Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Amy Klobuchar Candidacy

Can we now add Klobuchar to announced candidates? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5V1WubFQvI Quvuq0737 (talk) 20:31, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

She's there. — JFG ^talk 16:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Wait for formal announcements

Several candidates have recently used rather ambiguous language about whether they are running or intend to run. At first I thought we should parse everyone's words carefully, but this is impractical - for example, now we have Gillibrand listed as announced and Gabbard as not, seemingly just because she is more prominent and has generated more headlines. Gillibrand has not formed a committee yet, let alone announced, and when she actually does that will generate even more headlines. I propose that from now on we only count formal announcements.--Pharos (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gillibrand does have an exploratory committee: [1]. This is why I've supported listing her in the "has exploratory committee" section. I think [2] is a non-exploratory committee. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. Gillibrand belongs in the exploring section. In all likelihood there will be an actual campaign kickoff at some point, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Jonathunder (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

On Colbert, Sen. Gillibrand said, "I'm going to run for president of the United States." That seems crystal clear. I do not see why that isn't enough of an announcement. SunCrow (talk) 05:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Filing papers with the FEC isn't a declaration of candidacy, it's simply bureaucracy. Going on TV in front of millions of people and saying "I am running for President" is a flat-out declaration of candidacy. She can later decide not to run, and never file the papers, but that's later and this is now. Right now, she is most certainly a declared candidate, and to say anything else flies in the face of both reality and (for us, more important) reliable sources. That's how we roll, folks, and this article needs conport with our core principles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Poor quality

This article has been overrun by fringe content and fails to identify the most significant declared candidates. Rather than arguing about what constitutes a declaration, list them and the words used by the reliable sources, "declared", "formed an exploratory committee", etc.

The dichotomy between major and minor seems contrived. If they are segmented, organize them by past position: senator, member of Congress, governor, and then everybody else. When polling is available, maybe it is already, order them by who has the highest rankings in the polls. This organization will be useful to the reader who wants to see the recognizable candidates first, and then the long shots. Jehochman ^Talk 16:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there!!!! welcome to show that never ends!!!! We have this argument every four years come heck or high water and this time's no different. However, the DNC will save us by laying out official criteria as to who's going to be allowed in the upcoming debates, due to start in June. The people not invited will be unable to get delegates. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Then in the meantime, we need to hget our house in order and not presume to decide who is and isn't major. It's imply not our function, and it violates core principles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

yeah, what beyond my ken said — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:F515:A516:2D46:3E8A:F110:38AC (talk) 02:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree,we have to list them,as how the reliable sources state,there is a difference between exploratory committee and running for president.Alhanuty (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Howard Schultz

Hello, I was reading an article in the Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/advisers-to-former-starbucks-ceo-howard-schultz-are-looking-at-him-running-as-an-independent-for-president-in-2020/2019/01/18/3e32aa72-1b5d-11e9-8813-cb9dec761e73_story.html) on Howard Schultz running as an independent, not a Democrat. Thanks --Benwitt (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)Benwitt (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2019 (2019)

• Thanks for the tip. I've added Schultz to the "Potential candidates" section at Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election. I haven't removed him from the "Speculative candidates" section here at 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, though, because the Post article (reprinted here) said Schultz "has kept open the option of running as a Democrat". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Chronological order

I'm bringing this to the talk page since my edits restoring the chronological order of candidates has been reverted in favour of, seemingly, alphabetical order. I think it's clear that chronological order is more appropriate and useful here, whereas alphabetical order is quite arbitrary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• It's a sortable table already. If readers want to look at the candidates by the order they declared their candidacy, they can click on "Announced". But considering that there are disputes on this page as to whether certain candidates have actually declared their candidacy yet, I think we are better off keeping the list alphabetical by default to reduce disputes about announcement dates. Readers are used to alphabetical lists. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There is no dispute about the announcement dates. I'm not saying there should be an ability for readers to order the list chronologically, that already exist. This is about who we give precedence to, and currently it's for candidates who simply have more alphabetical names even though other candidates have been candidates for longer. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Of course there is dispute about the announcement dates. Elsewhere on this page, some editors are in disagreement about whether Kirsten Gillibrand has already become a candidate or not. See #Include ALL Candidates who have Announced. So once Gillibrand has satisfied everyone that she has declared her candidacy, some will say it was before today and others will say after. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That's not a dispute about the date, that's a dispute over what date should be relevant. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

That means it's a dispute over which date to use. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Alpha order is the most neutral: keep that as default. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not neutral at all, it gives more prominence to people with certain surnames, even though there are people who started their campaigns earlier! Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

But why should we give more prominence to people who started their campaigns earlier? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Because they got there first, their campaigns have been going for longer, and they have been on this article for longer. The most typical way for a list to be written is that new entries go to the bottom, especially for events. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

"They got there first" and "their campaigns have been going for longer" are just two other ways of saying that they started their campaigns earlier, and "they have been on this article for longer" is just a consequence of that. None of that means that their candidacy deserves more prominence than other candidacies. And this article is not titled List of declarations of candidacies for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, which would be a list of events. The candidates sections of this article are lists of people, not events. Unlike, say, List of Presidents of the United States, knowing the order in which the 2020 candidates declared their candidacy isn't going to make much a difference in one's understanding of the campaign. (By the way, if you want to create an article titled List of declarations of candidacies for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination, I personally promise not to advocate for its deletion, although I can't speak for anyone else.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:27, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely about the events actually, that's why we have people arguing over when a candidate's campaign actually starts. The candidate and the event of their candidacy is completely linked. Alphabetical order is completely artificial here since lists where entries occur sequentially are added from the bottom, not into the middle of the list. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

pending changes

added because of recent socking.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this, it's an unfortunate necessity.--Pharos (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

I moved Angelina Jolie from "candidates having expressed interested" to the "speculative candidates" section,[3] and I was reverted by DaCashman.[4] Reading the sources, Jolie is not clearly expressing interest; she and the interviewer dance around the question. I consider that speculative. What do other editors think? — JFG ^talk 21:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

strong support She ain't running. Even if she did, she's not getting my vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morethanfours (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove altogether Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Revert to speculative. I wouldn't remove her completely from the page, but I vote to move back to the speculative section. In January of 2015, many people said Trump wouldn't run, but here we are. Political Geek (talk) 04:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump was in polls. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Trump was in polls in 1988 too: the archetypal celebrity candidate that people fantasize about but has "no chance" of being taken seriously. Which explains the amused reactions when he did announce his candidacy in 2015, and the mockery that kept going until he was the putative nominee one year later. Then mockery turned to fear, and we're still there. Jolie is at "Trump 1988" stage now. If she moves into the field, expect the same treatment as Trump got in 2015: excitement from her ideological base, and disparagement from the "well-thinking" crowd. — JFG ^talk 08:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Remove entirely The actual interview [5] says When asked whether she would consider getting involved in politics, she said: "If you asked me 20 years ago, I would've laughed" ... When Webb suggested that meant she could be on the list of 30 to 40 Democrats running for the party's presidential nomination, she did not say no, replying "thank you". The sources are lazy telephone tag by journalists puffing up a non-story. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

why was Gillibrand removed from the exploratory list

why was Gillibrand removed from the exploratory list,she announced that she has formed an exploratory committee,why was she removed from the list.Alhanuty (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

My suspicion is that she was added to the declared candidates, and then when she was removed from that categorization, she was never re-added to the exploratory committee section. I think it would be fine to add her back to the exploratory list. Jacoby531 (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Jacoby531

Pete Buttigieg

It is possible that Pete Buttigieg will declare. His "constituency" as mayor is comparable to Ojeda in populace. Yet there is a strong case to potentially include Pete as a "major" candidate. SecretName101 (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Announcement Videos

I think it would be good to include a link to the candidate's announcement video next to their FEC filing, campaign and website. A) It's a really good citation for their candidacy, and B) it's a good way to provide more information about the candidate without taking up much space at all. Squarebikes (talk) 17:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This is unnecessary as their is already a link to the candidates' websites and those websites have the announcement videos on their front page. TheSubmarine (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. By that logic, we should remove the "born" column, as well as the state column, as both of these are available by clicking on the candidate's name-link. IMO, adding the announcement video is useful and pertinent information for people who are interested in the campaigns. Squarebikes (talk) 20:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Include ALL Candidates who have Announced

What we are witnessing here is a ridiculous degree of formalism. Both Kirsten Gillibrand and Tulsi Gabbard have stated confidently and unambiguously that they are running for president. In Gillibrand's case, she never even said "expect a formal announcement soon." Her announcement on Colbert WAS a formal announcement. The only way you don't count that is if a formal announcement needs to be a big organized speech in front of a bunch of potential donors. Both candidates even launched websites asking for funds afterwards. I understand why Warren isn't on the list since she didn't actually say the magic words, but not including candidates who have said verbatim "I am running for president" is totally misleading. Wikipedia should be a place for actual information, not for official statuses. DaCashman (talk) 07:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

According to this from NPR, Gillabrand has announced that she is running. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The sources indicate Gillibrand has formed an exploratory committee [6], [7], so that's where she goes for now. Gabbard has an impending announcement [8], so that's where she currently goes. We go by what reliable sources say, not what we think. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Then why are we declaring "major" and "not major" candidates when reliable sources haven't said that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

400-500 candidates have filed for FEC. We need a system to sort between relevant candidates and irrelevant candidates. Wikipedia has decided that either past elected office or appearing in several polls qualifies. That's fine by me. That said, if I ran the show, I do think (based on Trump's ascendance) that we should include celebrity status as a qualifier for major status, in which more than one of the minor candidates would be promoted. DaCashman (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

David, my sources are Tulsi's CNN interview and Gillibrand's Colbert interview. Please do not use indirect ad hominem attacks. DaCashman (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

(User:DaCashman) My apologies for any attacks. Gillibrand states that she is forming an exploratory committee in the NPR interview: "Gillbrand announced her decision on CBS's The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, saying she is filing her exploratory committee for the White House on Tuesday evening." I see your point though, since the first sentence states: "New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand says she is running for president, joining a growing number of Democrats who are seeking to challenge President Trump in 2020." I think it's a question of which statement we give more weight to. I personally think she goes in the exploring category. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Famously, in 1996, Bill Clinton was "exploring" until three days before the Convention, well after the primaries were over. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

At WP:AN, you claimed that Republicans had cancelled the Iowa caucus & South Carolina primary. Would you bring this up at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries articles? I can't find any sources, where these cancellations occurred. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

There were several articles on South Carolina on December 21, and With there being an incumbent, ther wasn't one the last few cycles. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I found sources where the GOP are considering cancelling the SC primary. But haven't found any sources saying that they have cancelled it. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

So two sources say Gillbrand has formally announced (NPR and Colbert) while two (Vox and the NY Post) say she's launched an exploratory committee. Do either of the second two contend that she has not announced her intent to run? I'm uncertain why she's been excluded based on the information provided here. Simonm223 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The NPR source (and the Colbert source, indirectly) mention the exploratory committee: "Gillbrand announced her decision on CBS's The Late Show with Stephen Colbert, saying she is filing her exploratory committee for the White House on Tuesday evening." David O. Johnson (talk) 16:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should take exactly what the candidates say and make a decision based off that. Tulsi Gabbard said on CNN that she is running. Gillibrand announced she in forming an exploratory committee. They should each be moved to their respective sections based off of their own words. Political Geek (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Someone who has announced they will run is different to announcing that they are running. There is a category where they are 100% going to be candidates but they are not yet candidates. Anybody "forming an exploratory committee" should really be considered as being currently a candidate. This is not something that happens prior to being a candidate, it is one of the potential and early forms of candidacy. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about by semantics and formalism. DaCashman (talk) 06:02, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It's important to note who is running and who is only at the exploratory committee stage not least because of the legal differences. Some candidates (like Harris) just announce their candidacy, others are very careful to announce only their committee so they can get around transparency laws. That the media treats forming a committee and running for president (partly because of how candidates themselves use the committees) as synonymous is, in my opinion, irrelevant to what we're trying to accomplish. Squarebikes (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Where are the sources that said that Harris and Gabbard will announce today? (January 19th) I do see sources that Harris was scheduled to announce sometime this weekend, but no sources at all for when Gabbard is supposed to announce. Political Geek (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard plans to announce this week.--Pharos (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Including "firsts" in candidate campaign articles

Should we keep the "firsts" section in articles on different candidates campaigns? E.g. this article on Gabbard states: "If elected, Gabbard would become the first woman, Hindu, and Pacific Islander to ever serve as President of the United States. She would be 39 years old upon her inauguration in January 2021, which would make her the youngest president in history." It just seems like trivia to me. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it might be more appropriate for the 'Background' section. This type of information might also be relevant to other sections, particularly if the candidate is particularly attracting support from some communities.--Pharos (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda and Campaign HQs.

Keeping this simple and to-the-point: should we consider the "home state" column as where the candidate has held office or where the candidate's campaign is being run? When it comes to candidates with no government experience, we use the latter.

In almost all cases though, these are one and the same (Delaney HQ is in Bethesda, Maryland, etc). Richard Ojeda, however, has the complication of being a former State Senator from West Virginia, while his campaign headquarters is located in Washington, D.C.

I'm in favor of listing DC over WV. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the "home state" of the candidate, not the campaign. West Virginia is where he would have an advantage in the primary, as well as in the general if it came to that, and future American schoolchildren would certainly be taught that President Ojeda's "home state" was West Virginia.--Pharos (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the home state should be where the candidate maintains their residence. Note that a candidate could have moved from the state where they had held office; for example, Richard Nixon was elected to the House and Senate from California, but by the time he ran for President in 1968, he was a resident of New York. In the case of Ojeda, the fact that he maintains his campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C. doesn't necessarily mean he has taken up residence there. He might have his campaign workers based in Washington while he himself might keep his residence in West Virginia and spend much of his time campaigning in other states. It might be easier to attract campaign workers from other states to work in DC than in WV. That said, if we later learn that Ojeda has moved away from WV, we can update his information. But given that he was serving in the WV legislature until earlier this week, I wouldn't think he had moved out of the state yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree withe you on Ojeda, but someone like Nixon was the favorite son of California, and that seems much more politically relevant than his interlude in New York.--Pharos (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Pharos here. In a theoretical victory scenario, Ojeda would be defined by his West Virginian roots and, in the campaign, would play it up. I think Ojeda would also, if asked, say that his home state is West Virginia, not DC. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Isn't residence a legal status? And that should be what defines "home state". For instance, Obama was born in Hawaii, but his home state was Illnois, where he was Senator and lived, but I'm fairly sure his campaign office HQ was DC, because as Metropolitan90 says, that makes more logistical sense. Similarly, it would be a bit silly to put Sen Harris' home state as "Maryland" because her HQ is likely to be in Baltimore. Squarebikes (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Ojeda was a member of the WVa state legislature when he announced. That should be all the proof we needArglebargle79 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Word has it a number of candidates (not from Maryland) are considering it for their campaign HQs. Hillary Clinton (of NY) in 2008 made Virginia the location of her campaign HQ. Gary Johnson (of NM) made Utah the site of his 2016 campaign HQ. Did not change the status of their home states one bit. SecretName101 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Stop bolding 'former' offices held.

Can we please STOP BOLDING offices that they no longer hold? GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It looks kind of silly to have some candidates have bolded offices and others not just because they're incumbents. I'm a fan of the last consensus that was made a while back on the issue: major offices* are bolded, failed campaigns aren't.

"Major offices," as I outlined in an edit summary, were defined as follows:

President, Cabinet or Cabinet-level officials, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governors of states, and Mayors of the 100 largest cities by population (New York City to Des Moines). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge "Major Candidates" and "Exploratory Committee"

We can't seem to get the difference (if there is one) straight; both types of candidates repeatedly refer to running for president. I propose we merge the two, and use a column (with shading) to indicate that it is nominally an exploratory committee that is open. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

This actually seems like a good idea to me given that there isn't really any legal meaning behind the term "exploratory committee" anyway and such individuals are generally considered as de facto running already – but don't you mean row shading (by candidate) rather than column shading? Mélencron (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I meant only shading the one cell that say "exploratory committee", not the entire row. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hmm – I was thinking of just adding a {{legend}} above the table and applying the background color by row instead of adding an additional column. Mélencron (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't be my first choice, but if other people want to shade the whole row that's fine. The "Announced" column seems like an obvious existing place to say "Exploratory Committee". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Here's my proposed implementation:

with exploratory committees

Formed exploratory committee without officially declaring candidacy Name Born Experience State Announced Ref Julian Castro September 16, 1974 (age 49) San Antonio, Texas U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (2014–2017) Mayor of San Antonio, Texas (2009–2014) Texas January 12, 2019 (Campaign • Website) FEC filing John Delaney April 16, 1963 (age 61) Wood-Ridge, New Jersey U.S. Representative from MD-06 (2013–2019) Maryland July 28, 2017 (Campaign • Website) FEC filing Tulsi Gabbard April 12, 1981 (age 43) Leloaloa, American Samoa U.S. Representative from HI-02 (2013–present) Hawaii January 11, 2019 (Campaign • Website) FEC filing Kirsten Gillibrand December 9, 1966 (age 57) Albany, New York U.S. Senator from New York (2009–present) U.S. Representative from NY-20 (2007–2009) New York January 15, 2019 (Campaign • Website) FEC filing Kamala Harris October 20, 1964 (age 59) Oakland, California U.S. Senator from California (2017–present) Attorney General of California (2011–2017) Attorney General of San Francisco (2004–2011) California January 21, 2019 (Campaign • Website) Richard Ojeda September 25, 1970 (age 53) Rochester, Minnesota West Virginia State Senator (2016–2019) Democratic nominee for U.S. Representative from WV-03 in 2018 West Virginia November 11, 2018 File:Ojeda's presidential campaign.png (Campaign • Website) FEC filing Elizabeth Warren June 22, 1949 (age 74) Oklahoma City, Oklahoma U.S. Senator from Massachusetts (2013–present) Special Advisor for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2010–2011) Chair of the Congressional Oversight Panel (2008–2010) Massachusetts December 31, 2018 (Campaign • Website) FEC filing

Mélencron (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks good. Go for it and see if it sticks. It might stop some of the bouncing back and forth between declared and exploratory edit wars. Jonathunder (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the list looks very good. And it'll make it easier to change later on down the road. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that combined layout is much clearer and less misleading regarding who actually is a candidate. Hopefully it sticks. PaperKooper (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I think this helps make it look less messy. However, I'd make a couple of minor suggestions. Firstly, to denote the ongoing nature of the process, can we make it "Formed exploratory committee but has not officially declared their candidacy*" rather than "Formed exploratory committee without officially declaring candidacy". The past tense of the current phrase suggests to me that the candidates highlighted have left the race, at first glance. Secondly, can we move all the ones in this category to the bottom, rather than keep them in alphabetical order, so as to better separate them and make it easier to follow? Squarebikes (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Alphabetical order is best. Otherwise it's confusing for the reader and looks arbitrary. Jonathunder (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the "announced" dates from several who who will likely announce in the next week, and for whom we would have to replace the dates soon anyway.--Pharos (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I like it! Nice.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Please change "Declared Major Candidates" to something else ("Major Candidates" perhaps?). Forming an exploratory committee and declaring are two different things. spryde | talk 16:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Mélencron: FWIW, I approve your suggestion and proposed layout. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Oscar De La Hoya

Are these not "announcements" that Oscar De La Hoya is running, and that he should be put under declared minor candidates rather than publicly expressed interest? SCC California (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Unless he has campaign staff, is making campaign appearances, or has filed FEC paperwork, a single statement (possibly off-the-cuff, possibly an intentional falsehood to generate press coverage) isn't enough to be listed as running. He doesn't even say he's running. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:12, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

McRaven home state

Does anyone have a source for McRaven’s home state? He has chancellor of UT Austin and now is a professor there so best I can tell Texas is right. ObieGrad (talk) 10:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Julian Castro/Julián Castro

This issue of spelling Castro's name with or without a diacritic is the subject of a discussion on Talk:Julian Castro, which would determine how we spell his name on this and other articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Speculative candidates

I intend to remove the speculative candidates subsection since it's been thoroughly depopulated of anybody seriously considering to be a candidate for the nomination, let alone winning the nomination. Since this article is only going to get bigger, we do not need useless information that extends the size of this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Works for me. SunCrow (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Maybe wait a few months? Media still hae a bunch of people they are speculating about and who haven't denied. — JFG ^talk 23:51, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

It used to include people like Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris, but now it's just irrelevant people. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not up for us Wikipedians to decide who is relevant or not. Under that standard, we would remove all the "fringe" candidates as well, and there is no support for that. I believe the criteria of "RS speculation within the last 6 months" is a practical and neutral yardstick; we should stick to that. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

It's not based on my standards of relevancy, it's relevancy from reliable sources. It used to be potential candidates that reliable sources found relevant, but since they've all moved into either considering candidacy or have ruled it out, it's a non-notable section that remains. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree in part, but Mitch Landrieu and Steve Bullock are both mid/top tier Democrats that mainstream news is speculating about. See this 538 piece for instance.

I don't think it matters much whether we keep this category, so I wouldn't mind removing it, but it still contains people who may run and could win or do well. Squarebikes (talk) 10:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Should we move Bernie Sanders to the persons with an announcment section,due that he is going to announce his candidacy

Source:https://news.yahoo.com/bernie-sanders-set-announce-2020-presidential-run-234647684.html.Alhanuty (talk) 01:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

The 5 poll threshold, continued

I'm updating my prior list. This is through the Morning Consult poll of Jan. 18-22, 2019.

Included in at least 5 polls: Michael Avenatti, Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Steve Bullock, Julian Castro, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, John Delaney, Eric Garcetti, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, John Hickenlooper, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, Beto O'Rourke, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Howard Schultz, Elizabeth Warren, Oprah Winfrey.

4 polls: Tulsi Gabbard, Jay Inslee, Tom Steyer.

3 polls: Michelle Obama, Mark Zuckerberg.

2 polls: Mitch Landrieu, Gavin Newsom.

1 poll: Mark Cuban, Bill de Blasio, Al Franken, Jason Kander, Tim Kaine, Joe Kennedy III, Chris Murphy, Richard Ojeda, Eric Swalwell.

Note: Where a poll was split (with and without a particular candidate), I only counted it once for the candidates included in both parts of the split (example: the Emerson College poll of Jan. 20-21, 2019). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

For what purpose is this threshold? As more polls are released, the threshold should increase. The other measure to use for criteria is the results of the poll for each candidates. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:54, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

It should probably increase eventually, and at some point probably be dependent on getting something like at least 5% support in a poll, or something like that. I don't think we're close to that stage yet. Also, at that point we would probably drop merely holding public office as a qualifier without sufficient poll support.--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90: Do you count the many 0% results? Does that mean that the pollster included the candidate on the list, but less than 0.5% chose that option? Also, are you sure that our list of independent national polls is comprehensive?--Pharos (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I have been counting the 0% results toward the 5-poll threshold, and they do mean that the pollster included the candidate and less than 0.5% chose the person. On the one hand, I can't be sure that our list of independent national polls is comprehensive. On the other hand, it seems like every time I see a new national poll reported, someone has already added it to Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries by the next time I look at that article, so it seems like there are several editors actively trying to keep that page up to date and get every relevant poll in. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

California State Senators Scott Wiener, Bill Dodd; California State Assemblymember David Chiu, Wendy Carillo, Cecilia Aguiar-Curry, Kevin McCarty, Jacqui Irwin, Jose Medina and Congressman Ted Lieu endorsed Harris. Lemonzested (talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

One moment, I'll take care of this. Mélencron (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

Please remove the "Ken Nwadike Jr." row from Other declared candidates under Democratic Party under Nominations because he is not a notable candidate (no presence in polls, news; no significant discussion to be found outside of own social media. Wikipedia page also seems written by the candidate themselves). I suspect this is a self-insert. Vimorse (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• The people in this section aren't notable as candidates; if they were, they would be included in the upper section. Candidates in this section are notable in some other area (hence they already have Wikipedia pages) and also are running for president. AWiseishGuy (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Major candidates who have withdrawn

Can we narrow the table for "Major candidates who have withdrawn"? While on some monitors it may look fine, on mine it requires scrolling right to see the whole table. We could do this by decreasing the width of some of the images in the table. (I am asking here to comply with the revert limits and get some support for the idea.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

•  This has been dealt with. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

• Shouldn't this just be "Withdrawn candidates"? There is a grand total of one such candidate now, and most of the "minor" candidates will probably never bother to withdraw till the end, because they don't have a significant staff to keep up anyway.--Pharos (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard candidature

@David O. Johnson: So can you explain to me why my edits were undone? And where your consensus is? We have an article for her campaign, sources with her stating "I'm running for president", a campaign website, an FEC filing, and what appears to be consensus from editors. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

She hasn't made the mentioned official announcment yet; it's still pending. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Why is an "official announcement" necessary? She stated that she's running, has launched her campaign website, filed with the FEC, and the media is considering her as already announced. The section is for "declared major candidates", she has declared her candidacy. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 06:50, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I move that she should be considered as declared. Same for Gillibrand btw. The focus on a putative "official announcement" is undue. Some people may announce "I'm running for President" on Twitter these days. If they also check the boxes at FEC + campaign website + RS coverage, they are in effect candidates. — JFG ^talk 08:20, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

While I certainly agree for Gabbard, my thoughts on Gillibrand are more mixed. In her announcement, she says "I'm filing an exploratory committee for president". It cannot be more clear than that. I think the media is simply misinterpreting what she said and saying that "exploratory committee = running", which is not always the case. After Warren's announcement of an exploratory committee the media declared her a candidate, even though it's clear she's just exploring. So for Gillibrand I'd wait until she makes it crystal clear and her candidature is 100% official. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree that Gabbard should be listed as declared; an "official launch"/campaign rollout is only a formality for candidates, and we consider candidates who maintain such a position to be declared candidates, as with Dick Durbin in Illinois; I like this explainer on the subject – if a candidate has confirmed they're running, they should be considered as declared, regardless of whether they have yet to make an "official announcement" about it. We don't use "official announcements" to determine whether candidates are declared on downballot races, so the logic shouldn't be different on presidential articles. Mélencron (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's a huge deal, because Gabbard will formally announce in a few days (in fact she was supposed to announce on Saturday). When she does, I do feel the new date should g in the "Announced" column to match the their candidates. I also think it might be profitable to start a campaign announcement article.--Pharos (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, we know what all that was about now, thanks to Politico: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/01/29/tulsi-gabbard-2020-election-1134055 Mélencron (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2019

On this page under the 'Endorsements' section, under 'Kamala Harris,' activist and actor Ron Pearlman needs to be added as a supporter in the 'other' category. He has publicly expressed his endorsement on both Twitter and in subsequent news and TV interviews. LetsGetDiverse (talk) 19:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

•  This has been dealt with. MrVenaCava (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Speculative vs interested

Sock talk. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure what the substantive difference is between these two classifications --AndInSecondPlace (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC) "Interested" means that the person themself said they would be interested in running for president. "Speculative" means that other people say the person might run for president. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Doesn't sound like a meaningful distinction. Let's merge them! --AndInThirdPlace (talk) 17:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Are you socks of AndInFirstPlace ?David O. Johnson (talk) 17:54, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Yes, both are socks and have been blocked. Hatting. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2019

Cory Booker needs to be added to 'Declared Major Candidates' section. He has announced his candidacy, as of February 1 2019. GibbNotGibbs (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth's Warren Campaign Announcement

https://www.theroot.com/presidential-hopeful-elizabeth-warren-announces-major-a-1832250734 I think we can expect this to be her campaign announcement? ans=no

Quvuq0737 (talk) 07:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in the "Declared major candidates..." section and the "Timeline" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Move Landrieu to declined

Mitch Landrieu should be moved to declined per his recent interview.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/428696-mitch-landrieu-on-2020-campaign-i-dont-think-im-going-to-do-it "Former New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu (D) Wednesday poured cold water on speculation that he might run for president in 2020.

“I don’t think so. A lot of people have asked me that. I never say never, but at this point in time, I don’t think I’m going to do it,” Landrieu said on CNN when asked if he would launch a White House bid." 129.246.254.12 (talk) 15:49, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

He has not unequivocally declined to run, but I think that the declined section is the best/most truthful section to put him in (possibly with a note). We can always move him up in the future if necessary. SCC California (talk) 19:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Tulsi Gabbard, David Duke.

The David Duke endorsement is false and needs to be corrected. She's samoan and has spent the last two years disavowing any and all endorsements he tries to give her. Satsugai89 (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

An Endorsement is still an Endorsement,David Duke endorsed Trump in 2016,and his endorsement stayed on the list of endorsements.Alhanuty (talk) 01:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

David Duke should be removed from Gabbard's endorsements as he has written a blog post on February 6th literally entitled "No! I Did Not Endorse Tulsi Gabbard for President." Imnotyouok (talk) 06:10, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

References

Endorsements for Elizabeth Warren

can i return the endorsements for Elizabeth Warren.Alhanuty (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2019

Cherie DeVille was a candidate who withdrew. She is as serious as half the list of potentials and withdrawals. I am not a fan of Fox News, but they are a legitimate news source. She doesn't have a Wikipedia article because no one has made it yet. Great use of circular logic to keep her out.

She was newsworthy enough to make the news, and she is more legit that some of these other randos.

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/porn-star-ends-her-17-month-campaign-to-get-on-dem-ticket-for-2020-presidential-election Danielbgrossberg (talk) 01:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• If they are not notable enough to have a wikipedia page, they are not listed on this page AWiseishGuy (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

SHE DOES HAVE A WIKIPEDIA PAGE:

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherie_DeVille

And here is another article about her. You guys are just being sexist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danielbgrossberg (talk • contribs) 16:31, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

If she does not have a page on the English version of Wikipedia, there is probably not enough WP:Notability about this person. But you can try to create her article if you have good sources. — JFG ^talk 22:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 January 2019

Senator Gillibrand had an endorsement from a woman named Kyla Paterson whom is a party official for the Iowa Democratic Party in Des Moines, Iowa on January 19th. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/darrensands/kirsten-gillibrand-just-got-her-first-endorsement-in-iowa

Kirsten Gillibrand

Iowa Democratic Party officials

• Kyla Paterson, Iowa Democratic Party State Central Committee member, chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party Stonewall Caucus

Ipeirdhh (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

• I believe the tradition is that for people to be listed as having endorsed a candidate, they must meet WP:BIO (a.k.a. have a Wikipedia page). MrVenaCava (talk) 03:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Timeline

Is it just in my computer or the timeline is looking awkward? Almost all of the vertical lines are a bit buggy. - Sarilho1 (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

@Sarilho1: what's "buggy" about the vertical lines? Looks good to me, but I'd be happy to help if there's an issue on some devices. What's your OS and browser? — JFG ^talk 22:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Interesting. I'm not able to reproduce the problem. The top of the vertical lines instead of ending there, where being stretched to the beginning of the timeline, like if there was another point there. I just opened the page on my usual browsers (I believe I was using Chrome on Linux at the time) on the version before I've made the comment and I'm not seeing the same bugs. Maybe there was some software update on my part, but the problem is solved. I mean, the timeline doesn't appear on the mobile version, but that's a different problem. Thanks for the help, anyway! - Sarilho1 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

Move Bennett to the "Speculative" candidates section. The sources provided do not back up his inclusion in "publicly expressed interest" section, especially if you watch the entire media clip. Squarebikes (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Squarebikes (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Would this Yahoo News story (where he says "I am thinking about it") to be enough for expressed interest? power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I would err on the side of "yes" in this instance. However, this should be one of the citations as the others do not back up the claim. Good find! Squarebikes (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. DannyS712 (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Speculative candidates section

This has been brought up before but I don't think any real consensus has ever been found. Do we really need the speculative candidates section? Last year when real contenders were still silent on potential bids I can understand the section, but now it's just filled with a handful of people who have a 99.999% chance of not running for president. Each person is only fueled by like 3 sources who said they could run. What is the significance or relevance of this. If they announce a campaign (which they probably won't) or publicly express interest in running, they can be moved to the other sections, but why is there a section needed for just a few people (some of which aren't even politicians) who just a handful of people in the media wrote articles about them possibly running, even though they've said nothing about it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I think the section should be maintained, but perhaps the speculation rules should now be reduced from six to three months now that people are announcing. Even going by the six month rule, the sources about McRaven are already about that old and he should be removed. Of the seven people listed there, only Moulton, de Blasio, and Bullock are from this year, while Kerry (though from this year) only has the one article saying he hasn't taken it off the table but he's also not doing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:2468:2075:6927:9E9E (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also in favor of changing the criterion to three months (or maybe even less). Serious speculation would be near-constant, not generated from one event and dying out a few weeks later, even if that event was (like in McRaven's case) 4.5 months ago. SCC California (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm also in favor of this change, especially given that the pace of reporting has significantly accelerated in the last couple months. Mélencron (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree to consider that any speculation not renewed for 3 months is stale. — JFG ^talk 21:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done. I went ahead and removed McRaven, and adjusted age requirement to three months. — JFG ^talk 22:32, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

If we are married to the format of including the dates of both the launch of an exploratory campaign (for those who formally had one) and an official campaign announcement/launch date for candidates (which I am all for, by the way), then we should include the same information for Marianne Williamson's candidacy. SecretName101 (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

idea

Can we create separate sections for candidates likely to declare versus unlikely to declare? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yang2020 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

How might we determine who is likely or unlikely without violating WP :NOR?--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:51, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

"Declined to endorse"

Other election articles feature a box for individuals or organizations that refuse to endorse any of the available candidates in a race. There are a few liberal public figures that have publicly stated that they're remaining neutral (at least for now) such as Alyssa Milano and Peter Daou. Notably, Richard Ojeda has said he's not endorsing anyone. I think it's worth including but both times I've added the segment, it's been removed. Yay or nay? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

There are literally thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of "liberal public figures" in the US that have't endorsed anyone, and won't anytime soon. I say nay.--Pharos (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature. I'm sure more candidates will announce in the coming weeks and this is only the very early stages of campaigning. It's not surprising many figures are not endorsing someone. When we get to a nominee and these liberal figures still choose not to endorse them, then that is something major, but right now it's irrelevant and will likely change in the future. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that we list literally every single person that hasn't endorsed someone. I'm saying that certain people are taking the position of staying neutral. Nancy Pelosi, for example, has said that she won't be endorsing anyone in the primaries. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Angelina Jolie

Since Angelina Jolie hasn't had a public office and has not been included in 5 national polls (unlike Oprah), shouldn't we remove her from the speculative section? I am here to contribute (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Inclusion in the speculative section doesn't require a person to have held public office or to be included in 5 national polls. Those requirements only apply to the "declared major candidates and exploratory committees" section. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Delaney logo

I don't have the skills to do this, but would it be possible for someone to make a png version of John Delaney's logo without a background? It has been this way for a while, while others' logos have been converted. Thanks. SCC California (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

You can post a request at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop. They're usually happy to help. — JFG ^talk 16:42, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks; I'll do that. SCC California (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

The DNC is going to make some announcements, and how we should respond

According to various emails I got in the last couple of days, the DNC is having its winter meeting starting today, and they're going to announce both who's getting the Convention and qualifications for inclusion in the spring and summer debates during Friday's general meeting. I've read rumors as to what these qualifications are and how many people are going to be invited (a couple of sources say a maximum of two groups of eight, leaving the rest out in the cold, but this may just be a "lets put this up the flag pole' type thing), and as it's not official we can't put the qualifications up yet.

However...we should adopt these qualifications, whatever they are, and revive the separate articles on both the candidates and the debates, as this new information will change all sort of things.

So wadda'ya think? Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The usual: wait until their announcements, and then see how they should impact the article. No rush to speculate. — JFG ^talk 17:46, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Now that they've made it, what do we do?Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There's plenty of sourcing for the debate qualifications and schedules. I'm not sure it's enough for a stand-alone article; I expect we will have about 2 paragraphs once it is updated. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Recreating the Democratic debates article

Hi,

Now that there are solid details about the upcoming debates (here, for example): [9] should we recreate the 2020 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums article? I didn't want to jump the gun and have my edits reverted. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:TOOSOON. Let's wait until some debates are actually scheduled and some participants named. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They have been tentatively scheduled and those who've WE have declared major candidates meet all the criterion listed. So we have some participants named (the DNC has newsletters on the subject), and a tentative date for the first one (mid-June). As to WP:TOOSOONj, well, it's only FOUR months away. This isn't 2012 or 2016, the DNC is going to make this as open as practicable. We can make a decent looking stub that should be presentable. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Let's take a vote: I vote yes.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• No let's write the content here first. Until we have 4 paragraphs of content there's no reason to consider splitting it off. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:49, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• No. I don't think there's enough content for an article yet. I'm not sure if the DNC newsletters meet RS, anyways. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:50, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
• Not yet. Right now we have enough for a section at this article, so let's do that. When it becomes a lot more meaty, more detailed, with a lot more mainstream media coverage, we can split it off into a separate article. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Combine candidates into one section

"Declared major candidates" & "Other declared candidates", should be combined as one "Declared candidates". It's suppose to be an even playing field for the presidential nomination. See how it's done at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article. GoodDay (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• strong agree --AndInFirstPlace 03:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC) Blocked for socking and per WP:NOTHERE. — JFG ^talk 20:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disagree There's a good reason for separating the candidates as such. A lot of somewhat random people run with little shot of winning, and so its useful to seperate out notable contenders from minor candidates to improve clarity. This will be especially important in a year when a large number of people are expected to run. I'm not sure what your point is with the 2020 Republicans page is, since there's only one declared candidate. --pluma♫ ♯ 04:37, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Best to let the caucuses & primaries decide as to who gets the Democratic prez nomination. When he announced his candidacy in mid-2015, who would've predicted Trump winning the 2016 Republican prez nomination. GoodDay (talk) 04:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agree.

Metalreflectslime (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

AndInFirstPlace Can you revert this change until we come to an agreement here first? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Disagree. The field of serious candidates is going to be big enough in the first place without cluttering things up by adding fringe figures. SunCrow (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strong agree Wikipedia can not neutrally decide who is a major candidate and who is not, especially not this early in the contest where WP:RECENTISM is a major problem. Let's just keep declared candidates into one section with the option to split out major candidates at such time as multiple reliable sources begin to identify them. Simonm223 (talk) 14:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Disagree. There are over two hundred people out there who've sent the relevant paperwork to the FEC, and all but four or five (as of now) will be forbidden to attend debates or elect delegates (Lawrence Lessig last time and a bunch of others in 2012). The 'five polls" or "elected official" rule will serve for now. The DNC will have official critirea by the middle of next month.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  So your argument against inclusion for separating out arbitrarily selected candidates based on WP:SYNTH criteria is WP:ITSHARD to be inclusive of all relevant candidates? Simonm223 (talk) 16:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

  no, I'm just saying that the rule from last time worked rather well and should be continued until we have the official criteria from the DNC. THEN we go with that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree. AWiseishGuy I agree with keeping the current segmentation. In 2016, there were 15+ serious GOP candidates plus fringe candidates. There will likely be even more than that this time for Dems and it would be overwhelming to include all declared candidates in one table —Preceding undated comment added 19:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly Agree. Until a reliable source uses the word "Major" with that list, it's a simple list of declared candidates for now. Things will naturally sort themselves out over the next few months but for now there should be a single list in Wikipedia's voice. Only those who have an article should be listed anyway. spryde | talk 20:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disagree. The criteria for the Major candidates section is very clear, objective and has made accurate distinctions in the past. It's pretty safe to say that most of the people featured in the Minor candidates section (with the possible exception of Yang) will not seriously impact the presidential primaries. - EditDude (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• We have no business setting criteria such as that. We can determine notability for articles, but that's an internal matter -- this is completely external, and every candidate that Wikipedia decides is "major" is given a leg up over those who are not. That's simply not our business, not our place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
  • There were "major" and non-"major" candidates in the primary elections before Wikipedia even existed. I think we would be doing a disservice to Wikipedia readers outside the United States to make it seem like Michael E. Arth, Ken Nwadike Jr., and Robby Wells are under significant consideration for the Democratic presidential nomination. We should be reporting who already has a leg up based on objective criteria. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strong agree - Not doing so is a violation of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. We have no business determing who is a major candidate and who is not, that should be determined by reliable sources, who we should then cite. Stick all the declared candidates into a simply list, sans images, logos, URLs etc., and when an RS syas that they are a "major candidate", add that person to a "Major candidate" list with all the bells and whistles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly agree - "Major" is a value based on arbitrary criteria and, as we've seen, even candidates not taken very seriously at first can later have a big impact. Let the primary process sort them out. Schazjmd (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disagree but compromise – Use a header such as "Candidates who are holding/ have held an elected office" as a replacement for "Declared major candidates" while keeping the "Other declared candidates" section. I believe that using "Declared major candidates" is misleading. However, it is also not beneficial to include all candidates together, especially since the list will possibly grow to >30 and candidates who are elected before have an evident edge over other candidates. Wpeneditor (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree unless we also remove candidates like Yang who are not treated as serious by reliable sources. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree Reliable sources do not treat all candidates as equal, and neither should we. It's a disservice to our readers not to reflect the difference between major and minor candidates in some way, especially as there are likely to be 20 or so major candidates this year. The public office criterion is imperfect, but it will soon be de facto replaced by the five polls criterion (or some variant).--Pharos (talk) 04:17, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree per Pharos's rationale; the equivalency of candidates should not be drawn simply based on a small minority of sources which extensively list every candidate as opposed to certain ones selectively. (This also serves as a reminder that Wikipedia periodically serves as a point of reference for journalists and folks in the media as well.) Mélencron (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Disagree, obviously, not all candidates are equivalent, and sources do reflect this distinction. As an aside, could everyone tone it down with the Strong feelings? — JFG ^talk 08:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I mean in my case the strong feeling is motivated by what I see as Wikipedia using WP:SYNTH to favour a subset of declared candidates over the rest. Simonm223 (talk) 14:53, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly disagree The page would quickly become a joke if all candidates are treated equally. It's not the job of Wikipedia to assess candidates likeliness of success, but that's not what these categories are about. They are about who is currently getting the press attention, donations, support in polls, holding campaign events etc etc. Separating candidates by Major, Minor, Other is the only real way to make the page a) usable and b) manageable. I suggested above a definition for "major" to be based on federal office etc, and "minor" can be included in one national poll, held state office, and maybe one or two other criteria. Other is candidates who have filed with the FEC - statements based on social media shoudln't really count... Squarebikes (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

But that could be effected by whether they're ranked as a major or minor candidate on this page. If someone was excited about, say, Yang but saw he was listed as a minor candidate on wikipedia, they might be less likely to donate to him than if they were presented him on equal footing with any other candidate (the same goes for all the potential nominees) --Are Jay Morrison (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

How is that not WP:SYNTH? Simonm223 (talk) 17:47, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

It may well be. I'm not comfortable parsing what is and isn't synth because I'm not 100% sure I fully understand it. However, I think this could be a place for WP:IAR because without clearly defined categories, there will never be agreement about who is and isn't a major candidate.Squarebikes (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

• Strongly Disagree: The fact of the matter is that not all candidates are created equally. Kamala Harris is in no way, shape, or form on the same level as Robby Wells or Ken Nwadike Jr.. It would simply be confusing to readers seeing every candidate treated the same regardless of their likelihood of winning the nomination. If the media begins treating Wells or Nwadike Jr. as a major candidate on the same level as Harris, Cory Booker, or Amy Klobuchar, then so be it. But the truth is they're not, and we shouldn't pretend that they are. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
• Strongly agree: everyone has a chance until enough people say they don't. The frontrunners already have plenty of allies to make major / minor distinctions for them. They don't need our help. The fact that our article has to immediately define a five poll threshold to defend our use of the word "major" is a hint that it should never have been there in the first place. Connor Behan (talk) 03:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Order of people in the endorsements section

What exactly is the order for people in each individual endorsements section? There doesn't seem to be a clear format (e.g. in one section "Zaragoza" would be first and followed by "Ying", but in other sections, "Alvarado" would be first). David O. Johnson (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

They probably were initially alphabetical but as new endorsements were added, they were just added at the bottom. I think they should be in alphabetical order but it'll be time consuming to fix each one. AWiseishGuy (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's done. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

There actually was a reason for this. @IOnlyKnowFiveWords: said "Yes. It makes more sense to list elected officials by their office rather than their name. The "State legislators" segment has Senators and Assemblymembers from different states all jumbled up. This would also hypothetically put a Joe Biden endorsement above a Barack Obama endorsement. It gives a clearer picture of where a candidate's support is coming from." on February 7 undoing my alphabetizing of endorsements. I disagreed, but dropped it because I didn't want to get into an edit war. I don't like their logic, and we can always divvy up "state legislators" and into "state representatives" and "state senators," in addition to subcategorizing those into individual states. Alphabetizing is the only sane way to list endorsements. IOnlyKnowFiveWords's way makes it nigh impossible to surmise where to put new endorsements and certainly does not "make it clearer where a candidate's support is coming from". It's high time we got a consensus on this anyway. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:24, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your solution would lead to there being an overabundance of subcategories of endorsements. Having State legislators -> California -> State Representatives just to get to 1 endorsement is ludicrous. You may notice that in more conventional lists of legislative bodies that they're not in alphabetical order. Similarly, governors are listed alphabetically by state (Alabama to Wyoming). If we're listing a bunch of officeholders, I feel this is the best organizational way to go about it. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No more ludicrous than listing people in any way that isn’t alphabetical by surname. Your wp:otherstuffexists argument doesn’t hold water; on articles about state legislative bodies, it makes sense to list them in the order of their districts. In every other circumstance (like endorsement lists!), state legislators are listed alphabetically. Likewise, it makes sense that the article about state governors is in alphabetical by state. Articles about state legislatures and governors are about the offices, not the people who hold them. Endorsements are made by people. This may sound like semantics, but it’s a crucial difference. One is a list of offices and their holders, the other is a list of people who hold an office. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

If it's just a list of people, why not do away with the categories in the first place and just list everybody alphabetically? It's because the offices they hold do, in fact, matter and should be organized. Listing by office gives the endorsements a sense of structure, rather than a loose pile of names. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Keep burning that straw man, dude. I never said it was "just a list of people." I said it was a "list of people who hold an office." The office is important, but it's not the most important thing. Regardless, Right now the lists are a loose pile of names, and have no obvious structure. Lists should be organized; categorized by office seniority (i.e., executive branch people first, local officials last) and in those categories, an alphabetical list of names. I would even oppose including "State Senator for 231st District" or whatever. Just say "California State Senator". MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above, mostly by merit of the fact that all downballot articles follow this practice (alphabetical regardless of the state/district number of the endorser and omitting the exact district numbers at the state legislative level); the presidential election articles are the exception in this regard, with the differences between presidential/downballot articles at least somewhat a result of editors on these sets of articles differing. Mélencron (talk) 05:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Those who have served in public office are ordered by their office (for example: President, then Vice President, or CA-34 before CA-53). Individuals and organizations are in alphabetical order, as there is no pre-existing sorting method (not until the numbers increase where we can possibly separate by "actors," "musicians," "business leaders," etc). I'd argue it's much better to sort by office, especially considering the number of state legislators that've endorsed: separating by district and state makes more sense than by last name. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

The person serving in CA-34 and the person CA-53 are equals, though, unlike the President and Vice President. Alphabetical by surname is how we've always listed endorsements on every election page, and, on a personal note, it's the only listing that doesn't give me a tension headache from trying to figure out who's who. We can always have "US Presidents" and "US Vice Presidents" categories in the endorsement boxes anyway. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Having a category for offices with 5 and 6 living people respectively who've held them is pointless, since only 3 of each office are Democrats (Carter, Clinton, and Obama in the former - Mondale, Gore, and Biden for the latter). Especially since one of them has already endorsed and one of them might be running... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We don’t need the categories until they endorse someone (and Gore, Carter, Obama and Clinton are not endorsing until the primaries are over regardless). You’re the one who brought up Presidents and Veeps on the first place. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 14:54, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

We are approaching the point where we will need to fork the endorsements section. Endorsements that aren't either the subject of significant coverage (eg. if Oprah Winfrey endorses someone, it will be a news story in multiple newspapers) or by high-profile elected officials (members of Congress, etc.) probably shouldn't be here. The flood of Twitter "I support this candidate" statements from B-list actors, etc. definitely shouldn't be here; we can't have 5000 endorsements on this page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Hillary had two separate pages for her endorsements in 2016 (List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign political endorsements and List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements). Where the endorsements were listed alphabetically. I think we should keep political endorsements here, and full endorsements on individual campaign articles. Again, alphabetically ordered. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:12, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that the article you're pointing to has the segment for Presidents and Vice Presidents listed by office, then seniority... until it doesn't. For Presidents it goes: Carter, Bush, Clinton, Obama, which is by seniority. Vice Presidents for whatever reason are listed as followes: Gore, Mondale, Biden. This is not alphabetical or by seniority so I don't know what's going on there. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Yang (polling)

Based on the 538 tracker [10], two polls in the last two days have included Yang: one by Change Research, and one by McLaughlin. I'm not sure he's at "5 national polls", but it's clear he will be. National outlets (the Washington Post, Politico) list him as a candidate. Local outlets (the Des Moines Register, WMUR Manchester) cover him. There is no way that we can do anything other than move him to Major Candidates; if there's no good reason not to do so (and "the rule some people made up years ago says otherwise" is NOT a good reason) I plan to do so in the next 72 hours. He's not as prominent as Kamala Harris, but compared to Richard Ojeda, Pete Buttigieg, Lawrence Lessig, Gary Bauer, etc. he is a major candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Yang and Williamson are the only minor candidates who are actively visiting FITN states and being included in some polls/treated seriously by NH/IA reporters and those on the 2020 beat; they might both be worth moving at some point in the future, but they'll probably meet the basic 5 poll threshold soon enough anyway. Mélencron (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, if they reach the (rather meager) threshold to be included in the first debates ($650k in donations from at least 200 different individuals in 20 different states and 1% in national polls), then we should include them in the major candidates. Not until then, however. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:14, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe, but I think I'd argue that the relative seriousness with which Yang and Williamson are treated says something about the current candidates we list as minor candidates – none of which are doing anything as remotely serious or being treated with as much serious media coverage other than them. (In New Hampshire, Yang has had 10 events over a 4-day swing earlier this month, while Williamson has 6 events scheduled over the next few days. Yang also took a 10-city campaign swing in Iowa recently, and Williamson announced her run in Iowa.) This remains purely subjective, but Yang and Williamson are increasingly being included in those candidate lists from the likes of the NYT. It's nothing urgent, but my instinct is to believe that either the threshold for "minor candidates" is currently too low (none with the same prominence or campaign activity/media coverage of Yang/Williamson) or that the bar for "declared major candidates" should be moved (though I note that the DNC polling threshold only applies to a specific set of pollsters, of which there are only one or two polls that currently count, depending on whether you consider the open-ended ABC/Washington Post poll). Mélencron (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for major candidates set forth in the article are: (a) having announced a presidential candidacy OR having formed an exploratory committee; and (b) having held public office OR having been included in five independent national polls. If anyone wants to include Yang as a major candidate, show that he has been included in five national polls. If anyone thinks the criteria should be adjusted, please feel free to propose alternative criteria. Believing that a candidate will at some future time be included in five national polls does not cut it. SunCrow (talk) 10:07, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not consensus. If Yang is in more polls this week, I'll start an RFC to get consensus. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Or I'll make the discussion started in mid-January a full RFC. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Yang has now been in 2 independent national polls, Monmouth and McLaughlin. This is still far from the 5 that is in the criteria, but he indeed might make it in the next month or so. 538 is explicitly not counting Yang as a major candidate. And they don't count Lessig either, I think it was a mistake to have him last cycle.--Pharos (talk) 05:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The rule to get into the debates (the first one is in less than four months), is one percent in three national polls (or some weird fundraising scheme). If it's good enough for the DNC, it should be good enough for us. In other words, elected officials, or those who have gotten one percent (1%) in three major polls that have been made since the announcement last week, or (0bviously) both. Since the vast majority of potentials are officeholders or former officeholders, there should be no problem. As to Yang or Williamson, wait until May, when they announce the participants. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Wayne Messam

Should Wayne Messam really be included in the publicly expressed interest section? His experience is as mayor of Miramar, Florida, which isn't one of the 100 largest cities, making it not a major office. SCC California (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

• South Bend, Indiana isn't exactly New York City either but we have Buttigieg... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:2468:2075:6927:9E9E (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• He shouldn't automatically be a "major candidate" based on his elected position, but I see no harm in leaving him in the publicly expressed interest section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:21, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• I see. Thanks @Power~enwiki. SCC California (talk) 03:26, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
• By the way, Miramar, Florida is actually a more populous city than South Bend, Indiana. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for major candidates set forth in the article are: (a) having announced a presidential candidacy OR having formed an exploratory committee; and (b) having held public office OR having been included in five independent national polls. Neither Messam nor Buttigieg fits my idea of a major presidential candidate...but they both fit the criteria. If anyone thinks the criteria should be adjusted, they are free to propose alternatives. SunCrow (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I will be starting an RFC immediately if anyone insists that Messam is a major candidate while Yang/Williamson are not. "Local consensus" rules are not a reason to ignore the preponderance of reliable sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

In what way is Pete Buttigieg a major candidate?

He's basically a non-entity, with major media outlets almost completely ignoring him, most polls not even including him as a candidate, and those that do polling him at 0%. He clearly belongs in the minor candidates' list. 207.98.196.125 (talk) 08:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The criteria for major candidates set forth in the article are: (a) having announced a presidential candidacy OR having formed an exploratory committee; and (b) having held public office OR having been included in five independent national polls. Buttigieg is not my idea of a major candidate...but he meets the criteria. If anyone thinks the criteria should be adjusted, please feel free to propose alternative criteria. SunCrow (talk) 10:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Buttigieg has been included in 7 of the 8 national polls that began since he announced his exploratory committee as listed at Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. So the pollsters are not ignoring him. That said, he has polled at 0% in all of them. I agree with SunCrow that Buttigieg meets the criteria as currently established. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

He's a major candidate because he's an elected official. Because he's an elected official, period. We can wait a couple of months for the DNC to issue the debate invitations. Those who don't get invited get bumped, those who do get brought up. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, what happens if Buttigieg doesn't get a debate invitation? I feel like he shouldn't be lumped into the same category as Harry Braun or Robby Wells. And what about Richard Ojeda? If Buttigieg does get an invitation, who's to say if Ojeda was a major or minor candidate since he dropped out before the invitations were given out? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:23, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

We'll cross that bridge when we get to it. There are cases like this every cycle.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:45, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• John Hickenlooper portrait.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Mayors

I have seen this going back and forth on the article and just want to set it straight. Are we including mayoral positions in the experiences section? Personally, I agree with the previous precedent of including mayors of the 100 largest cities, which would include Julian Castro and Cory Booker's positions as Mayor of San Antonio, Texas and Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, respectively, but exclude Bernie Sanders as Mayor of Burlington, Vermont. I believe an exception should be made in the case of Pete Buttigieg as Mayor of South Bend, Indiana is the highest office he has held. If we were not including Buttigieg's mayoral position then I feel like he shouldn't even be included as a major candidate. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:07, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

For now it's only the top 100 most populous cities, or if it's their only office, like Buttigieg. This means Booker, Buttigieg, and Castro's mayorships should be included, but not Bernie's mayorship of Burlington. Check and participate in the #State AG should be considered a major office (also Mayor of Burlington) section where we are considering a change. --eduardog3000 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Retweets as endorsements?

Should we be counting certain retweets (of news articles, certain posts by the candidates, etc) as an endorsement? For example, NY State Senator Julia Salazar retweeted this news tweet about Bernie running, which seems to be an approval of his run, especially given her own politics. --eduardog3000 (talk) 17:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

ABSOLUTELY NOT - An endorsement should be unambiguous. Almost everyone on Twitter says retweets are not endorsements, and individuals are extremely likely to re-tweet comments in support of several candidates. I have regularly removed these types of entries, and will continue to do so as a violation of the BLP policy. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Oppose I am with power~enwiki. Even if a retweet is a gesture of approval, it is still not a formal endorsement. What's more, many politicians make clear that retweets are not equivalent to endorsements. We should wait for formal statements of endorsement.Jacoby531 (talk) 18:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)Jacoby531

Good question I also had this question as James Cromwell, Sarah Silverman and Susan Sarandon did retweet his campaign announcement/news outlets reporting his agenda. The three respectively endorsed Sanders in 2016. I mean if they're Bernie supporters I'm sure soon they'll tweet their support of him. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:41, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

No. It's entirely possible for a person to retweet announcements or news stories about more than one candidate; they are not endorsing all of them. Endorsement requires an unambiguous statement, "I endorse them".-- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No. Also note there have been a bunch of dubious endorsements in the List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements spin-off article, which could use another pair of eyes.--Pharos (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

No way – There's a reason "RTs are not endorsements" is a standard disclaimer on Twitter bios. — JFG ^talk 10:16, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Original or cropped photos

There is currently a farrago of original and cropped photos for candidates (declared or speculative) whose official photos are on this page. From what I can see, the following candidates' photos are the originals:

• Cory Booker
• Bernie Sanders
• Richard Ojeda
• Joe Biden
• Wayne Messam
• Steve Bullock

And the following candidates' photos are cropped to varying degrees:

• Pete Buttigieg
• Julian Castro
• John Delaney
• Tulsi Gabbard
• Kirsten Gillibrand
• Kamala Harris
• Amy Klobuchar
• Elizabeth Warren
• Michael Bennet
• Sherrod Brown
• Eric Holder
• Jay Inslee
• Jeff Merkley
• Seth Moulton
• Beto O'Rourke (very zoomed in in my opinion)
• Tim Ryan (same here)
• Eric Swalwell

It seems that the cropped photos are mainly preferred, but could we come to an agreement to sort this out and fix them to all fit this decision? SCC California (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if that's what you were alluding to, but I restored the official portraits that had been replaced by a bunch of "casual" photos. I also set the same height for everybody, at 160px. I don't see any issue with cropping levels. — JFG ^talk 01:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The photos should be either official photos or "glamour shots." If we don't have any choice than a cropped candid, we should use that, but only if that's all we can get. Replacing a glamour shot with an ugly candid reflects badly on US, and is akin to vandalism. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of your points, but I was originally asking about the official photos only: should they use the cropped version or not? It looks like most of them are cropped, so I will change them to fit that, but we can change them to the originals otherwise. SCC California (talk) 16:53, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, feel free to go ahead and adjust crop levels, for example O'Rourke's portrait as you noticed was indeed cropped too close. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Publicly Expressed Interest Candidate Order

I noticed in the list of candidates that have publicly expressed interest Bill de Blasio is listed after Michael Bloomberg but in the section with their photos, Bill de Blasio is listed first. Alphabetically, Bill de Blasio should be listed before Michael Bloomberg in both parts, I think. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.80.189.190 (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Bloomberg should be listed before de Blasio in any alphabetical list. In some countries and languages, a prefix such as "de" does not count toward alphabetical order for surname purposes -- but in American names, it does. See WP:MCSTJR, which says, "American, Australian, Canadian, and English names generally sort on the prefix, regardless of capitalization." We should alphabetize Bill de Blasio's name based on the fact that his surname starts with the letter D, not B. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Experience vs Major Offices Held

The table of Major Candidates has a column of "Experience" that seems to list only major offices held, while the table of other and withdrawn candidates lists a variety of experiences. Could we consider including other experiences (perhaps non-bolded) for major candidates? In particular, elected offices held within the last five years seem relevant to list.

Alternatively, we could change the column heading to "Major Offices Held" but that seems more subjective.

Minding (talk) 15:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

The last consensus I remember seeing was to include the following offices: President, Cabinet, Cabinet-level official, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative, Governor, or Mayor of one of the 100 most populous cities. If none apply: a brief description of their non-political career(s), typically taken from the opening sentence of their article (i.e. "actor, businessman, etc."). Failed runs for any of the other offices are to be included without being bolded. The name of the column was changed recently to "Experience," which I feel isn't a very good title. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:46, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

If that makes a difference to people here, then Pete Buttigieg's mayoral position should be un-bolded, because South Bend, Indiana isn't one of the 100 most populous cities in the U.S. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Not so. Buttigieg's mayoral experience is not a "failed run" but rather a "brief description". As I understand it, the 100 largest cities seems more to be a rule so that we do not list small-city/town mayoralty for individuals who have held higher offices. For instance, if congresswoman Brenda Lawrence were a candidate, we would only list her congressional tenure, and would exclude her tenure as mayor of Southfield, Michigan. Her mayoralty does not merit mention as she has held one of the major offices and because it was not of one of the 100 largest cities, whereas for Castro (who held higher office as a cabinet member), his mayoralty evidently does merit mention (San Antonio is one of the 100 largest cites). Same for Booker.
This still begs one question for me. If Tim Kaine were a candidate, for onstance, we would include his mayoralty of Richmond, Virginia (98th largest city) in addition to his senatorial tenure and governorship, right? Would make a rather busy "experience" section for him. SecretName101 (talk) 17:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I did forget to mention that if a candidate DOES have political experience, but only for offices below any of the "notable" ones, we'd include just their most recent position (like Buttigieg's mayorship of South Bend or Ojeda's tenure as a State Senator from WV). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:50, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

IOnlyKnowFiveWords, I can't find this consensus anywhere, can you link it? Attorney General of California is arguably a much more major office than Mayor of a lot of cities in the top 100, especially considering that office affects and is voted on by the people of 16 of those cities, including 3 of the top 10. --eduardog3000 (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would appreciate a link to the consensus, too. (I looked at talk pages for 2016 and 2012 primaries and didn't see anything.) I think we should reconsider the consensus. I have two proposals. One possibility (my personal favoritee) is that we include recent offices held. We would allow offices held within X years of the election (I am proposing 5). Another possibility is that we expand "major" offices. Perhaps elected offices in a state cabinet (typically Gov, Lt Gov, AG, Sec of State)? (Non-elected state cabinet would include too many minor positions, in my opinion.) Minding (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Responding to RfC, it doesn't seem like Yang should be listed as a "major" candidate. He hasn't held public office, doesn't seem to have party backing, and doesn't appear to be on national polls. This is also my first time hearing about him. Pokerplayer513 (talk) 04:18, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

State AG should be considered a major office (also Mayor of Burlington)

Though the current consensus holds that Kamala Harris' time as California Attorney General does not qualify for experience, her six years experience as Attorney General, which are important enough to hold their own section on her page, form the bulk of her experience and had significant effects on her home state. State Attorney General is an important office currently overlooked by exclusion from 'significant' experience and should be included. Cookieo131 (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I also concur that elected statewide row officers should be considered major offices. Mélencron (talk) 21:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Same in regards to Sanders' experience as Mayor of Burlington. Even though it's not one of the 100 most populous cities (Booker, Castro) or his highest experience (Buttigieg), it is the most populous city of the state, and is frequently cited in regards to Sanders history. --Volvlogia (talk) 00:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I was coming here to say the same thing. Kamala Harris was the elected Attorney General of the most populous state in the U.S. for 6 years, 2011 to 2017. Isn’t that a public office at least as much worth listing as “mayor of Newark”? -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree to both, State AG (especially California) is an important position, and Mayor of Burlington is an important part of Bernie's political history. I'd also like to point out I can't find the supposed consensus that's been mentioned in sections above. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree to State AG, not Mayor of Burlington. Burlington is a town of 40,000ish. I don't think that merits attention for someone who has been a Senator and a Representative. This is the quote from above on when to included mayor in the experience section " As I understand it, the 100 largest cities seems more to be a rule so that we do not list small-city/town mayoralty for individuals who have held higher offices. For instance, if congresswoman Brenda Lawrence were a candidate, we would only list her congressional tenure, and would exclude her tenure as mayor of Southfield, Michigan. Her mayoralty does not merit mention as she has held one of the major offices and because it was not of one of the 100 largest cities, whereas for Castro (who held higher office as a cabinet member), his mayoralty evidently does merit mention (San Antonio is one of the 100 largest cites). Same for Booker." FYI, Southfield is a town close to twice the size of Burlington. AWiseishGuy (talk) 02:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps something like top 100 cities plus state capitals and the most populous city in each state? That's less than 150 cities. --eduardog3000 (talk) 04:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

@Eduardog3000: If I remember correctly, the consensus was made on the main 2020 election article a while back (maybe 2017). It'd be hard to find since I think that talk page has a feature where it automatically deletes discussions that are a month old or something like that. The consensus was made to avoid long lists of low-level positions like "Senator, Congressman, State Auditor, State Senator, State Representative, Mayor of Buttfuck, Nowhere, City Council member, etc.)"

I would be fine with an expansion of the consensus (later on, I remember we decided to include Cabinet-level positions like UN Ambassador), so long as there's a clear definition. I suspect that we can't just include state Attorneys General and not other statewide offices like Lieutenant Governors, State Auditors, State Treasurers, etc. Where is the line drawn? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I mean, that's what I'm arguing for – all elected statewide row offices are fairly prominent, and I think that they should be considered fair game as a "major office". Mélencron (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Methinks that we should only have the latest major office, plus a previous presidential run. That is US Senator, Governor, Congressperson or statewide elected official. For example Bernie Sanders: US Senator, 2016 Presidential candidate. That should be it. If Donald Duck was mayor of Buttfuck and nothing else, then we should have that, but if he was also the junior senator from East Dakota as a short-time appointee, that should be the only office listed. If you want to have an entire resumé, have it in the separate candidates article you should restore ASAP. Here we should have the minimum amount of information necessary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:26, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, that (most recent) is how it was done at 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, because that's how the table was set up: "Most recent position". But our table is different; our column is titled "experience", so that's what it should reflect. For example, Kamala Harris spent 6 years as California attorney general and only 2 years as senator; the former role is actually a greater part of her "experience". If Mitt Romney were to run, he has been a senator for less than a year but was Governor of Massachusetts for 4 years; governor is a greater part of his experience. If we are going to do as you suggest and list only the most recent office (and I'm not seeing consensus for that on this page), then that's what we should call it. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Without a source for that consensus I think it's best to come to a new one. Lt. Governors and State AGs should definitely be included. If that means making it "elected statewide offices" and including Auditors and Treasurers, I think that's ok. When it comes to mayors, like I said above, it could be top 100 cities by population plus state capitals and the most populous city of each state, which is still less than 150 cities. --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I am also happy with this proposal. SCC California (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This also seems like a reasonable amendment to me. Mélencron (talk) 03:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. State AG is notable enough as an elected position. Small-town mayor is not, though. Buttigieg should be demoted to the "minor" league. — JFG ^talk 10:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Small-town mayors should not be at the same level as a U.S. Senator or Governor. State AGs I also believe are notable. I also agree Buttigieg should be listed as a minor candidate as he has never held major office. I would have supported Ojeda being listed as a minor candidate as well if he had not withdrawn. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Disagree on demoting Buttigieg and Ojeda (if he was still in). The criteria to be listed in the majors is just having held office, not major office. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with the expansion, but disagree with the potential exclusion of Buttigieg and Ojeda. The former has been given plenty of media and polling attention and has been considered a Democratic rising star for a while. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Endorsements

Quite simply, that section is out of control.

Is it time to create a separate page on endorsements, and then to establish rules on which endorsements can be included on this page? Including everyone and their brother, frequently with no secondary sourcing (just a tweet with a hashtag) is un-maintainable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:49, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

They should be forked to their respective campaign articles and removed from this one, IMO – less pertinent here than to the individual candidates themselves. Mélencron (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed. Can't we transclude them from their respective campaign articles? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• We can transclude them from campaign articles; that will improve the situation a little, though it will give people more pages to watchlist. There's still the problem that we may want the list on this page to be more selective than on the campaign pages. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with transcluding. Maintaining separate copies of the same list is a bad idea, List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements is already a thing. Also pinging @Volvlogia: because they removed the link to List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements and restored an old list. Edit: Forgot to sign, so --eduardog3000 (talk)

• I agree with transcluding. It's annoying having to update both articles when there's a new endorsement in the first place. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:08, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Previous endorsement lists have been pretty wide-ranging and have included primary sources and hashtags, don't see the point in excluding people from a list of people for the sake of brevity. Moving them to their respective campaign articles sounds fine, if not a bit of a hassle. Although, if we're going to limit the amount of endorsements shown on the main page to just the most prominent or important, the problem arises as to how prominent is "prominent?" Obviously, presidents and senators and governors are, but what about Rosie O'Donnell? Danny DeVito? As with the inclusion of Harris' position as Attorney General, there needs to be a clearly defined line between notable and non-notable endorsements. I'd suggest secondary sources would be able to differentiate, but would we include people mentioned in a headline? Or the entire article? I wouldn't really put a former Ambassador to Morocco on the same level of notability as former VP Walter Mondale, but they're mentioned in the same article. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Be consistent. List all endorsements on each candidate's campaign page, and transclude those sections here. Length is not an issue because lists are collapsed by default. Maintenance will be much easier. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

One concern is the separate pages will use section headings for categories of endorsers (see List of Bernie Sanders 2020 presidential campaign endorsements), which when transcluded makes a mess of the index on this page. I guess the solution would be to do something like <noinclude>===U.S. Senators===</noinclude><includeonly>;U.S. Senators</includeonly> for every section heading. --eduardog3000 (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Exactly; that would work. — JFG ^talk 09:44, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

One event speculation

Some of the candidates in the speculative and publicly expressed interest sections have all of their speculation from one event with press coverage of their possible candidacy dying within a few days, but we have to keep their information on the page for three/six months. Specifically, Angelina Jolie (all sources based on an interview on 12/28/2018) and Wayne Messam (all sources based on an interview on 2/9/2019) best fit the bill at the moment (William McRaven and John Kerry would have, but they were removed because three months had elapsed). I wonder if it would be possible to only include individuals who have articles at least a month apart (except for those for whom speculation started less than a month ago). SCC California (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Too complicated to assess. The "speculation age" threshold was recently reduced from 6 to 3 months. Those few people remaining there will disappear in due course. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

New Rules for Major Proposal

I think it's a good time to update the rules for inclusion for a Major Candidate. As has been noted before, Andrew Yang should be considered a major candidate- but due to the five-poll threshold he isn't. That, in my opinion, is an OK threshold if there are a ton of polls early on and a lot of minor candidates. But since we're under a year away, I think the update is due (as well as the update on speculative candidates to go from six to three months since their latest speculative source). My proposal for a major candidate:

-Inclusion in a debate run by the DNC

-Featured in at least one major Independent (in terms of candidates) national poll

-Featured in at least one poll in two separate states

-Raised at least $1 million per FEC filings

-Same rules in terms of their experience

As we get closer, when deadlines approach for filing for states, we could also use it to determine who is a major and minor candidate. A major candidate has access in at least half of all states and a minor candidate in at least one. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Some above are saying Buttigieg shouldn't even be considered major, so I'm not sure an expansion of the criteria would go over well. However, being counted as a major if they are included in a debate seems like it should be a given, I definitely approve of that. Raising $1 million also seems like a reasonable qualification. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Vote 4 DJH2036 are you suggesting that all of these criteria should be met for a candidate to be considered major or just one of them? SCC California (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@User:SCC California just one, though all of it would be an obvious indicator.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk)

I think the rules in terms of experience should be open for discussion; but at this point, it's unlikely we'll see anyone get in doesn't meet at least one of the other criteria. Buttigieg does currently meet the five poll threshold so he'd meet the above as well.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 04:55, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

To me, your suggested criteria sound too complicated. SunCrow (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• First, I would prefer not to design the criteria just to ensure that Andrew Yang gets included as a major candidate. (He already has been included in 2 national polls, and he needs 5 under our current criteria but only 1 under the proposed criteria.) Second, I disagree with the idea that "A major candidate has access in at least half of all states and a minor candidate in at least one." It's quite possible that some candidates who we now consider "major" might drop out even before the Iowa caucuses, as happened on both the Democratic and Republican sides in the 2015-16 campaign season. We shouldn't demote them from being major (albeit withdrawn) candidates down to minor candidates just because they didn't stay in the race long enough to qualify for 25 primary ballots. (And in the 1992 primaries, Lyndon LaRouche made it onto the Democratic primary ballots of 30 states, but that didn't make him a major candidate.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:16, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

They shouldn't be removed from the "Major Candidate" category because of ballots. If they were major before, they'd still be considered major (albeit withdrawn). The ballot access part is more in case we run into another Yang. Also, the only reason I use Yang is because he's the one that's received the most attention on this page. Williamson could easily meet the criteria (and I expect she will soon), as well as any serious minor candidate similar to Rocky de la Fuente in 2016 in terms of ballot access. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Williamson already does meet the criterion of "featured in at least one poll in two separate states". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I am fine with these criteria, or if they are thought to be too wide, having two meet two of them. SCC California (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)