last time a third party candidate won the presidential election? (never). But keep in mind that there have been a few instances in American history where no candidate has gotten a majority of electoral college votes and it went to the House and/or Senate. And the odds of no candidate winning a majority of electoral college votes are not "astronomical" per se; in fact there are 15 realistic tie combinations and there's always the possibility that a faithless elector could affect the results of an election! And just because parties have been left out before does not mean it should be done again. It is WP:CRYSTAL to leave them out because you assume they do not have a shot at winning. Heck, if we were allowed to do that I could get rid of every political party but the Democrats since I predict they will win and they have a somewhat significant advantage over everyone else. If the Green Party is on the ballot in every state and wins no electoral votes, but the Prohibition Party is only on the ballot in Mississippi and they campaign strong and hard enough to win the state's electoral college votes guess who has a better shot at winning the presidential election? (hint: the Prohibition Party). But please tell me how Libertarians, Greens etc. have a shot at winning while the other parties don't? How do we even decide who has a shot; what is the criteria? If candidates under 35 are listed and have absolutely no chance of winning unless some sort of miracle happens like a new constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court makes a corrupt decision then why shouldn't we list political parties that actually have a shot at winning even when the current system is set up the way it is? Prcc27 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential candidates

Democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/big-name-plan-bs-for-democrats-concerned-about-hillary-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.104.84 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Flipping order of major parties every month

So an IP editor flipped the order of the Republican and Democrat parties and I actually like it. I feel like this should be done every month that way the article can appear more neutral. I was going to add a comment to the two sections regarding this but I wanted to make sure there were no objections before I did so. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It should be in alphabetical order.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok well then the third party sections needs to be reorganized. It is all over the alphabetical map. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn, what is the wiki-policy rationale for your negation? User:Etmina suggested such a rotation-system, at the discussion-page about what layout to use for the candidates-section. We already have a sources-based distinction in non-alphabetical layout, which is that we put the two major parties at the top, since they get the most coverage, and it would be WP:UNDUE to list the "AAAA American Awesome Party" at the top of the wikipedia list. Although there are pragmatic reasons to avoid flipping the ordering, I don't see the wiki-policy reasons. Can you clue me in? What ordering-system do we use for British parties, do you know? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme

Vermin Supreme is listed without party... but will be running as a Republican this cycle.

His kick-off campaign event is this coming weekend (Labor Day 3 day weekend)

Facebook link = https://www.facebook.com/events/1602222333365733/

-- [info redacted] , 128.119.143.92 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The boston.com article we cite doesn't mention that he's running as a Republican. Has any independent source reported this? —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Facebook is not a reliable source. We need something else that shows that information. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no published source *yet* I heard of his running as a Republican yesterday, in a personal communication from the candidate. But this weekend's events should generate much media, so sourced confirmation should be forthcoming. -- Terry Franklin, terryfranklin@yahoo.com 128.119.143.121 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Joke candidates do not deserve mention here. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why does this article include "Deez Nuts"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed that one. A person who is prohibited by the US Constitution from holding office is by definition not a candidate for said office. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Someone also has continuously attempted to slip this "person" into the navbox. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

See comments at the "Constitutionally ineligible candidates" section, please. We should not, in our role as wikipedians, be deciding who is in, and who is out; we should let the sources be our guide. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bona fide & Other

I have seen the term bona fide used to describe candidates that a party officially recognizes. I believe this is a less arbitrary (and therefore fairer) categorization than "featured in major polls" as is currently in use to differentiate candidates. I propose we categorize candidates as "Bona fide" and "Other" based on whether the party recognizes the candidacy.

The Democratic Party has issued press releases recognizing the five candidates currently in the section titled "Candidates featured in major polls." Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb. The party has not issued a press release for any of the other Democratic candidates.

The Republican Party recognizes 18 candidates in its Official Straw Poll. The difference between that list and the list currently in use on this page is the Official Straw Poll's inclusion of Mark Everson. With my proposed categorization, Everson would be moved from "Other" to "Bona fide." No other changes would need to be made.

Thoughts? --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this mostly, except that Everson has not been included in any major polls, debates, not have I seen him on any networks in any significant measure. The categorization I like best is 'major candidates' defined by 'significant polling performance and/or current or previous holder of high office, thus including Governors like Gilmore and Chafee. I don't know how to boil that down into a concise sentence.   Spartan7W §   13:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is how it can be made simple: "The Democratic Party recognizes the following candidates seeking its 2016 presidential nomination.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.democrats.org/|title=Democrats.org|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150817193704/http://www.democrats.org/|archivedate=August 17, 2015}}</ref>

--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If we decide to do this, I would strongly prefer "recognized" as the verbiage chosen... (whoops, William meant to say 'bona fide' aka good-faith-slash-legit-candidate... collapsing my complaint).

not as relevant anymore

... instead of "de facto". The latter language specifically means *non*-recognized, for instance, 'Microsoft Windows is the de facto standard for PC operating systems' which is to say that there is *zero* official recognition of Microsoft Windows by any standards body (ECMA/IEEE/FSA/etc), but in practice their product is considered to be the norm by a lot of people. Everson is practically the opposite situation: the debate-hosting groups (UnionLeader&CSPAN + FOX + CNN so far) do not officially recognize Everson as a 'serious' candidate aka serious enough to spend money broadcasting his thoughts&visage, plus the major polling firms (several dozen of them) also do not officially recognize Everson as a 'serious' candidate aka serious enough to spend money polling his name. By contrast, of course, the RNC *does* recognize Everson as a 'serious' candidate, and has included him in their national-straw-poll. That doesn't mean Everson is 'recognized' by every Republican voter (or group thereof), for instance, he's been unable to get into the New Hampshire Republican Party website for presidential candidates, last I checked. That also doesn't mean that Everson is considered to be a 'serious' candidate by a lot of people (cf Microsoft Windows). If anything, Everson is a "de jure" candidate, not a de facto one: he is legally 'recognized' by the FEC, and he is officially 'recognized' by the national party, but that is all.

    Anyways, that said, if we are precise in our language, I *do* think it makes sense to say that Everson is 'recognized' by the RNC, but not 'recognized' by CSPAN/FOX/CNN, and not 'recognized' by Monmouth/Quinnipiac/PPP/Rasmussen/etc. Along the same lines, until fairly recently, Sarah Palin was 'recognized' by the major polling firms, and by the RNC straw poll, but no longer is (ditto for Mitt Romney). There is some encyclopedic meat here, in terms of which names are officially 'recognized' by various bodies as being 'serious' candidates WP:NOTEWORTHY of consideration. Eventually, there will also be primary-ballot-'recognized' candidates, too, which is the wiki-traditional way to "sort" which candidates were serious and which were not. (More on that later... I'm still working on an answer to a question William S. Saturn asked me a couple weeks ago, in another browser-tab.)

    p.s. There *have* been de facto presidential candidates this cycle, who were not yet de jure candidates: Jeb Bush from December 2014 through early June 2015 was a de facto candidate, for instance, and Hillary Clinton was a similar situation, already running (and everybody knew it) but not yet filing with the FEC. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant "bona fide" rather than "de facto." I have corrected my error above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.  :-)     I was wondering what WP:SOURCES you saw calling him that. And yes, Everson is a 'good faith' candidate, and that is a valid distinction to make. However, I would urge some caution here; we do not want to list every good-faith-candidate, as being at the same level as Everson. 'Deez Nuts' is plausibly not a good faith candidate, aka they are making a joke, not actually running a campaign. So in that sense, the bona fide candidate distinction is helpful. However, I don't think RNC recognition is mandatory to be considered a bona fide candidate: being a good-faith candidate is a statement about the intent of the candidate, and is not influenced by whether other groups recognize their candidacy. Everson is a de jure candidate (filed FEC form two), a bona fide candidate (is really in good-faith running for POTUS), *and* is an RNC-national-party-officially-recognized candidate as of March-through-August 2015 on their official website (one of 18). Everson is *not* recognized by FOX, nor by UnionLeader/CSPAN, nor by CNN, whereas by contrast Gilmore is recognized by one out of the three (FOX), and Graham is recognized by all three (but only thanks to a last-minute rule-change by FOX). In terms of polling, Everson is recognized by none of the major nationwide polling-firms, Gilmore is sometimes recognized by them, Graham is always recognized by them. Will be interesting to see whether Perry remains 'recognized' by the pollsters and the broadcasters ... and the RNC straw poll. My suggestion is that we take a large set of criteria into account; filing FEC form two is not enough, but raising actual money, getting into polls, getting into debates, and getting onto ballots (plus getting *votes* after getting onto those ballots) are some of the things I'm working on putting down. More later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am defining "bona fide" as meaning recognized by the party. This is the definition that was given to me by election law expert Richard Winger. See this article and discussion from Ballot Access News. I have seen it used this way in other contexts such as when the Everson campaign used the term in its FEC complaint challenging Everson's exclusion from the August 6 debate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not disagreeing that Everson is bona fide, in the legal sense (and the everyday sense). He is, on both counts. But he's not the only one; what makes him a corner-case is that he is RNC-recognized, and was almost CSPAN-recognized. He's also raised a considerable amount of funding, see http://thegreenpapers.com , which similar to the ballot-access website is one of the WP:BLOGS that is a plausible exception to the rule. If the sources are using 'bona fide' to mean RNC-recognized, then wikipedia can also do so, I just doubt that is the case, since 'bona fide' has a normal meaning in the legal world (and I expect that is the way Everson is using the term in his FEC complaint -- I've skimmed it but don't remember that bit one way or the other). Anyways, will do a bit of digging, and read the links you provided, thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Mark Cuban 2016?

Should Mark Cuban, yes Mark Cuban, be added to potential or publicly express interest in 2016? He said he would beat Trump and Hillary. It even says he's considering a run? Here's the sources -> [18] and [19]. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I saw him interviewed on CNBC. He made it clear he would not run in 2016.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Where does Perry go with his campaign suspended?

CNN is reporting that Rick Perry has suspended his campaign. Where, if anywhere, should he go in this article now? —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have a suspended section but should the section go just on the main page or the candidates page? We have not been including minor candidates who withdraw on the main page (Larose, Lynch) but maybe major ones should be? What about the Republican primary page? ObieGrad (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the past election articles they were left with everyone else but a note was made besides their name telling when their withdrew and who they endorsed (if that information is available). That way we can maintain a true list of who ran for president along with refs for when they dropped out. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ever terminates their campaign, they always 'suspend'. It belongs in 'withdrew' section, because that is what he's done. See the Republican candidates page, I've used a frosted out image for Perry, in a withdrew table.   Spartan7W §   21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Alright so I moved Perry to a new Withdrew section. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks good. RfC closes either Saturday or Sunday for the candidates section update, and its looking like the circular portrait option inside the table will have the most votes. In this case, withdrawn candidates can be kept, their images frosted, and have strikethroughs. This is fine for now.   Spartan7W §   21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no way that's going to happen. The circle images are almost universally loathed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would ask you both to halt the hyperbole. This is supposed to be a calm discussion about the merits, not a wiki-bickering contest. It is untrue that the circle-images are "universally loathed" and it is silly to say such a thing. It is also untrue that the RfC will be decided based on "the most votes" because it is WP:NOTVOTE but rather a policy-backed merit-based calm discussion. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason that people 'suspend' their campaigns, rather than 'withdrawing' from the race, is related to fundraising. Santorum'12 did not 'withdraw' from the race, he simply 'suspended' his campaign, because he needed to continue raising money to pay down the campaign-debts already incurred. Perry is an odd case: he has something like 18 million bucks in his super-PAC under the Barbour nephews, but was only able to raise around a million bucks of hard-money for his official FEC-registered campaign effort from non-Citizens_United-type donors. Thus, he has plenty of money, but cannot spend it. I think he is literally 'suspending' and is *not* necessarily withdrawing-but-calling-it-something-else (whereas Santorum'12 was literally-withdrawing-but-for-legal-reasons-calling-it-suspending). Time will tell, of course, but wikipedia should stick to what the sources say. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

LA_times says that Perry is definitely out of the race ("suspending my campaign... I step aside"), despite over ten million bucks in the super-PAC. What will happen to the money is unclear; head of the super-pac Austin Barbour is paraphrased as saying that they might return it to the megadonors, or that they might turn support to another candidate. Perry did not immediately endorse.[20] Perry appeared in the C-SPAN forum and the 'undercard' FOX debate in early August, but will presumably not appear in the undercard CNN debate a few days from now.

    The closest situation in 2012 was the Tim Pawlenty campaign; at the moment, Pawlenty'12 is mentioned in the Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012#Filed_with_the_FEC.2C_but_appeared_on_no_primary_ballots section with perennial candidates, but has a bright-white-background rather than a dull-grey-background used e.g. for Jack Fellure and the other photo-candidates in that section of the page, to indicate that "In this table, those marked lighter grey were not featured in any televised debates that occurred while their respective campaigns were active; those marked darker grey were excluded from the majority of those same televised debates, but are notable for having debated with at least some of the televised candidates in other forums (usually online)." Do we want to color-code the 2016 candidates, or can we try something a little more easy-to-decipher? Pawlenty is a distinct table-background-color, but it's unclear from the coloration what the meaning is, to my eyes anyways. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 23:48, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Electors

The article refers to the electors as electing the President and Vice President. While in a hypertechnical sense that is true, the reality is that the voters of each State and D.C. decide which ticket wins the election. The article should reflect this fact. SMP0328. (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Two words: faithless elector. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are also four instances where the popular vote did not decide the President. The latest occurrence of this was in 2000. Al Gore actually won the popular vote but the electoral college overrode the popular vote and made George Bush the president. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this may be too early to discuss but since it is the electors that elect the Pres/VP and not the voters; shouldn't we wait until the electors vote before updating the electoral college map on the article? In the meantime we could have a map of election results by state without the electoral college votes listed on them until the electors do in fact vote. And I think the map should only be colored in once a state's election results have been certified. So IMO even when a state is projected it should remain gray. Going off of projections could be problematic since different outlets of media make projections at different times and sometimes those projections are wrong i.e. Florida 2000. Prcc27 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the previous election map ([21]) it looks like it was updated right along as soon as a state was decided or determined "safe." Are you talking about keeping the map in grey until the votes are certified in January of 2017? --Stabila711 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stabila711: Good question... I think the general rule should be once all the votes are in. Before the electors meet the electoral college map in the infobox should remain blank and there should be a separate map for the popular vote by state somewhere in the article. Once every vote in that state has been counted then they should be colored in on the popular vote map. As or the electoral college map in the infobox... I think it should be updated after the electors vote in December with a note that the electoral votes haven't been certified by congress yet. I would also support a footnote for state's with all the votes counted while awaiting the state official to officially certify the results on my proposed popular vote map. Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No faithless elector ever came close to affected the result in an election. While technically the electors could vote to make Howard Stern the new President, the article should reflect what has happened in every Presidential election: the ticket of the party a majority of the electors are enrolled in wins the election. SMP0328. (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

SMP0328's assertion is fundamentally flawed. The present wording of the lead accurately describes the manner by which the presidential election process occurs. As is it is both enumerated in the 12th amendment, and how it is carried out in practice.   Spartan7W §   04:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not to mention faithless electors have come close to affecting the results of an election. In 1836 several electors voted for a different VP candidate than whom they pledged to vote for and the Senate ended up deciding the outcome of the election! Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So one exception that did not affect the end result swallows the rule? Electors are mere functionaries. The article should not give the impression that they decide the election. SMP0328. (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• But the electors do decide who wins the election. And it's WP:CRYSTAL to assume that the electors of the 2016 presidential election will stay faithful to their pledge when that hasn't always been the case. Prcc27 (talk) 06:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The electors have 'NEVER' decided an election. They have always been functionaries. As for CRYSTAL, if that policy means we can't assume that the 2016 electors will live up to their pledges to vote based on how the people of their respective States voted, then this article should be deleted since it is based on the assumption that there will be a 2016 presidential election in the United States. The electors have never decided an election. Unless there is RS to support that the 2016 electors will be different, this article should reflect that while the Electoral College system (the electoral votes among the States and D.C.) determines who wins the presidential election the electors do not. SMP0328. (talk) 06:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

• Well everyone else disagrees with your argument. Please note that there's a difference between "the electors do not determine who wins the presidential election" and "a faithless elector hasn't affected the outcome of an election (so far)". CRYSTAL does not mean we have to delete the article because there is a 2016 presidential election in the U.S.- the Pres & VP are indirectly chosen by the people (to a degree) and they are directly chosen by the electors period! Prcc27 (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig a major candidate

Since Lawrence Lessig has a campaign page, has been included to the introduction to the Democratic section, and might make it to the first debate according to his 2016 website. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• He has only been mentioned in one poll so far and his website can't really predict whether or not he is going to be included in the debate. Give it time. If he is included in more polls we can move him. Right now, he is still a minor candidate in my mind. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If we use what I proposed above, he would still be an other. That is, until the party officially recognizes his candidacy. This is pretty cut and dry and much simpler than basing the determination on polling firms.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig is an almost trivial entry into the race, along the lines of Jim Gilmore on the Republican side, a "candidate" who isn't even cracking a half-percent. Extra care needs to be taken here as well, given that the Wikipedia's figurehead/co-creator has an active role in his campaign. Tarc (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Tarc, all my history I learned from wikipedia pages, and thus I believe you *meant* to say One True Founder not 'co-creator'.  ;-)     75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If a couple of really high quality sources with credibility in political reporting call him a "major candidate", then we should too. Otherwise, no. As of now, Jimbo's involvement is irrelevant, unless it draws significant press attention, as opposed to passing mentions. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

"Major" is an overly subjective term to use. The distinction I have made is based on verifiable fact rather than an arbitrary standard.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig has been featured on polls, he has more endorsements than Lincoln Chafee, Bobby Jindal, and Jim Gilmore. He has a campaign website and article and his candidacy is covered by the media. I think he shouldn't be in "Other candidates" but should belong right along Chafee, Clinton, O'Malley, Sanders and Webb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiki-tradition is "listed in five or more major independent nationwide polls". Lessig appears just once, see WP:NotJustYet. Agree he has press-coverage, agree he has money. WP:CRYSTAL says that he *will* soon have been listed in five major nationwide polls, but until then we should not change the wiki-rules to accomodate him. Braun is another candidate in the 'other' table who only recently made his formal campaign-launch, the day after Lessig formally launched, in fact. Neither should move up, until and unless they satisfy the usual conventions. I agree that the usual conventions need some work, and should take fundraising and weighted-endorsements and other such measures into account (putting all our eggs into the polling-firm basket is increasingly untenable). But we should NOT be fiddling with such rules, FOR any specific candidate, NOR against any specific candidate. Make sense? Lessig and/or Braun will just have to be patient. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig has been featured on polls... is claim has been made several times without a source, and sites like do not include him at all. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionally ineligible candidates

So, judging from the archives of this talk page, and the fact that Waka Flocka Flame has remained on here for a long time despite the fact that he's ineligible, I was under the impression that notable candidates who were ineligible stayed on the page with a note that they were ineligible. Also, some people question Ted Cruz's eligibility. However, today some people seem to have been edit warring over Deez Nuts, saying they can't be candidates because they are ineligible to hold the office. [22] [23] [24] Note, that, in all three edits where Deez Nuts was removed, Waka Flocka Flame (right above Deez Nuts) was left alone. In past elections some ineligible candidates have attained ballot access.

Do we need to rehash this issue, or is there a general consensus to leave them on the page with a note about their eligibility? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging those involved in this issue @NextUSprez: @Muboshgu: @Tarc: @JayJasper: ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly it seems a little silly to me that all anyone that wants a mention on a soon to be high trafficked Wikipedia article has to do is mention they are running for president regardless if they can actually occupy the office. Hypothetically, if the person who plays Mickey Mouse publicly says they are running for president do we add Mickey Mouse because they are notable and they have "announced" their candidacy? I have always been for the removal of both Waka and Deez but I left them alone because of the previous conversations. If this is coming up again, over a year from the election, it is probably going to continue to come up. So perhaps we should settle this once and for all. My !vote is to remove them since they can't actually occupy the office anyways and having them on here serves no purpose besides a little bit of extra publicity. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Personally, I'm for adding a separate section on joke/publicity candidates. I feel like this article should be more than a list of who's running, and discuss the election in a more encyclopedic tone. I feel like joke and publicity candidates (like Nuts, Limberbutt McCubbins, Crawfish B. Crawfish, and others) have had a greater than usual influence on this election thus far (especially since Nuts was polling so high in a few polls) and encyclopedic coverage of the election that leaves out a discussion of their impact is not complete. However, I haven't, mostly because I don't have a ton of time on my hands, but also because it's hard to write a section like that without the benefit of hindsight. However, there are benefits to doing it now, like getting Flame and Nuts off the list of serious candidates, while providing answers for people who may have seen that poll where Nuts was polling at 9% and are curious. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 22:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to "joke candidates" in itself, but I am opposed to listing those who are prohibited by the Constitution from holding the office that they claim to run for. A 15 year old teenager "running" under a fake name is not a candidate. I suppose of "Vermin Supreme" actually files papers somewhere to be an actual candidate, he earns a spot somewhere. But hell will freeze over before we have an article listing the likes of Clinton, Biden, Paul, and Trump next to "Deez Nuts". Tarc (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't agree with leaving them up, but at the same time I'm not opposed to putting them in a new section. The issue with the other candidates you listed (Lindsay and Calero) is that they were officially nominated by political parties. Flame and Nuts are both independents/not affiliated. The parties already had ballot access in some states when their respective candidate was nominated. But do Flame and Nuts have a shot at ballot access? Flame appears at least to be turning up crowds in New York to get on the ballot (http://ratchetfridaymedia.com/blog/its-not-a-game-waka-flocka-flame-for-president-2016-campaign-video/2/). I can't say the same about Nuts. I'd say only list people who gain ballot access, but at this point no Independents that I've seen have any ballot access. Can anyone find any Independents who have the access in any states? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It is very rare for Independents to be on the ballot anywhere this early in the campaign season; even big-money ones would only be planning how to go about collecting signatures at this stage. --Ariostos (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Satirical candidates may be allowable to an extent, but I don't see the use in including "candidates" who are under the age of 35 or otherwise constitutionally ineligible to be elected to office. All including them does is provide them with extra publicity. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In about over half the states they don't typically bar candidates from the ballot if they are underage, and given how early in the season it is we won't know how serious these efforts are until the deadlines for ballot access begin to close in early spring. --Ariostos (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there any opposition then to removing "Waka Flocka Flame" and "Deez Nuts", then? Tarc (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea of a separate section for the ones running despite ineligibity, per ONUnicorn's rationale. For NPOV reasons, we shouldn't label them "joke/publicity" candidates. "Consitutionally ineligible candidates" or something similar would be appropriate, with a summary sentence explaining that these people are running a presidential campaign despite not meeting the constitutionally mandated requirements, and currently do not have ballot access in any states.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• I am working on a proposal for ranking the various candidates on a variety of metrics, beyond their form-two-filing. We don't have many in debates, and we don't have many that will get into major nationwide polls. Every cycle there are a bunch of folks thta manage to get onto one ballot, or two ballots, but have little shot at becoming president. Some years, there are constitutionally ineligible candidates that still make plenty of news. In particular, one of the candidates for the Communist Party USA in 2008 or 2012 was underage, but they still got plenty of press-coverage. Wikipedia is supposed to reflect what the sources say, in a neutral encyclopedic fashion. If the WP:SOURCES cover the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert presidential campaigns, then wikipedia should also cover them, without WP:UNDUE weight, and in the most appropriate article. Deez Nuts and Vermin Supreme and other candidates that treat the presidential season as an existential joke slash profound artistic statement, *are* getting press-coverage, and wikipedia should reflect that coverage. But cf the Trump campaign (which at least one WP:RS refuses to put into their news-section and relegates to their entertainment-and-celebrity-section), and cf the Stewart/Colbert ticket (which was invariably covered as entertainment-slash-celebrity). Deez Nuts isn't a bona fide candidate, even if they are a de jure candidate. Vermin Supreme probably *is* a bona fide candidate, and quite frankly, he has an appealing political platform: he will use the full power of the federal government to make sure that every citizen brushes their teeth, and that every citizen has a pony, and he will wear a rubber boot on his head whilst using the bully pulpit, and nothing more ... no warfare state, no welfare state, very back to basics. Anyways, I do believe we should list Limberbutt McCubbins, Deez Nuts, and other not-likely-to-be-bona-fide candidates, as well as folks like Vermin Supreme that might just be bona fide but cannot be described as 'serious' with a straight face. Perhaps in a spin-off article... but if in this article, then definitely in their own section: "candidates who have filed an FEC form two but have not reported raising more than $5000 to the FEC/IRS and have not been featured in nationwide polls and have not been recognized by the RNC/DNC and are constitutionally ineligible to serve and so on". As long as we stick to what the sources say, it should be pretty easy to categorize the 'recognized' candidates (by the WP:SOURCES) as distinct from the 'recognized as entertainment' candidates, whilst sticking to NPOV as the non-negotiable pillar. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like an interesting proposal. I would be very interested in looking into the specifics when you have them formulated.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Brown 2016?

According to this website -> [25] California governor Jerry Brown is considering a 2016 run. In his political future section it called him a potential candidate. Should we add him to potential candidates? It wouldn't hurt. He was interviewed by this Bill kristol guy and he says that Brown is considering. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Bill Kristol tweeting that some people told him Brown is thinking about running is not exactly solid reporting. Tarc (talk) 12:57, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@Tarc. This sources claims -> [26] that Brown stated "I'll jump in at the appropriate time" on CNN. Another source states the same here -> [27] --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Reading these sources, it seems to be a case of interpreting his words. Is he going to "jump in" as in "endorse a candidate" or "jump in" as in "become a candidate." I don't read these as publicly expressing interest. I think we should move him to speculated.ObieGrad (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ObieGrad. Brown's wording is too vague to be taken as an expression of interest in a possible candidacy.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:30, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

there is only one problem with all of those reports: jerry brown is 77 years old, two years more then what the constitution allaows wich is 75 years old. i checked. Omer aricha (talk) 12:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.22.196 (talk)

Please provide a source. Cite a chapter. I can't find the limitation anywhere. Did you read it in a blog somewhere? Trackinfo (talk) 11:17, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Um- there is no place in the Constitution that states that you have to be under 75 to run for President. You have to be over 35 to hold the office, but there is no statement on being too old. Not sure where you're getting this info...Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 11:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

i saw it in a documentry about the US politics. its an israeli documentry. and it was mentiond there.Omer aricha (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.166.22.196 (talk)

They were wrong. You can read the U.S. Constitution at http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html please check out Article II which describes the requirements for being president. Ratemonth (talk) 12:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Brown is legible. There is not maximum age limit. I mean, Ronald Reagan left office when he was 77. If nominated, Bernie Sanders will be 75. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and I'm watching this page to see if political debate(s) or flame warring is happening here, as this is a sensitive topic.

Hey, and 'm watching for ANY signs of political debate. OmegaBuddy13 (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

• Ok. Thanks for your contributions. This page is also watched by 298 other people so any issues should be caught rather quickly. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore and other low polling candidates

I wanted to make sure this was the community consensus on candidates before I put back the information (again). An IP editor moved Jim Gilmore from the major candidates section down to the other candidates section referring to his low polling numbers[28]. I reverted it since Gilmore is still included in national polls regardless of his polling numbers. The editor moved him again[29]. I want to make sure that Gilmore belongs in the major candidates section. before I do anything. If we start placing people in sections based on their poll numbers we would have to move Gilmore, Graham, Jindal, Pataki, and Santorum since they are all polling around or below 1%. --Stabila711 (talk) 00:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I reverted it to the correct version after another IP editor attempted to put it back --Stabila711 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It could be done the way the networks do it, with a "main" list, a "kiddie table" / JV list, and then the dregs. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not too sure about that. I was under the impression that the networks were doing that since there were so many candidates and they had to do something since everyone wouldn't fit on the stage. If we split the candidates like they do wouldn't that be putting a POV spin on the race? --Stabila711 (talk) 02:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

In that case, we stick with all 16 (including Gilmore) as "major" candidates and the fringe stay below. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I say we keep it as we already have it: the candidate must have been featured in at least five major independent nationwide polls (Carson, Trump, and Fiorina) and/or held a major position (IE Governor of a state or US Senator). This eliminates any form of POV spin and is extremely fair. Gilmore, while not being a high polling candidate, is still a major candidate due to having been the governor of Virginia. And there is no guarantee that he will remain so low in the polls. Something could occur that boosts him (IE a major candidate dropping out and him greatly taking advantage of it). Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

That is an arbitrary measure. Where does the five number come from? I have proposed a fair standard based on recognition by the national party itself. Some details of this have been discussed on my user talk page here. If this standard was implemented, the only change from the current would be to move Everson from "other" to "recognized" or some similar label.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with that proposal. The "listed in five major polls" requirement doesn't make sense. It'd say list people that have been in office and/or are recognized by their party! Prcc27 (talk) 21:16, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

For the record, the "listed in five major polls" requirement is based on a standard used by the major parties. Five has generally been the minimum number of major national polls a candidate must be included on to be considered for inclusion (usually based on a percentage like 1 or 2 %) in the official debates (see this discussion). It reached consensus probably because it seemed to be the most objective and least arbitrary of the proposals being put forth at the time. With all that being said, the proposal under consideration in the discussion linked above by William S. Saturn is an intriguing one. I recommend discussing it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections, as it would affect all the 2016 election-related articles if implemented.--JayJasper (talk) 21:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I see no reason for Wikipedia to demote a once-major candidate during the election cycle merely because they are doing poorly in the polls. It's not like we are running out of room in the "Candidates featured in major polls" section. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion of my proposed categorization scheme has been started here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Candidate photos

So there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth regarding candidate photos. That being said I feel like there should be a centralized discussion where people can post potential updates or changes to the photos used for each candidate. That way it can be assured by multiple editors that the photo meets the standards of WP:NPOV. In addition, I feel like certain photo qualities should be sought.

• Starting out with official photos. If a public domain official photo of the candidate exists I believe that should be used. This is true for any candidate that has been a federal employee (senate, house, cabinet, ect.). These photos are as neutral as possible and that can only help NPOV. If the community feels like it should be zoomed in a little that can happen but I feel like official photos, if available should be used.
• Photos should not be of the person actively speaking. No photo really looks good when the person has their mouth wide open. If there are simple smiling photos available I think those should be used.
• (This one is a maybe) Candidates should be facing the camera. No side profile shots, no photos of the candidate looking in some other direction. If they are not looking at the camera straight on I believe we should pass.

I also made separate sections for each party and we can put decided actions into a collapsed section to avoid clutter. Any other suggestions? --Stabila711 (talk) These points have not been agreed to yet and are only suggestions at this time. Please feel free to post any photos you want until an agreed up set of criteria can be made.

Thanks for working on this, it is important. Although I agree that we need to find libre photographs, so we can use and re-use them on articles at will (without filing new fair-use-proposals *every* time) it is also important to link from the greenboxes below to a couple of places: 1) the 'official' wikipedia photo being used at the candidate's bluelink , which might NOT be a libre one, and 2) the external 'official' headshot of the candidate provided by their campaign, if any, which is almost certainly not libre, but which also is almost certainly going to help us decide what the candidate *wants* to look like, aka give us an idea of which libre photo to select that has maximum likelihood of avoiding WP:BLP-type problems. My point isn't that those pics ought to be *bangvote* options in the greenboxen, just that they should be linked unto from the greenboxen, so that people bangvoting on the available libre images have an idea of what a high-quality option looks like, and thus know whether widening the search is likely to help. p.s. Strongly agree with prefer-official-photo-iff-libre, and STRONGLY agree with aiming to have a pleasant-looking photo that shows the candidate at their best, smiling and otherwise well-posed. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Democratic candidate photos

Lincoln Chafee

Lincoln Chafee

Lincoln Chafee A Lincoln Chafee B Lincoln Chafee C Lincoln Chafee C Lincoln Chafee D Are they ok? Sorry if this is any trouble. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) Sanders, no. It looks like he is yelling. Webb, maybe. Do you have one that doesn't have his hand in it? Hillary, no. That one was actually used before and replaced with the current one. Chafee, maybe. Do you have one that is at that zoom level where his face isn't so...scrunched? --Stabila711 (talk) I've also emailed Lincoln Chafee for a better image of the governor smiling. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) You have to get explicit permission from the copyright holder/photographer. In other words, you have to find the person who took the photo or who owns the copyright to it. Then he must explicitly state that he agrees with the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 3.0. Once you get this permission you must forward it to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org and an OTRS rep will check it. This is the process that must be followed or the image will be deleted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC) @TDKR Chicago 101: According to the metadata, Joe Giblin created particular photo in 2009. Is that who you e-mailed? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC) According to the email I received from the Chafee 2016 committee they said they gave me permission. That's all I know. But they used that image on the homepage of the Chafee 2016 website so he must have been contacted when the website was created. The email said this: Good afternoon, You have permission to use the photo. Thanks for your interest! Debbie Rich Chafee 2016 --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Unless you can provide proof and follow the steps I laid out above, the image will be deleted. I've had this happen to me countless times.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Ms. Debbie Rich is Chafee's spokesperson so I'm sure she'd check the rights. Otherwise she would have said no. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC) I doubt that very much. Most people do not understand copyright. Plus, assuming she had the authority, she did not give explicit permission.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Damn. Her of all people should have known. This annoys me. Sorry for the trouble. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC) @TDKR Chicago 101: Yeah the copyright release process is a massive pain to go through. They have to explicitly state in the email "I [COPYRIGHT HOLDER] release this image to be used under the following copyright license(s) [LICENSE NAME]." If they don't say that the OTRS team that processes the permissions will reject it. There has to be absolutely zero ambiguity or it will be rejected (which is understandable since they are just covering themselves from problems). --Stabila711 (talk) 01:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC) @William S. Saturn - Debbie Rich emailed me back with full authorization and contacted the photographer and/or company and had given me more version of the image such as one with the American flag in the background and a cropped version. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC) @TDKR Chicago 101: I am pretty sure the photographer has to release the copyright for it to be valid. But you could forward the request you have to the OTRS team following the instructions here and see where it gets you. --Stabila711 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton If we don't have a Webb/Chafee image at that zoomed level I think we should stick with their official photos. We want the most neutral photos that we can get our hands on to try to stick with NPOV as much as possible. As for the Sanders's image I honestly don't know. I am going to leave that one for now for another opinion. It is much better than the last one but I am not sure about the angle of the photo (side profile vs. straight ahead). Moving on to Clinton, the one we have now was put in because it is an official photo and was as neutral as possible. I personally have no problem with the one you are suggesting but other editors have in the past. --Stabila711 (talk) Ok so Webb and Chafee are a no. Clinton and Sanders need other thoughts. Got it. --TDKR Chicago 101

Jim Webb

Jim Webb
Jim Webb A Jim Webb B Jim Webb C Jim Webb D

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders A Bernie Sanders B Bernie Sanders C Bernie Sanders D Bernie Sanders E Bernie Sanders F Bernie Sanders G Bernie Sanders H Bernie Sanders I Bernie Sanders J Bernie Sanders K How about now? I replaced Sanders' image. Added new Webb image. Why would the hand be a trouble? I found another Chafee image, but Chafee A is the only best one of we got. And why not that Hillary image. It has better quality than her official image. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) Added new images for a new Bernie Sanders image on the candidates gallery. Thoughts? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC) I think the best out of all those is A. Do we have an close head shot of Bernie just smiling that is also straight on? I really like the face on A but the side profile shot gives me pause. Can we take his official photo and zoom in a little? I really feel that if we can get the face of A and the angle of B that would be the perfect photo. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC) Weirdly, Bernie doesn't smile a lot. In all of the photos that is the only smiling picture.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC) So I was searching around and I found a photo on Bernie's website that I believe would fit perfectly. It can be found here. The problem is, I don't know if we are allowed to use it. There is a download link on his website that allows you to download the image but I don't see a release anywhere that says you can use it without fear of copyright. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC) I asked at the Commons' help desk if the explicit "download this image" link equates to a copyright release. If they say yes I will go ahead and upload the image. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC) @TDKR Chicago 101: So they said no to using that picture. However, I emailed the campaign asking for a release so we can use it. If they say yes I can upload it. --Stabila711 (talk) 18:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC) That would be great! Thanks! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC) I THINK I FOUND THE SANDERS IMAGE! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2015 (UTC) Regarding Bernie, I ignored E, F and G when i uploaded them because he makes somewhat of an odd face and people have a habit of removing images of people who make 'odd' faces...thus why i only cropped B..I personally like C because unlike other candidates with their 'photoshopped pic and well; make-up, Bernie looks normal and he is sweating, unlike others who talk to large audiences in Air conditioned rooms..makes him look more "real" ..--Stemoc 02:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I prefer the photo of Sanders on his [berniesanders.com website].. Prcc27 (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) We all do, but as the name of his site suggest, ".com" which means commercial and thus not allowed...now compare that image to his current official portrait..it makes him look like a pervy old man....seriously they should get it removed ASAP..--Stemoc 05:14, 31 August 2015 (UTC) Well then I say leave as is. Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC) I strongly recommend option H. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:53, 1 September 2015 (UTC) @TDKR Chicago 101: Lets give it a week to see if the campaign gets back to me and releases the image that, as Stemoc said, everyone wants. Right now we have his official photo on the page and that is fine. If they don't get back to me, or if they refuse, we can move from there. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC) Of course by all means. But if that doesn't work out as we hope to option H is bold. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:57, 1 September 2015 (UTC) I Ignored Option H when i was searching for images due to it being a 'long shot' and a bit too bright and blurry (on his right side)..Angle wise, its the best we ever had..I'll try to fix it but it won't come out good..--Stemoc 03:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC) How about Option I? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC) That one was rejected long time ago as it made him look like he had broad shoulders ..very broad..please don't make crops unless necessary--Stemoc 03:46, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I didn't make it. It was already at commons. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC) I have added option K. I believe it is the best we have at the moment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Republican candidate photos

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham (Closed 27 Aug)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Lindsey Graham Graham alternate Graham 2015 How about Graham? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) Hmm, I don't know about that one either. How about this one that I found in the files (added to gallery)? Perhaps, if we zoom that one in a little bit it can be used? --Stabila711 (talk) I have no problem with the Graham 2015 photo that was added. Are there any objections? Stabila711 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 26 August 2015 (UTC) I think it's great. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC) I updated the Graham photo with option C. If we can find photos of all the candidates that are like that it would be fantastic. Close head shots of the candidates smiling would be ideal. --Stabila711 (talk) 23:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

George Pataki

George Pataki
George Pataki

John Kasich

John Kasich
John Kasich A John Kasich B

Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio
Marco Rubio

Ted Cruz

Ted Cruz
Ted Cruz A Ted Cruz B

Rand Paul

Rand Paul
Rand Paul A Rand Paul B Rand Paul C Rand Paul D

Mike Huckabee

Mike Huckabee

Chris Christie

Chris Christie
Chris Christie A Chris Christie B

Lawrence Lessig

Just a reminder that Lessig is now one polling away from being featured under democrats, he has been polled four times. 24.223.190.69 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, just added him to the table but he will remain hidden if and until he reaches the five poll mark. Prcc27 (talk) 08:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Lessig now officially in the table. I listed the 5 polls in my edit summary so it can be verified. Brucejoel99 (talk) 02:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

These two articles (Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016) ought to be updated as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Robby Wells

Should we consider Robby Wells withdraw? His committee was "administratively terminated" http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg?_201509150300022560+0. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad (talk • contribs) 13:19, 7 October 2015‎ (UTC)

According to this article and this press release, both released since the date of the report linked above, Wells is still very much a candidate and actively campaigning.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Swing state map

I am not happy with the swing state map. First of all, "states won by Democrat Barack Obama by 0-4 percentage points" are purple but "states won by Republican Mitt Romney by 0-4 percentage points" are red. Either both should be different shades of purple or the Obama 0-4 should be blue. The map includes states where Obama won by a 4-8 percentage but excludes the states where Romney won by 4-8 percent i.e. Georgia & Nebraska's 2nd Congressional District. While @SnowFire: argues that those aren't swing states, I don't consider Minnesota a swing state tbh so why is that included but not Georgia & NE-2? In fact, Minnesota isn't listed as a potential battleground state in the article. Instead it's listed as a state Republicans might target, but Georgia & NE-2 are listed as states Democrats might target. So I feel like all states that a candidate won by a 0-8 percent margin should be included rather than picking and choosing which states to include based on a personal opinion of which state is a swing state. Also, nationwide vote is irrelevant because the national popular vote doesn't count and most candidates only care about winning the swing states. Otherwise we'd see more campaigning in states like California & Texas. Prcc27 (talk) 17:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather just remove it if it's going to be controversial. I thought using the 2012 results would be wholly uncontroversial but eh. As I've explained to you on your talk page, actually looking at the sources will show that Georgia & NE-2 are not considered swing states by nearly any pundit, so it'd be misleading to include them. ( http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/05/2016-predictions-117554 for others reading this.)

The nationwide vote is, by definition, the combination of the state votes, which *do* elect the President. The whole point of battleground state analysis is clicking on the "margin of victory" tab in the 2012 results table and sorting on that so that if the election is close there's an idea of which states are the "tipping point" to get to 270 electoral votes. The battleground states are the states that voted close to the national margin. Indiana was not a swing state in 2008 despite being an extremely close race in absolute terms. Massachusetts was not a swing state in 1984 despite being an extremely close race in absolute terms. So the map should focus around states that are close to the nationwide margin. This is not a personal opinion, but one easily backed by sheaves of references. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/arizona-is-probably-not-a-swing-state/ for one famous blogger directly assessing the issue, but this isn't just Nate Silver. Anyway, my version of the map is objective as far as showing the states near the national margin of victory: the 4-8 percentage points for Romney category is irrelevant by this standard, as it's quite far from the national average, so leaving it out is reasonable. Heck, including North Carolina is the most arguable part, honestly (it's listed as "leans R" in the sources, and is farther from the national average than Minnesota was).

(As a side comment, Georgia is even less swingy then it looks. Georgia has lots of very very Democratic voters and lots of very very Republican voters, and not tons of persuadable voters in the political center. So the assumption that a shift in the national vote would affect all states evenly is less true for Georgia than other states.) SnowFire (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I thinking removing it is a good idea. The section was fine without it anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 19:30, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

To be clear, I do think the section would be better with it, but I'd only want to include it if there's consensus to do so in its current form. The problem is I'm not sure if there's a sensible compromise to be had. Basically the problem is that we're describing two different pieces of data: I'm referring to the battleground states in a close election (which inherently assumes some sort of shift from Democrats to Republicans to make it close), while you're trying to express the actually close states in 2012. Maybe we can have both, with something like File:Cartogram—2012_Electoral_Vote.svg, except with different shadings by the margin in each state? (There are maps by COUNTY in United_States_presidential_election,_2012#Maps, but that's actually super-misleading.) SnowFire (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

"Declared candidates without a specified affiliation" distinct from "Independent"

Tell me why those categories of candidates shouldn't be merged. -hugeTim ^(talk) 02:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

The declared candidates are definitely running as independents; the two candidates in the independent section might run as independents. They are distinct enough to be separate. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Joe Biden

Should we mention that this prez election, will be only the second one since 1928, not to have an incumbent president or vice president seeking the presidency? GoodDay (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I believe it's actually the third time (after 1952 and 2008). Jah77 (talk) 14:17, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Second, President Truman entered his name in the NH primary in 1952, and Vice President Barkley had an actual campaign, where he was a major contestant briefly. YoursT (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I was assuming this was referring to the general election. Jah77 (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Notification on Lincoln Chafee

Chafee is going to talk about the future of his campaign tomorrow morning at the DNC Woman's Forum. Many news sources are stating that he will be suspending his campaign.

https://twitter.com/LincolnChafee/status/657346708603576320

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/22/lincoln-chafee-plans-update-to-his-campaign/?_r=0

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/christinerousselle/2015/10/22/is-lincoln-chafee-dropping-out-n2069921

This is just a notification in case he does, indeed, announce he will be suspending. I will add Chafee to withdrawn as a hidden candidate, and if he doesn't withdraw I will remove him. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:14, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Potential Candidates

Does it really make sense to have Brown, Bloomberg and Gore in the Potential Candidates section? I understand they each fit into the general rule of thumb (that being the "within 3 months" and "credible sources" clarification), but for each of them, it seems that all of the sources are connected to one story that more or less borders on hearsay and speculation. I feel like unless any of these 3 shows any inclination whatsoever toward running, it makes no sense to have them as potential candidates. Guck14 (talk) 00:14, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

IMO, at this point it makes sense to limit the "potential candidates" list only to those who have expressed some sort of interest. Given how close we are to the start of the primaries (not to mention that the main election is just a little over a year away), it's highly unlikely anyone is going to jump in now who hasn't given an indication of some kind that he/she is at least open to the possibility of running. Since no such indication has been given directly (thus far) by Brown, Bloomberg or Gore, I agree with Guck14 that they should be removed from the page.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 17:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with both of these statements. At this point we're long past the "potential" phase where candidates haven't even said they're interested. Bloomberg, Gore, and Brown have all had staff members say they're interested in running. But no statements have been issued yet by any of them. Along with that, you also have the fact that Bloomberg and Brown both already previously declined to run for the office. Unless something comes straight from them, I say we remove them. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above statements. Too late in the campaign season to be calling anyone a "potential candidate" unless they themselves say (or at least drop a strong hint) that they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ll0094 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, stop this silliness. Deadlines to get on the ballot are approaching and none of these people have shown any interest in running. "Media speculation" is worthless at this stage of the game. For instance, Jerry Brown has already endorsed a candidate and there's no evidence whatsoever his statement meant he was considering jumping in the race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robryant1 (talk • contribs) 15:45, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we probably should remove these potential candidates but we also should have an official policy. I think the policy should be that potential candidates are only listed if they meet the criteria for publicly expressed interest or announcement impending.ObieGrad (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be a cutoff point for including "speculation-only" candidates to the potential candidate listing. How about the start of the primary debates? It is unusual for someone who hasn't signaled any sort of interest at that point to jump in that late, and it's unlikely that any such person will. So I propose that after the first primary debate has taken place, we include only potential candidates who have "expressed interest".--Rollins83 (talk) 18:25, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Third Party Debate

Free & Equal will host a general election debate on August 30 at the Belasco Theater in Los Angeles. Now- I'm not exactly sure how to put this in. In the 2012 election, the same group held a debate at the Hilton in Chicago between the nominees of the Green Party (Jill Stein), Libertarian Party (Gary Johnson), Constitution Party (Virgil Goode), and Justice Party (Rocky Anderson). These were the only parties that had the ability to win the election (Romney and Obama were invited but did not participate). In 2012, it was listed as more of a minor debate.

I'm probably making a mountain out of a mole hill with this- but how exactly do y'all think this should be included, if it should be included at all? I'd say list it as a sort of footnote, with the qualified parties listed (at this moment the Green and Libertarian Parties qualify).

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/10/free-and-equal-announces-date-and-location-for-general-election-presidential-debate/

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 23:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Article protection necessary?

Mods,

As of 23 Oct, Ben Carson's picture has been removed and his name replaced with "Uncle Tom." At this point, should Wiki consider protecting the article again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.204.80 (talk) 01:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

• That was simple vandalism and I have already reverted it. There hasn't been enough disruption to warrant protection. --Stabila711 (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

More vandalism just now, replacing all Republican pictures with Donald Trump. What is the argument against protecting this page at this time? -hugeTim ^(talk) 22:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Please make sure you warn the vandals Hugetim. Admins won't do a block at AVI if they have not been warned. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr

I was looking, and I found this Tweet from Roseanne Barr dated June 21.

https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/612867618127478784

Adding on this Tweet where she states everyone should support Sanders (https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/606867807326765056) from June 5, is it safe to at least move her to publicly expressed interest? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:05, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Since Barr herself has stated that she hasn't decided yet whether to run again or not, I would agree that moving her to "publicly expressed interest" would be appropriate.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Mark Everson

Um...this guy was included in the list of candidates on the RNC's website...how about, I don't know, putting him in the list of withdrawn candidates? That might be a good idea since the RNC considered him as legitimate as all the other "major" candidates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:504:3341:1D17:5810:8ED8:8373 (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Candidate Criteria

For the two major parties, I have changed criteria to debate invitation and participation. We have to be realistic and reasonable here. People come here to learn about candidates, and now that both parties have had debates, the 'players', as they are, are defined by debate inclusion. Lessig has been mentioned in polls, but hasn't garnered any sufficient support for the DNC to include him as a contender. Some may not like this, but that's he way it is, and we need a firm way of differentiating 'fringe' candidates from ones with higher credibility in the race. The National Committees of both parties will be nominating their candidate next year, and at this point, if they don't sanction their candidacy by invitation to a debate, they are hardly contenders, unless some miracle occurs.   Spartan7W §   21:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I prefer using the fairer criteria discussed at [30]. We should not use CNN exclusively to determine whether a candidate is major or minor. We should use the party itself that nominates the candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

You know I have reservations about this as well but I can see both sides of it. On the one hand, if they are being actively polled someone considers them a contender. However, on the other hand, if they aren't included in the debates do they really stand a chance at all? Before your proposal William S. Saturn I had never even heard of Mark Everson. I understand he is officially "sanctioned" by the RNC but if he isn't even invited to the RNC debates is he really truly sanctioned? In the end, the party decides who gets their nomination but the general populace gets to vote. How many of them are even going to be thinking about the candidates that don't appear in the debates? How many of them even know the names of those people? When it comes to Lessig, if the DNC (and the news channels that put on the debates) don't include him is he really a Democratic contender? --Stabila711 (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

This is my point. We must be fair, we must be objective here, but part of that is considering what readers see. Someone comes here to look up the field, they'll think Lessig is a big player, wondering why he wasn't in the debate, etc. Strange things can happen, but we must be realistic. The party officially sanctions debates, and their invitees are the ones people see, and are ones being given official notice.   Spartan7W §   22:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

We need a standard that will work not just in 2016 but in all future elections. If we used the debate standard, someone like Tom Vilsack, who withdrew before the debates, would be excluded from the 2008 list of major candidates.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind that numerous reliable sources are covering that very question about Lessig, why he wasn't in the debate, etc. -hugeTim ^(talk) 17:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

What we're dealing with right now is a living campaign process, and that is different. We had pre-debate criteria to fairly organize them. Now that we've had debates, sponsored and sanctioned by party committees, this is a solid definition that is more telling of future developments in the party process. If Vilsack withdrew before debates, but met pre-debate "major" criteria, then he'd be in the withdrawn section, where Perry and Walker now are. As we go forward, debate inclusion is the best way to do it. Once the primaries are over, and we write the history, then we can organize them in a prudent fashion. But as it stands, debates are a good criteria, and work well with a moving campaign process.   Spartan7W §   23:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

So then why remove Lessig? If he met the so-called pre-debate major inclusion criteria before the debates why remove him from major candidates? We don't need multiple criteria for different times. We need one firm criteria and that is party recognition.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because at this point, the candidates who get into the 'table' with all their pictures, links and such on the front page ought to be major candidates. How do we define a major candidate? I find that mention in a poll is a flawed criteria, because Biden is mentioned in polls, and receives solid numbers, but isn't a candidate, whereas Lessig, a declared, receives no numbers, but is there. Now that debates have occurred, we can define major candidates by those who have been formally sponsored as candidates by their respective parties, by way of debate invitation.

If we look at the last 5 major polls tabulated in the RCP average, Lessig is mentioned in 4, but has no respondants whatsoever. Meanwhile, a hypothetical question on the PPP poll included Michael Dukakis, Elizabeth Warren, and Al Gore, all of which had respondents and a statistical number. Granted, Jim Gilmore has an asterisk in polls, but he was invited to an RNC debate, which means he is a contender by some definition.  Spartan7W §   15:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for this change here or anywhere. I have reverted to status quo until such consensus exists. The relevant standard here is WP:DUE, not editors' judgments of who the DNC wants to exclude or who has a chance at being elected. No other coherent reason has been given for changing the "mentioned in five major polls" criteria. -hugeTim ^(talk) 17:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

At this point in the process in 2012, the "Rent is Too Damn High" candidate was listed as a Republican candidate on the same level with the major candidates. It is far far too early for us editors to be narrowing down the field. There has been just one Democratic debate, so using "included in any Democratic debate" as a criteria is clearly premature, in particular. That would be like instituting a "included in at least five major polls" criteria after there had been only five major polls, back in February 2015. -hugeTim ^(talk) 17:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Hugetim: No coherent? Obviously here we segregate major and minor candidates, or else we would have to list all 200+ persons filed with the FEC together. That, however, is not a reasonable or proper organization. Therefore we must figure out how to separate candidates into a 'major' tier in a way that is fair, and that is as unbiased as possible. Now, what is a major candidate, a contender? These candidates aren't running on a ballot like a local election, they are running for their party's nomination. The party itself has a role to play in this: they sponsor and sanction debates between major candidates. If you are not invited to your party's formal debate, the likelihood that you will win their nomination is effectively, zero. Being mentioned in a poll is, if anything, less coherent. As I mentioned earlier, Joe Biden is also mentioned in polls, so are Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Michael Dukakis, John Kerry, Al Gore on the DNC side. These people, who are not candidates, some of whom have endorsed present candidates, actually record a statistic in these polls. Some people mentioned in polls receive little, if any respondents in their support: i.e. Jim Gilmore, Larry Lessig. However, Gilmore was a state Governor, and did have a minor polling, and was invited to the first GOP debate. The media grants him interviews, he does events. His fundraising is poor, and his cause is more or less hopeless. But we must have a standard. Being mentioned is different than being registered in a poll. That is why debates use polling averages to help consider their invitees.

This is a good measure for "major" inclusion on Wikipedia. If the party has official debates, the invitees to those debates are major contenders; people see them, they get money, they poll well, people talk about them. To be invited, you had to at least register in a statistically significant fashion. By making one debate invitation the standard, we can include contenders whose support and profile are sufficient to put them "in play" for their party's nomination, and their party recognizes them as a contender. The fact that Jimmy MacMillan was listed "at this point in 2012" is irrelevant. If anything, it shows a weak bar for "major candidate" qualification. People come here for information, they come to learn. We separate the perennial 9/11 truther or prohibitionist from the governors, senators, businessmen and commentators who are in contention for their party's nomination. Why? Because if people come here and see a 9/11 truther next to Hillary Clinton, or a perennial prohibitionist next to Donald Trump and Marco Rubio, they get the impression that they are all serious, major candidates for the respective nominations. They are not. We segregate these 'tiers' so the people know what the race is, who is running, and who is a major candidate. We don't ignore the 9/11 truther, whose notability is just at the bar for a Wiki biography, but we don't put them next to people who the party is sanctioning as a major candidate for their nomination. Maybe an 'other' could rise up and qualify for debates, but if they don't, the party doesn't recognize them, and are the a major candidate? That is the question. This is why the one debate criteria is solid and fair. This is a race, right now, for a National Committee's nomination, and each committee has infrastructure to consider and help the people select their delegates to nominate the candidates. If you don't participate in debates, your candidacy is hardly "major", being defined as a reasonable player in the primary process.   Spartan7W §   18:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The current criteria is "declared candidates included in at least five major polls," so your objection about polls including non-candidates is irrelevant. This is what I'm talking about regarding coherence. Otherwise, you're arguing against a straw man. I'm not against separating the 200+ fringe candidates from the currently highlighted 21 (across both parties) Separating the two groups is really not that difficult because there is not a continuous spectrum of campaign viability that makes a Gilmore difficult to distinguish from a 9/11 truther like Andy Martin. Do they have paid campaign staff? Have they been included in major polls? Do they receive substantial media coverage for their campaign, including being granted interviews? Does their 2016 campaign have a stand-alone Wikipedia article? Are they speaking at campaign events? Do they have (even minimal: $100,000) funding for their campaign? Whether they were invited to debates yet (at this very early stage) is one more reasonable criteria, but it makes no sense to adopt that as the exclusive criteria when all the other ones agree on a different answer.

As an aside, here's a quick fact check on your claim that, "To be invited [to debate], you had to at least register in a statistically significant fashion." That's simply not true. One percent support is not even close to statistically significant for any of the national polls so far. In particular, Lessig's support is clearly not statistically significantly different from Chafee's or Webb's. The latter two only qualified at all because the rules allowed them to average their top three results (out of 18 different polls, most of which showed them at 0%), whereas Lessig got to average his top three out of four polls. -hugeTim ^(talk) 18:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

"the party is sanctioning as a major candidate for their nomination" - Then why not list "Candidates recognized by the party" and "Candidates not recognized by the party" ? Why make up some standard of debate inclusion or a complicated mix of polling and fundraising? This is not difficult. It does not have to be a matter of contention. It does not have to be arbitrary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

What I meant by 'statistically significant' is not the mathematical definition, but a measure whereby there is measurable support. The fact is, people watch the debates, the listen to the news, they ready the articles, they come here. You cited the 2012 article at this time, they'd watch an October debate, wonder why MacMillan wasn't there, or why any number of perennials weren't there. Do they start to doubt Wikipedia? You watch the Democratic debate, there are 5 people there, CNN makes hoopla about being ready for #6, with Biden. Nobody hears about Lessig, or the 9/11 truther or any others for that matter. What significance is being 'mentioned' in major polls if you have no respondents? We have to be fair and unbiased, but it isn't unfair to have a reasonable standard. Debates are among contenders for the nomination. If your party doesn't invite you to debates, where strong players like Clinton and Sanders who take in millions of dollars and days of airtime, and nobody knows who you are, and nobody voices support in polls, you're not a major candidate. Simple as that. Maybe Lessig uses his money wisely and gets into the next debate, or actually registers in polls, then he'd qualify if he was in a debate. But I've never seen him on Fox, CNN, NBC, CNBC, any of the networks hosting debates, commentators don't talk about him, he doesn't register in polls, he hasn't held high office, he hasn't participated in their debate, where other less than 1%ers were. Unfortunately, he isn't a major candidate. It is simply unfair for him to be put in a major contenders section, with real contenders, while other fringe candidates are excluded. Mark Everson was mentioned in some big polls, not enough for the 5, but he held a public office, but why is it fair that he, who draws no support in major polls used by networks for debates, or included in RCP (the gold standard aggregator) be excluded but Lessig, in the same situation, who happens to have his name 'mentioned' in a poll more often, be included? That isn't fair. There are editors here who have pushed for Lessig before he met the 5 debate mark, that was a bias. Nobody pushes for Everson with the same weight. In order to be unbiased, we need a bar that is fair, that is reasonable. If we segregate candidates into tiers, which we should, we must have a standard to justify their prominence on the main page. A candidate is prominent if he is in his party's officially sanctioned debate. I can't think of a standard which is less biased than that for listing 'top-tier' candidates.   Spartan7W §   18:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The problem with your statement above is that the parties don't invite the candidates. The news stations invite the candidates. If you truly want to list the candidates the party recognizes then why not do it?--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:00, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: Lessig has measurable support (by your definition) in 8 out of 10 polls. Look, I agree that being in debates is essential to winning the nomination. I agree that debate inclusion is one reasonable criteria among many, particularly as we get closer to the elections. But only one debate (out of six) has occurred on the Democratic side, and it is 3-4 months before the first ballots will be cast. As of this moment, not being included in any debates does not doom anyone's candidacy. At this point in 2003, Wesley Clark had been in the race for less than a month. He had already missed multiple debates (as there wasn't an orchestrated coronation that year), but he went on to be a major contender. What you have refused to address is my original, basic point: "The relevant standard here is WP:DUE, not editors' judgments of who the DNC wants to exclude or who has a chance at being elected." The reliable sources are what matter. If major polls and major news sources are giving serious coverage to a candidate, we treat them as a major candidate. Period. It doesn't matter whether you think some poll's exclusion is "fair." Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, fair or not. If, after his exclusion from the debate, Lessig (for instance) is systematically excluded from major polls and ignored by the media, then we can talk about demoting him (or others). But that is not happening, in fact. When you say things like, "I've never seen him on Fox, CNN, NBC, CNBC, any of the networks hosting debates, commentators don't talk about him," it reveals that your knowledge of Lessig's campaign is deficient. Lessig announced his campaign on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos, and he has also appeared on CNN, repeatedly on MSNBC, and C-SPAN, and he's scheduled for Bill Maher tonight and PBS on Monday. There have been segments about him on Fox and CNBC (at least). Everson has received nothing like the same coverage, not to speak of the several other criteria I listed above (Everson has no campaign page on Wikipedia, he has not been regularly covered or interviewed by major media, he has no funding and therefore no paid staff, etc.), so your comparison of Everson with Lessig only makes my point. -hugeTim ^(talk) 19:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

p.s. @William S. Saturn: While the news networks seem to announce the rules for debate invites, the DNC sets those rules or at least has a hand in them. (I'm less familiar with the Republican side.) Of course, these (early) invites should not be given undue weight, as I've argued above. -hugeTim ^(talk) 20:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

References

What is your source?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

CNN: "The DNC will set the criteria for debate inclusion..." -hugeTim ^(talk) 21:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The party sponsors the debates, and delegates authority to the networks to set criteria, rules, etc. By the transitive property at least, even if we don't know what happens behind closed doors. That said, I think debate inclusion is just as relevant, as it shows what candidates have a bare minimum of extant support to be in any form of contention. I get where you're coming from, but unlike 2012 and 2008, both parties have significantly altered the debate schedules and organization, and now there are fewer debates, they began later, they are more formal, and have massive viewerships unlike years past. The 2016 debate clock starts much closer to Iowa than previous years (debates in May).   Spartan7W §   22:06, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

This does not mean that debate participation and being recognized as a candidate are the same thing. A party may still recognize a candidate but create a criteria that does not allow that candidate to participate in an official debate. Debates are not the be all and end all of candidacy. There is a false idea that we have to divide the candidates into major/minor. We don't have to do that. We only list the candidates who are notable as individuals. That is a fair and easy determination. Any further division brings up the issue of NPOV. Dividing based on polling, fundraising, or office held is entirely arbitrary. Dividing based on debate participation discriminates against recognized candidates who withdrew early or those boycotting the debates. The only NPOV manner to separate the candidates further that works at every stage of the process and provides either a yes or no answer is whether the candidate is or is not recognized by their party as a candidate for the party's nomination.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I would encourage you both to refer specifically to verbatim Wikipedia policy or guidelines at this point because I can't see how your positions flow from them. With regard to NPOV, for instance, it would be WP:UNDUE to present notable fringe candidates on par with major candidates. You each repeat your claims that debate inclusion or party recognition is the self-evident, sole criteria to make this discrimination rather than connecting these claims to the NPOV policy: "Neutrality requires that each article...fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources... Undue weight can be given in several ways, including but not limited to...prominence of placement..." (emphasis added) In other words, the connection of your favored criteria to election chances or official party support per se are irrelevant. Only the correspondence between your favored criteria and the prominence of each campaign in published, reliable sources matters. But neither of you have even attempted to defend such a correspondence. -hugeTim ^(talk) 22:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources state the fact that certain candidates are recognized and that certain candidates are not recognized. Spartan's debate scheme is flawed but it is much better than what you are proposing because it is clear and somewhat consistent. What exactly are you are proposing? A complicated mess of nonsense that factors in whether a candidate appeared on the Bill Maher show so that your favored candidate gets included? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't seen a single good reason to change the current criteria at this time. I'm proposing we do nothing, for now. -hugeTim ^(talk) 23:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

So if a candidate claims he is running for the Democratic presidential nomination but the body that does the nominating doesn't even recognize his candidacy, should he be listed with the candidates that are recognized? True, reliable sources recognize his claim but none are claiming he is recognized. Quite the opposite. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2015/10/12/sidelined-by-democrats-larry-lessig-considers-running-against-them/ -William S. Saturn (talk) 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Official party support is a factor, just not the only factor. (Otherwise, only Hillary Clinton should be listed as a major candidate, according to recent reports. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-16/insurrection-erupts-at-the-democratic-national-committee ) Anyway, you may be overstating Lessig's status with the DNC. "“Lessig and his staff were briefed by DNC staff on the ballot and delegate process, as offered to all Democratic presidential candidates and potential candidates,” according to Democratic National Committee spokesperson Holly Shulman." http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/lawrence-lessig-announces-ad-buy -hugeTim ^(talk) 23:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

To be more specific about what I mean by following the reliable sources, we should only consider changing our criteria if our lists start to get systematically out of sync with lists like these: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/us/elections/2016-presidential-candidates.html and http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/10/2016-election/384828/ The specific criteria we use are not important, because many reasonable criteria would give the same answer, as I've said. What matters is whether our lists tend to match the lists of reliable sources. -hugeTim ^(talk) 23:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand why you want it to be in accord with The New York Times and The Atlantic. Is it because they include Lessig? I'm sure I could find separate lists without Lessig included. I'm not going to waste my time doing so because we all know that different media sources make different editorial judgments. The only list that should correspond with this page is the list provided by the body that will actually nominate the candidate. This is very simple. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

If it's so simple, then why do major reliable sources like The New York Times and The Atlantic disagree with you? I think we've reached diminishing returns here. I'll let you have the last word. -hugeTim ^(talk) 06:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

You'd have to ask them what criteria they use. I'm sure they don't have an NPOV policy. But think about it. What are better headers, "Candidates recognized by The New York Times and The Atlantic" and "Others" or "Party-recognized candidates" and "Others"? The fact is that many people have come on here and proposed different criteria or lack thereof. In the end we always agree to something arbitrary. It is necessary to have a solid, non-complicated criteria so that people will stop arguing and edit-warring over whether their favored candidate should be listed. I've been discussing this issue since 2007 and I think I have finally come up with the only fair criteria that is not arbitrary but simple as possible. I once believed we should not differentiate between major and minor candidates and instead list all the candidates that are notable as individuals by wikipedia standards under one header "Candidates." I forged a consensus on this and that is why at this time in 2011, Jimmy McMillan was listed on the 2012 page with all the other candidates. Though the 2012 page has changed, there is still a strong consensus to list all wikipedia-notable candidates. How those are separated further is now the matter of contention. We have a five poll threshold and that has worked reasonably well and is consistent, though it is still an arbitrary standard. I was informed by User:JayJasper that the five poll threshold or some variant of it is used for debate inclusion. However, we can see that it clearly is not being used since Lessig met the threshold and yet was excluded from the last debate and Jim Gilmore met the threshold and yet was excluded from the last Republican debate. User:Spartan7W's idea of using debate inclusion is an improvement but it has some flaws. It cannot be consistently applied throughout the election season as it would exclude recognized candidates who withdrew before the debates started like Tom Vilsack in 2008. It also places too much emphasis on the debates. And that emphasis itself is arbitrary. A completely non-arbitrary standard that can be consistently applied throughout the election season that is simple and easy to understand should be the standard we adopt. "Party-recognized" candidates, based on the list of candidates that the body that will actually nominate the candidate provides satisfies that for which we should strive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Changing the criteria fit the times. Until the primary season is over, their articles are fluid. Prior to the first debate, the "five poll" standard worked, there was just no other way to do it. Now, there have been three debates, two Republican and one Democratic. For the time being, that is until the end of November, that's a clear standard, it's not nice, but that's the deal, the undercard and the overcard don't matter (look at Fiorina). There is a standard that should apply after December 1st, ballot access. The process has already started: South Carolina's GOP field is already "set in stone." Most early and Super Tuesday states will have who's on the ballot published, and THAT my friends, should be the only criterion until after the race is decided in March. Then it should look like the '12 page, with the nominee, then those who won primaries, then the rest who were on more than three primaries, and those who managed to get on the ballot in New Hampshire, Arizona, or one other state...then the people like McMillian, who probably won't even bother to pay the grand to get on the NH ballot. In the meantime, the debates should define the hierarchy.YoursT (talk) 12:41, 17 October 2015 (UTC)— YoursT (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ericl (talk • contribs).

You're making it unnecessarily complicated. I have already come up with a fool-proof criteria which you do not even address above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

The Chattering Classes are biased on this to be sure. Mark Everson on the Republican side and Larry Lessig on the Democratic, are going to have a great deal of trouble getting on the ballot outside of New Hampshire, but Jim Gilmore won't, all because he was in one of the debates (or two, he has gotten 1% in one of the "official polls" and thus qualified for the undercard in he next one, but I could be wrong about that). If you cannot get on the primary ballot, you cannot win the nomination, unless, God Forbid, the front-runner dies or gets thrown in the slammer.William S. Saturn, your criteria were fine until August and will be fine again in the 2018-19 segment of the next cycle, but if you look at the '12 primary pages, you will notice that the charts show how many states each candidate won, placed or showed, what their national totals were, and how many delegates they won before they were forced out (except the nominee, of course). Of the minor candidates, they are segregated by number of states they got on. These were mostly non-notable people who were doing it for a lark or were nuts. They are listed because they were on the ballot somewhere. If they spent the grand to get on the ballot in New Hampshire, God bless 'em, but they're not on the same level as someone who is on the ballot everywhere else and may very well win. The criteria will and must change right about now. The "Debate" thing, while important, is just a placeholder for the moment, and on the Republican side is definitive for the moment. No Republican candidate who isn't invited to the debates will get on the ballot automatically in any of the states on or before Super Tuesday. They will have to jump through impossible hoops. The Democrats are even worse. They cheated Obama's challengers out of their delegates, what makes you think they won't do it to Lessing, Webb or Chafee this time out?, but I digress. The simple point is, is that the 2016 presidential pages are still stubs despite their length. They're going to change DRASTICALLY in the next couple of months and continue to do so until a year hence. Right now is the phase change. Let's change it in a timely matter, which is soonYoursT (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)— YoursT (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Ericl (talk • contribs).

I want to address the comment about "I was informed by User:JayJasper that the five poll threshold or some variant of it is used for debate inclusion. However, we can see that it clearly is not being used since Lessig met the threshold and yet was excluded from the last debate and Jim Gilmore met the threshold and yet was excluded from the last Republican debate." The criteria for the first Democratic debate can be found at [31]. It says that a candidate had to achieve a 1% average from a combination of 3 national polls that were on the recognized list and released between Aug. 1 and Oct. 10. Recognized polls were live interviewer national polls sponsored or conducted by ABC News, Bloomberg News, CBS News, CNN, FOX News, Gallup, Marist University, McClatchy News Service, Monmouth University, NBC News, The New York Times, Pew Research Center, Quinnipiac University, Time, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, or The Washington Post. During the relevant period, Lessig was included in recognized live interviewer national polls sponsored by CBS News, USA Today, Fox News, and Quinnipiac, but he didn't get 1% in any of those polls, so he didn't meet the criteria. (By contrast, Lincoln Chafee had at least three recognized polls during that period where he got 1%, so he qualified.) For the Sept. 16 Republican debate, to be at least in the undercard debate, a candidate needed to average a 1% average from a combination of 3 national polls from the same recognized list and released between July 16 and Sept. 10. [32] Jim Gilmore was included in about 12 recognized polls during that period, but only got as high as 1% in one of them, and thus didn't meet the criteria either. The criteria for future debates will vary; for example, CNBC for the next Republican debate is considering only polls conducted by NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, and Bloomberg. [33] Finally, let's not start making assumptions about who will or won't qualify for the primary ballots. The criteria for inclusion vary from state to state, and in some cases a candidate can qualify by submitting a petition or paying a fee. In the past, in some states, major candidates who participated in the debates have missed the primary ballot [34] [35], and in other states, candidates who were far from the party mainstream and repudiated by the party have been on the primary ballot [36] [37]. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Let's forget about being "fair". The parties aren't fair. The thing about this discussion is entirely about what to do about Lessing. In '12, Darcy Richardson ran against Obama, but he was only allowed on five ballots. Lessing is being treated like Richardson right now. In the same cycle, John Wolfe, Jr nearly beat Obama in Arkansas, and did well enough to theoretically to recieve delegates in a few others, but the DNC, wanting the illusion of unanimity, refused to seat his delegates. Were it not for Lessing's not being invited to the first debate, and a formally useful but now obsolete criteria, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The Republican field is set. Nobody new is going to get in. We can change the headline on the candidates' article section from "five major polls" to "Candidates invited to at least one debate" and nothing else would change. Most states awarding ballot places in the next six weeks just have their secretary of state announce the list. If a candidate doesn't like it, there are difficult and ornerous alternatives. Fred Karger and Buddy Roemer were snubbed by the RNC debates and thus had very huge problems getting on the ballot, succeeding in only a few states. They are included as major candidates on the 2012 page because they got over ten thousand votes nationwide (Gary Johnson got over four thousand votes, but he was invited to a couple of debates), and nobody else came anywhere close. YoursT (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that there has been heavy editing over the past two day on which candidates are valid and who should be removed from the page. I can't tell from reading through these comments whether a consensus has been reached. This is especially pertinent to candidates who are not part of the main two parties, who are running independent or are unaffiliated with a party. How many of these candidates should be included? It would be nice to get some sort of standard because the situation is only going to get more contested as time goes on. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Liz: General inclusion criteria is the notability standards. If the person is not notable enough for Wikipedia, they don't get a mention here. The only exception is for candidates that are confirmed to be a specific party's nominee. For example, Bob Whitaker for the American Freedom Party. Essentially it boils down to a pre-page requirement. If you have your own page you have met notability requirements and you can have a mention here. If you just try to add yourself (as has been happening lately) you will be removed. As for who is major or minor, that is a different issue altogether. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I too am working on a system (off-wiki as yet) to resolve this major-vs-minor quandary. The large number of candidates, and the high variability in who the various types of WP:SOURCES consider to be 'major' candidates, has definitely pointed out problems in the "arbitrary" system that wikipedia currently utilizes. By wiki-tradition, to be listed on the candidates-page (aka this page) in 2015, your name has to be mentioned in five major national polls. In 2012 and earlier contests, this was a rather-broad arbitrarily-simplistic criteria: by which I mean, the people that wikipedia listed as 'major' candidates were a significant superset of what many WP:SOURCES listed as 'major' candidates. The compromise-use of the mentioned-in-five-major-polls rule was for simplicity (i.e. to cut down arguing in talkspace). Later in the election-season, by wiki-tradition we would usually switch to a differrent rule: number of state-primary-and-caucus-ballots that a candidate was listed on. In the 2012 race, this leads to an "arbitrary" yet simple ordering of the candidates... which are split out into repub and dem and 'other' subpages for unclear-to-me reasons... with the nominee at the top, the last to withdraw next, and so on, down to candidates that were only on a handful of state-party-ballots at the near-bottom, and candidates who were on zero state-party-ballots at the very bottom.

  This "arbitrary" but simple dual-approach-time-varying-scheme has some downsides, however: 'major' candidates who were in the televised debates, but dropped out early, are glommed together with 'minor' and also 'long shot' and also the 'no shot' candidates at the very bottom of the page. Early in the process, candidates listed in six major polls (but who dropped out) are still 'major' whereas candidates listed in "only" four major polls are listed as 'minor'. So fundamentally, the simple wiki-traditional rules, of mentioned-in-five-major-polls early in the cycle, and also of ordered-by-number-of-state-ballots late in the cycle, are BOTH clearly violations of WP:UNDUE.

  Above, some wikipedians I respect are putting forth upgrade-proposals. User:William S. Saturn is arguing for something simple and straightforward: recognition by the national party bodies, of named candidates, as the major/other distinction. I think that's an important aspect, but not sufficient; there is too high a risk that the national parties will not say who they consider to be 'major' candidates, as the national-party-bodies are supposed to be de jure neutral (de facto actuality to the contrary obviously!). User:Spartan7W is also arguing for something simple and straightforward, the use of the debate-invites; again, this is also an important criteria, but again, is too simplistic all by itself: if we use CNN-and-FOX-and-MSNBC as our *only* criteria, we will be failing to follow NPOV, because quite obviously the debate-criteria are non-neutral (see the last-minute rule-change to permit Graham/Pataki/Gilmore to get on TV during repub debate#1 ... see the last-minute rule-change to permit Fiorina to become the eleventh prime-time debater without bumping anybody else during repub debate#2 ... see similar CNN-blames-DNC-whilst-the-DNC-blames-CNN for the rules-juggling related to dem-debate#1... see the Everson complaint... and many MANY similar examples in 2012 and earlier cycles). Point being, we have a simple system now, listed-in-five-major-polls, and there are proposals to switch to various new simple systems, but the upgrade-proposals will cause at least as many problems as they solve. And, as the current discussion proves, having a 'simple' criteria for the major/other distinction -- currently we use the listed-in-five-major-polls thing at this stage in an election-cycle -- does NOT actually cut down much on talkspace argumentation.  ;-)

  Ideally, all the sources would agree who the major candidates were (in the way that all arithmetic textbooks agree that 2+2=4), in which case wikipedia could just reflect what they say. In cases like this, where the sources do NOT all agree (who is a 'major' candidate depends on which source you ask -- FEC/IRS, RNC/DNC, CNN/FOX, PPP/Quinn/538, NYT/Atlantic, GreenPapers/BallotPedia, legislators/celebrities/economists, et cetera) the best thing that wikipedia can do is to try and determine how to describe the controversy. And, if at all possible, to give due weight in a fashion that keeps talkspace-argumentation to a minimum.  :-)     There is a weak consensus to re-implement the candidate-lists as a table, per the RfC closure on October 15th. My suggestion is that, now that we have converted to a table-organization, we start adding some cells to the table-organization, which characterize whether *each* candidate is considered a 'major' or not, according to *which* sources (see User:Hugetim at [38] and [39]). This suggested addition can be reasonably compact, if we are judicious in our use of icons and/or footnotes. Once added, it may also help us here in talkspace, to focus more clearly on the maximally-relevant-criteria.

  My acid-test in 2016 is Walker'16, who according to all WP:SOURCES was a 'major' candidate almost continuously, right up to the point he dropped out. Any system we pick, needs to reflect that (cf Pawlenty'12) per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Similarly, another 2016 dropout is Perry'16, who has always been on the borderline (many sources considered him a 'major' candidate but he was 'not-quite-major' in some sources such as his undercard slot in televised debates); by contrast, Perry'12 was a major candidate, almost until he dropped out. There is the somewhat-distinct matter of candidates who are on the second dividing-line, between the minor-but-not-impossible grouping, and the extremely-long-shot-to-no-shot-grouping. Gilmore'16 is on that borderline, either just above it or just below it, and Everson'16 is also just below that borderline. Lessig'16 is also hard to characterize; before he started hinting about a run, he was not mentioned even as a *potential* candidate that I noticed, and once he started running, he went from no-shot to extremely-long-shot in relatively short order; now he is on the major-candidate-or-minor-but-plausible-candidate fence, at least according to some metrics.

  Anyways, I believe we need a *robust* system (and yes that implies some complexity) which will *properly* cope with all the contradictory WP:SOURCES, no constant tweaking by individual wikipedians required, not just in 2015 prior to the state-balloting, but also in 2016 once it has commenced, and in 2017 once this cycle is over. I also urge my fellow wikipedians to be cognizant that 2020 will be a different beast. Don't be satisfied with picking a "simple" rule that seems to work okay for the 2016 candidate-spread: think forward to the future, and try and imagine problems that may arise. Similarly, if you think you have picked a good major/minor criteria, test it out: try your criteria retroactively on the 2012 candidate, the 2008 candidates, and the 2004 candidates. Also, try it on the 1992 candidates -- there was once a Ross Perot, and if the Donald Trump candidacy in 2016 is any indication, there could be a significant third-party bid in 2020 or in 2024 or in 2028. Wikipedia needs to be prepared. I believe we can come up with a systems that better reflects WP:NPOV, better satisfies WP:UNDUE, and improves upon the too-simplistic rules of listed-in-five-major-polls, followed by ordered-according-to-count-of-state-ballots. Once I've finished retroactively testing *my* proposal, I will post it. As for the other extant proposals, there is some merit to them, but I think we need to take the long-term view, if we want to solve this long-standing which-candidates-are-truly-bona-fide problem. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My 'two-cents' :: Wikipedia writes about history and does not need to create their own criteria. IMO, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe this would be a good time to start an Rfc on this subject?--NextUSprez (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Order in Withdrawn candidates

In the Democratic section for withdrawn candidates it's ordered alphabetically. In the Republican section for withdrawn candidates it's ordered by the date in which they withdrew. What should the order be...alphabetically or date? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 02:24, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

McAfee/Cyber Party VP

Ken Rutkowski of California has been chosen as the Vice Presidential nominee for the Cyber Party (John McAfee's newly formed party).

How exactly should we do this? Should we include him as a VP candidate for the Independents? I'm not exactly sure what to do here... Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 05:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've listed Rutkowki as McAfee's running mate.--JayJasper (talk) 21:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Trump still talking possible independent run

"Trump won't rule out independent bid" http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/11/22/trump-wont-rule-out-independent-run-for-president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.33.127 (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Trump has been re-added as a potential independent candidate.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jack Fellure, asking for help with him

I was looking at the FEC's site. This interesting piece here was sent to Fellure on September 15, 2015.

• http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/576/201509150300022576/201509150300022576.pdf

I'm not entirely sure what it means, but I think it means the FEC isn't recognizing his committee. Fellure hasn't submitted anything since July (he last sent any sort of amendment in May, which was informing the FEC that he'd moved), and I've been looking around online for I'm not even sure how long seeing many different posts ABOUT him, but nothing even remotely from him. I've even looked in the obituaries for West Virginia and I can't find out if the man's alive or dead! I've looked for people related to him, and found absolutely nothing. His website has been down for awhile (I tried getting on it- it says the forum is still posting so I have no clue if it really is up and running or not.)

Can someone please help me out with this? I'm just trying to find out if the dudes alive or dead. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 06:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Did you try the phone number on the change of address form? --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Not yet- I was hoping to try it on Saturday since today is Thanksgiving and it was the middle of the night. But I'm not really sure if I'd be able to use it on this, since I can't prove it. BTW- Happy Thanksgiving! Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

You could write up a report at Wikinews and then use that as a source.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente

Is this person a real candidate? And if so, is he notable enough to include (The bio on that page, if all the details are true, would seem to suggest that he is. But you never know). FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 05:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

There's no page on Wikipedia by that name, so right now he is not notable and cannot be included. Ratemonth (talk) 14:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Deez Nuts is missing

Please put Deez Nuts on the page. He is an actual candidate who has gotten a lot of press and deserves to be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzntz16 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC) P.S. Here's his registration form with the f.e.c. http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg?_201507269000421490+0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzntz16 (talk • contribs) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

^^He is not in the main race, he does not need to be added into the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.19.84.221 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 1 December 2015‎ (UTC)

^^There are other candidates on the page who are also not in the "main race" so to speak, but they're there because they're candidates who are notable in some way or another. Deez Nuts is notable and an officially registered candidate who's gotten a lot of press coverage. His exclusion from the article indicates either an oversight or a bias (or possibly a little of both) on the part of Wikipedia editors. Whatever the case, this needs to be corrected by including him in independent candidates section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dzntz16 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Johnson and Cherney

Gary Johnson and Darryl Cherney have stated (for Johnson- for Cherney, look at his Facebook page ) that they'll both likely announce whether or not they'll run for President in January. Should we add them as announcement impending for their individual sections, or do nothing? This is a lot like when we added Joe Biden to the "Announcement Impending" section before he announced he wasn't going to run. We have a time period (January) with no specific event scheduled, but they themselves have stated this information. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

References