![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Should billionaire investor Richard Vague be included? His candidacy doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but he has received some press coverage:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/2020-democrat-never-heard-richard-vague https://technical.ly/philly/2019/01/15/tech-investor-richard-vague-mulls-a-white-house-bid/ https://www.philly.com/news/democrats-president-richard-vague-philadelphia-investor-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-20190117.html https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/hold-that-champagne-progressives/
If small-timers like Joe Sanberg are included, he should at least be listed as well. It's uncertain if his exploratory committee has ended yet. Strategos' Risk ( talk) 00:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed the John J. Bauters's endorsement was removed from Buttigieg's endorsement list, despite being a local official (former Mayor of Emeryville, which is shoved between Oakland and Berkeley in the greater urban core of the East Bay, and is a current city councilman, so I'm a bit confused why it was removed? Does it not meet criteria? What is the criteria? I might be blind but I can't really find any clear cut-offs for it, and I assumed he fell within the notability range. If it's because it's unclear whether or not it's an endorsement, he later stated that it was. -- Ev0lv000 ( talk) 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The endorsements section is out of control. Editors are adding everything from soup to nuts including tweets from DJs, people who have joined a campaign, and minor candidates claiming that someone has endorsed them. I suggest that we adopt some threshold criteria for inclusion. Here's my proposal:
This will make the endorsement section more credibility and encyclopedic. How does this sound to other editors? Did I forget anything?- Mr X 🖋 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Are there more recent sources about those two? All of the ones currently cited (even the one retrieved a few days ago for Bullock) are all from early to mid February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:FCD7:F9F4:663E:AE68 ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion that included the qualification table that was to be updated on the talk page had been archived, so I thought I'd add a new discussion here to readd the qualification table.
{ [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have a suggestion regarding candidates' portraits. Shouldn't we use more recent photos, as we did in 2016? I think we should do it especially for those who have a not very recent portrait, like Bernie Sanders. What do you think about this one?
Thank you. -- Nick.mon ( talk) 10:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Denying disruptive sockpuppet
|
---|
Even if they weren't a sockpuppet, the admin noticeboard would have still blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
I definitely support having portraits of the candidates. We should ask them which ones they would like us to use. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 18:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you still upset after getting bested on that other post? -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you still upset that nobody is taking you seriously? I am done engaging with your pettiness here. If you can't discuss content and instead use ad hominems, you should not be on Wikipedia. You will be reported at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. SCC California ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I was recently censored. Please do not delete my commentary without my explicit approval. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It was SCC California who said "are you still upset." I wouldn't mind if he were directed to offer me a formal apology! -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 23:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
|
@ Onetwothreeip: When you split off part of the article to Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries with this edit, you created an orphaned citation problem because some citations appearing later in the article (specifically numbers 146, 159, 163 and 219) were referencing back to citations in the endorsement section. Would you mind going back and sorting this out?
In addition, this does seem to be something which is being discussed abive at #Propose removing endorsements and that discussion appears to be ongoing. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Denying disruptive sockpuppet
|
---|
Even if they weren't a sockpuppet, the admin noticeboard would have still blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
Am I crazy or was there some sort of consensus on here about removing the website links from the "candidates" table? Something about avoiding direct links, which is why the FEC filing links are refs now.
But I can't find that anywhere on the talk page. I might just be an idiot or possibly hallucinated those edits or something.
Point is: I came over to argue in favor of keeping the website links (and direct FEC links for that matter) for the sake of consistency with previous election articles. You can still visit Jim Webb's and Lincoln Chafee's defunct websites on the '16 primary page. Plus, most modern election pages provide links to each candidate's campaign website, just usually at the bottom of the page towards the references. Most modern election pages also don't have a large table for their candidates so I think it makes sense to change their location accordingly. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 11:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that the way these websites are added to pages keeps coming up over and over in discussions regarding external links.
I have always seen these within the context of WP:SOAPBOX/ WP:EL/ WP:SPAM/ WP:UNDUE, with a sauce of (future) maintenance. I understand the importance of campaign websites. The problem often starts when there is an undue focus on the campaign in the way we represent them, sometimes becoming literally (albeit unintended) soapboxing. For most of these type of lists we determine whether a subject is warranted to be in the list (which is here almost by definition covered, there will always be an independent source showing that someone is a candidate for the election). We list the person and relevant data, and as one of the last columns can have a column with external links relevant to the list/subject relationship. I have however seen lists which are just lists of names and affiliations, formatted as an external link to the campaign website (sometimes for the only candidate that has one ..). Regarding the maintenance, as mentioned above, I would strongly suggest to convert the link to a permanent archive link at either the date of withdrawing (last version before the withdrawal - if there is an explanation regarding the withdrawal on the next version of the website then that version is a good primary reference for the withdrawal), or at the date of the election (again, last version before the 'we won/lost' version, if any, &c.). There are many cases out there where the election pages are heavily edited in the time of the election, and afterwards quickly abandoned leaving utterly irrelevant campaign links (either the campaign site goes dead, or it goes on to a next campaign).
Now, regarding the version here ... we have next to each other '( Campaign • Website). Here, all campaigns are in itself deemed notable, and are wikilinked. I cannot see why we need to link to each of the websites while we have a Wikipedia article carrying the link to the campaign website, I don't see why we need to IAR on our policies and guidelines to link to these website on this page. I do not see any argument to say that these are, on this article, incredibly useful, the wikilink to the actual campaign is just there (right next to where the direct link was). The argument to include is a slippery slope - it is also incredibly useful to have the link to the car brand right next to the brand in a Wikipedia list of car brands so you don't have to click through and compare the brands right there (and I can make that argument for tea brands, viagra, house rental companies in Tanzania, whatever - and the global consensus is NOT to list those links like that).
I would strongly suggest that the relevant WikiProject(s) come(s) to a neutral and suitable consensus taking into account our policies and guidelines (i.e. properly advertised RfC) and works that into a 'Manual of Style' to represent candidates. We had a lengthy discussion 6 months ago, coming somewhat like a consensus as what I wrote here, but the articles that the discussion are over are in the dire state that I also describe (linkfarms of dead and irrelevant links). Unless there is a consensus that satisfies both the community and the WikiProject, there will be discussions like this, and they will not come to an end. MarchJuly is correct in his interpretation of the global consensus, and seen the large differences in styles throughout (some just plainly in direct contradiction wit policy and guideline) there is no 'common practice' to do this either - the only common practice is to include campaign websites in random ways. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Who went & put current/previous list of offices in a horizontal form? It was so neat & tidy in its previous vertical form. Why can't folks leave well enough alone? GoodDay ( talk) 03:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A list of when primaries and caucuses are going to be held (or likely to be held) is more useful than a list which also includes when these elections are scheduled by default but are likely to be moved. That means for the time being we should omit New York being listed as holding a primary election on February 4, as this gives readers the impression that the primary election will be on February 4 when we know from the sources that this is very unlikely. The same applies to any similar cases since we shouldn't want people coming to the wrong conclusion, particularly New York residents. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Bloomie's is wavering [6]-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we remove the endorsements section entirely, to conform to common practice in these types of article (for example 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries). As already discussed on this page, maintaining a list here and on individual candidate pages is onerous and fills the article with hundreds of trivial citations. While we could transclude the endorsements from each campaign article, that has its own issues because of the generic titles used in the collapsible box templates. There does not seem to be an upside to including a comprehensive list of endorsements here. Any objections?- Mr X 🖋 22:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I support endorsements being listed. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 00:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
News just broke that he is expected to announce. Can he be added to the expected announcements section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:4597:6740:1132:66AE ( talk) 01:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Source: https://fox8.com/2019/04/03/report-ohio-rep-tim-ryan-to-announce-presidential-campaign/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B866:95F5:F940:A56E:634:1DBD ( talk) 02:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The Gravel exploratory committee entry in the main table was deleted because someone said it looked like a prank, however, Gravel has now confirmed that he is exploring a run. https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1108213980483502083 Should it be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCanton ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Just threw something together for Gravel b/c he confirmed his run, it's really messy so hopefully someone more experienced can clean it up but it's a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvertuccio ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gravel's home state be California, not Alaska? That's what his Twitter bio has listed. https://twitter.com/MikeGravel Bonnibel2282 ( talk) 05:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
In this tweet, Politico journalist Zach Montellaro claims to have spoken on the phone with Gravel, who confirmed that the committee was formed by "a group of students," who are travelling to California to meet with him and convince him to run. He says he's considering it and will decide after their meeting but that they need to "persuade [his] wife." IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 06:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with Sen. @MikeGravel (I'm not joking). "It is a group of students ... who have the idea I should run. ... They're working on that, they're going to be coming out here to California to meet with me."
He said he'll decide after he meets with the students on if he'll run, but "they need to persuade my wife." I asked him if he knew about the exploratory committee: "They asked me if it was okay, I said they could do what they wanted, as long as they were doing it and not me!"
I was going to say, why did someone remove my addition of Mike Gravel? I cited the FEC filing... ANájeraWolcott ( talk) 14:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think he should be included. He's signed off on the FEC filing and has held public office. Is the FEC filing not a sufficient source to show that he's running? Brachytrachelopan ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I support inclusion. I mean he has an FEC form filled out, an acknowledgement from a credible reporter, it has been confirmed by Rolling Stone that it is in fact Gravel behind those tweets. At most we should include him into publicly expressed interest. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 15:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The only problem is that Gravel doesn’t appear to have any direct involvement in the Twitter account, the website or the exploratory committee.(I oppose inclusion of Gravel for what should be obvious reasons – he's not behind it and hasn't been convinced to run; it's the kids' choice to use the words "exploratory committee", not his.) Mélencron ( talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The organizers, who initially pitched Gravel on the run with a policy memo, are flying out to California in April to convince him to to go from an exploratory committee to a full-on run. (“They need to persuade my wife,” Gravel said.) They have been in constant contact with Gravel over the last day.It's not apparent that Gravel has objected to this, but it's also important to note that Gravel is not doing the tweeting here and the statements from the account shouldn't be taken as if they were (i.e., it's also incorrect to state that "Gravel filed an exploratory committee", "Gravel declared X", etc.) Mélencron ( talk) 20:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I boldly moved Gravel to publicly expressed interest, with a supporting quote in the ref. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Denying disruptive sockpuppet
|
---|
Even if they weren't a sockpuppet, the admin noticeboard would have still blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
I insist Gravel remain in the declared section -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's my business. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Gravel should move to major declared candidate He already has more followers on twitter with Wayne Messum and is being covered by major media outlets like Washington Post, NBC, Fox, Politoco. He has also filed with the FEC. Additionally he has held a senate position and has already run for presidency before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.230.7 ( talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Looks like @SCC California has been bested. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 17:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Weak support of inclusion. I'm ambivalent to whether Gravel should be in the major candidates or the expressed interest section, but I think that the fact he has an official exploratory committee should be acknowledged in the article beyond just a mention in the timeline section. Every other candidate (except Williamson) was added to the section entitled "Declared candidates and exploratory committees" and the timeline chart immediately after forming such a committee. None of the other candidates directly said "I'm running for President" when they formed exploratory committee so I don't see why Gravel should be treated differently. I mean, it's quite likely that Warren didn't personally file her FEC paperwork and Gravel similarly gave his approval for the filing. It's also significant that an exploratory committee is not a guarantee that a candidate will run for president (i.e. Even Bayh in 2008). The options I think would be reasonable include:
Finally, I think that Gravel should be included in the timeline chart because other candidates were included as soon as they formed a committee and because if he actually runs we would mark him as having had an exploratory committee from that date. PaperKooper ( talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Gravel has given consent for the exploratory committee to be formed. It's understood he is actually considering whether or not to progress that exploratory committee into a full presidential campaign (which is supposedly the purpose of such a committee), and for now he is in the same position that people like Warren and Gillibrand were in, and that Wayne Messum is now in. Reliable sources are taking this candidacy seriously now, even if he has no chance of winning like many of these candidates don't. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some misinformation about who technically forms the exploratory committee and the relevance of that to who we consider to be a candidate. Gravel was involved in forming the exploratory committee, his consent is required for it, and this is about as much as any candidate involves themselves with the official forming of such a committee. Further, it's never been a requirement that a person must be adequately enthused about standing for election, and there is no reason to make a distinction for Gravel now. It's clearly an eccentric candidacy but it's an exploratory committee nonetheless. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources are taking this candidacy seriously now.I would like to see evidence of that because I certainly haven't seen any. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 05:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This piece much more clearly appears to indicate that Gravel's now in on the idea, more so than a couple weeks ago:
Gravel told BuzzFeed News that he was less than enthused when Oks and Williams initially pitched him on launching another campaign two weeks ago.
He came around to the idea after the two wrote him a memo about pushing the party further left on domestic and foreign policy, assessed the current field of candidates, and laid out that the current policy outlook of the Democratic Party is closer to what Gravel proposed decades ago.
Just have to wait and see how this pans out, but I think it's still worth noting that Gravel himself wasn't behind the exploratory committee. Mélencron ( talk) 19:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
According to his twitter he's planning on announcing April 8th https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1112880263879589889 Are Jay Morrison ( talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
California's early voting starts the same day as Iowa caucuses. I have tried several times to put this little fact in the timeline, but someone has been taking it off. I can't understand why. This fact has been widely disseminated in the press and is really important. Let's discuss why: More people may actually vote in California on this day than participate in the Iowa caucuses. The reason I only put in California is that I cannot find when any other state's early voting starts. California is far more important than Iowa, as the winner of Iowa usually loses. When we find out when early voting starts in Texas we should have it too. After all, the campaign could be over the day after Super Tuesday. Whoever banks the most votes before election day will win the primary.
So let's add when early voting starts in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. Starting with California, because we know when it happens.
We should also list the forums and "cattle calls." These are major events, unlike single candidate town halls. The Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like he is running by the end of the month.
https://demlist.com/demdaily-pitching-middle-america-the-contenders/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEC California ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that the distinction that should be made comes from the word "by." If someone says that they will make an announcement on date xyz, they should go into the formal announcement section, but if they simply say that they will announce by some date, they should stay in publicly expressed interest. SCC California ( talk) 20:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
In addition, I'd like to point out that this is the same source which is used to predict that Biden would run. I reached out to the author of the article (Kimberly Scott) to ask for her source with the following email at 12:39 PM Eastern: "Howdy Mrs. Scott, I read today's DemDaily and it said that Biden was expected to announce of April 22nd, but I can't find any other source making that claim. What is the source for that? Thanks, [My name]" She responded at 15:24 Eastern: "[My name], Thank you for following! That would be the inside scoop you get by reading DemList :) We will see if I am right. Have a good weekend! Kim" She seems to be confident, but her article is the only source I could find. Cookieo131 ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Are town halls going to be listed in the article? Fox News is holding at least two, with Bernie Sanders and Howard Schultz, respectively. [12]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 21:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
...hasn't announced, and doesn't belong on the list; it's not what the story says, either. He's planning to run; he hasn't said publicly that he is currently a candidate. Mélencron ( talk) 17:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
wasn't the number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot 1,885 what happened,now it is in the 1,900s. Can someone explain why was this done? Alhanuty ( talk) 00:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The current campaign finance tables may need to be simplified. We have one set of columns labeled "Campaign committee (as of March 31)" and another labeled "Committee, latest quarter (Q1 2019)". Is there a difference between the "campaign committee" and the "committee"? And March 31 is the end of Q1 2019. I am guessing that one of these sets of columns is supposed to reflect amounts raised and spent in the most recent quarter, and another set is supposed to reflect amounts raised and spent from the start of the candidate's campaign until the most recent filing date -- which, for some of these candidates, is going to be the exact same amount since many of them began their campaigns in the 1st quarter of 2019. But the column headings don't clearly explain that. In fact, looking at Julian Castro and John Delaney's data, it appears that one of them has their amounts switched around.
I think it might be better just to show in this article the amounts for the entire campaign to the most recent filing date for all candidates. Quarter-by-quarter financial data can be shown in the articles on the individual campaigns. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Gravel currently resides in California. [13] [14] Although he was a Senator from Alaska, should the table be changed to reflect what state he is currently from? Curdlash ( talk) 1:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone removed Joe Sanberg in this edit here: [15]. Can someone else revert it? I can't do it for a few hours, or else it falls under WP:1RR. Thanks! David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that we should delete Joseph Sanberg off of the "Individuals who have publicly expressed interest" section. Let's be real, would a real encyclopedia include him? Obviously, no. He would probably not even get one tenth of one percent in any contest. We should only include non-public officials in this section if they have polled at 1%. Quvuq0737 ( talk) 01:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/michael-bennets-cancer-diagnosis-wont-deter-2020-campaign/586666/ Michael Bennet has already said publicly that he is running. Thoughts? Quvuq0737 ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently the article appropriately mentions the total number of FEC filed candidates (232 as of April 21) for the Democratic Party presidential primaries. Today I however stumbled into these 2 problems, which I propose that we solve this way (but I am of course open to other suggestions about how to solve them):
I will appreciate your input and help, so that we can find the best way to solve the above 2 problems. Danish Expert ( talk) 15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Today my to make a split of the overall chapter title "Declared candidates" into the two subtitles "Major candidates" and "Other candidates" (without making any other change besides of the title change to the featured content or its presentational layout) was reverted by @ David O. Johnson:.
To say it short, the previous talkpage debate 1 and debate 2 were primarily focused about how much detail about the "other candidates" should be included (and whether they were important enough also to have their own table created). My proposal to make the title split is certainly not intended for the purpose of expanding the uploaded material for the "other candidates" chapter in any way or form (as I prefer it shall remain as short as today).
Reason for my push to make the title split, is mainly to ensure that we have better article structure with more subchapters (which make it faster for readers to navigate and find the content they search), and as a secondary argument to keep presenting some title formulations and article structure which was presented and regarded as appropriate in the last seasons candidate article: 2016 Democratic Party presidential candidates. Please let me know if you support/oppose my proposed title change. Danish Expert ( talk) 15:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What happened to the helpful "Announcement Expected" section? Stacy Abrams, Eric Holder, and Terry McAuliffe have all said they'd decide by the end of March (which is Sunday), and Mike Gravel (who has been put back into the chart as having an exploratory committee) has said he'll make an announcement on April 8th. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:6C25:6ADB:DA59:B5A9 ( talk) 00:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I find them useful. Some candidates are as good as their word, and should not be judged by the others. Also, failure to fulfil one's announcement is in itself a statement. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:ADBB:8326:11B0:66D2 ( talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Now that the "Individuals who have scheduled a formal announcement" section has reappeared, should n't Mike Gravel's April 8th announcement be included? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:FC10:DACD:D9C1:D2EA ( talk) 05:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
People with scheduled formal announcements should be listed in the section as well as in their own box (if applicable) so ALL announcements are in ONE place, a spot people know they can look at for the information. Butigieg has a scheduled announcement which should be there, not just in his own box. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:10A5:BF6B:F3FF:2C7A ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand your comment above. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:85CE:108E:E4EE:559A ( talk) 01:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
We need a source to explain how the verification process will be performed by ActBlue and NGP VAN on the candidates fundraising data towards meeting the fundraising criteria for debate qualification. I could not find such source, but encourage all of us to still search for this (because I suspect eventually DNC/ActBlue/NGP-VAN/Others will publish something we can use as a verifiable source).
So far my own WP:OR (based upon looking at an ActBlue 2020 presidential fundraising template) managed to deduct and assume the verification process will comprise the following work on the pile of individual raw data submitted by candidates:
While the candidates self-reported fundraising raw data posted at twitter or a campaign website, might indicate they have met the "fundraising criteria for debate qualification" (i.e. Gabbard claimed support of 65,000 donors on April 11), this is far from certain to also be true after the verifying company has cleaned up the data. So these unverified figures are not allowed to be added to the Wikipedia article. We need to await the DNC publication (expected on June 13) before all verified donor data then can be added.
If you want to follow the progress for each candidates "raw data" towards meeting the criteria of min. 65000 individual donors, you can either check my list below or the 538 source. The following 2 candidates also included an hourly updated donor counter at their campaign website, which at the time of my post had reached: 24659 for Mike Gravel and 57225 for Marianne Williamson (Williamson is forecast to qualify on May 17 and Gravel on Aug.1, as both candidates recently scored 400 new donors/day).
Another fun preliminary observation, is how much each donor paid in average:
Finally we can extract the following observations from the above data (as of April 26):
Danish Expert ( talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
De Blasio is expected to announce next week. I made the edit under formal announcement section but it was reverted. Feel free to undo. It will be the week of 6-10 May. Here is the supporting article 129.246.254.12 ( talk) 18:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article reads "The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses will be a series of electoral contests organized by the Democratic Party to select 3,768 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention and determine the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in the 2020 U.S. presidential election."
Since states that hold later primaries get bonus amounts of delegates, and states that hold their primary in a regional cluster get an additional bonus, NY, which has not yet definitely scheduled its primary date, could gain 25% more delegates if it chooses the right date in April to go along with other regional states. Since NY is only one of a number of states that have not yet fixed their primary date, how can we know yet for sure how many pledged delegates there will be, or how many will be needed to win the nomination on the first round? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:ED03:F49F:52B1:69B9 ( talk) 02:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
For the notable but non-major candidates, we have the following information provided:
Why do we repeat "and has an active campaign website" for each of these candidates? If a candidate didn't have an active campaign website, we probably wouldn't list them in this article at all. If that needs to be mentioned, it would be preferable to say, "Among the other candidates, notable ones who have active campaign websites include ...." And why do we link the minor candidates' campaign websites on this page, when there has come to be a consensus not to link the major candidates' campaign websites on this page? If people want to find links to the minor candidates' campaign websites, the place to look should be in the articles about the individual candidates. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
References
De Blasio and Abrams unlikely to run, an no one knows who Joe Sandberg is. I say knock that section out. The field is largely settled, especially with Bullock's announcement on the horizon. SAC California ( talk) 02:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been meaning to bring this up for a little while – on this and the endorsement articles, there are widespread MOS:SPECIFICLINK issues (as well as overlinking in general of U.S. states) where states and cities are repeatedly being linked separately when they shouldn't be – this is mostly one user's doing (and I've merely been following it for consistency), but these link issues should seriously be addressed and fixed. If others agree to it, I can do a quick run through this and related articles to target specific links where possible. Mélencron ( talk) 15:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The timeline uses separate colors for "Active campaign" and "Exploratory committee". That is great, except that the info is getting destroyed as soon as a candidate withdraws. When that happens, the "Withdrawn candidate" color gets used. This is clearly wrong; the coloration implies that the candidate was withdrawn for the entire length of their campaign and is no longer withdrawn.
So far this only affects Ojeda. The data loss could get far worse as time goes by.
A correct rendition of that chart is in the page history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=888458129
97.104.70.92 ( talk) 05:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
his whole timeline should not just be one color. In fact, if his timeline must stop at the moment he drops, that withdrawn color shouldn't even be there since Ojeda isn't continuing with the rest of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:790B:CCC4:3319:A7C6 ( talk) 14:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
deleted some superfluous content. please keep it off this page. -- 130.132.173.57 ( talk) 01:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Could the primary debate section be expanded to note who has qualified for the first debate?
A search only produced results for articles from mid-March. Ballotopedia has a chart on who has qualified: [18]
AusJeb ( talk) 17:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Today I reluctantly uploaded this compromise line, in order to include the preliminary findings of the 538 source to our wikipedia article, that 50% of you have been pushing so strongly for.
A mention of specific names on who has qualified as of today, would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policies, as neither 538 nor any other source can know this for sure, until DNC provide us with additional info.
The compromise I have written goes straight to the borders of what the policies can allow, but I guess could perhaps be argued not to be a direct violation (due to how careful it has been formulated). Personally I would have prefered not to write anything about the 538 source, and instead stayed silent about this matter until June 13. But I can also understand the strong desire expressed from 50% of you in this debate, that this tracking info about how far candidates have come to meet the criteria for participation in the first debate, also is of great interest for our readers of the article to follow. Danish Expert ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Up until today, I visited Mélencron's sandbox to keep track of all the daily published polling criteria results. Today Politico's election analyst however also via Twitter published his detailed polling criteria checking excel sheet. This mean, that we now fully understand which method assumptions Politico applied when evaluating the polling criteria compliance.
I.e. they approved the scored results from all openended pollings (which CNN apparently did not), but only reported the polling results from Reuters for the "vote registered responders" and not for "all adults" (which is why they believe - contrary to 538+CNN, that De Blasio still did not meet the polling criteria).
I do not know to which degree we should use the provided source in our Wikipedia article (due to the previously above debated WP:OR concerns)? But it greatly helps understand, why Politico reaches the polling criteria compliance findings they publish from time to time, which is why I opted to share it with all of you here at the talkpage. If some of you have ideas on how this source could be used to further strengthen our data reports in the Wikipedia article, then please chime in with your proposals. :-) Danish Expert ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Should billionaire investor Richard Vague be included? His candidacy doesn't seem to be going anywhere, but he has received some press coverage:
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/rubycramer/2020-democrat-never-heard-richard-vague https://technical.ly/philly/2019/01/15/tech-investor-richard-vague-mulls-a-white-house-bid/ https://www.philly.com/news/democrats-president-richard-vague-philadelphia-investor-joe-biden-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-20190117.html https://thephiladelphiacitizen.org/hold-that-champagne-progressives/
If small-timers like Joe Sanberg are included, he should at least be listed as well. It's uncertain if his exploratory committee has ended yet. Strategos' Risk ( talk) 00:37, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Howdy, I noticed the John J. Bauters's endorsement was removed from Buttigieg's endorsement list, despite being a local official (former Mayor of Emeryville, which is shoved between Oakland and Berkeley in the greater urban core of the East Bay, and is a current city councilman, so I'm a bit confused why it was removed? Does it not meet criteria? What is the criteria? I might be blind but I can't really find any clear cut-offs for it, and I assumed he fell within the notability range. If it's because it's unclear whether or not it's an endorsement, he later stated that it was. -- Ev0lv000 ( talk) 12:37, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
The endorsements section is out of control. Editors are adding everything from soup to nuts including tweets from DJs, people who have joined a campaign, and minor candidates claiming that someone has endorsed them. I suggest that we adopt some threshold criteria for inclusion. Here's my proposal:
This will make the endorsement section more credibility and encyclopedic. How does this sound to other editors? Did I forget anything?- Mr X 🖋 12:18, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
Are there more recent sources about those two? All of the ones currently cited (even the one retrieved a few days ago for Bullock) are all from early to mid February. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:FCD7:F9F4:663E:AE68 ( talk) 16:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion that included the qualification table that was to be updated on the talk page had been archived, so I thought I'd add a new discussion here to readd the qualification table.
{ [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:06, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I have a suggestion regarding candidates' portraits. Shouldn't we use more recent photos, as we did in 2016? I think we should do it especially for those who have a not very recent portrait, like Bernie Sanders. What do you think about this one?
Thank you. -- Nick.mon ( talk) 10:23, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
Denying disruptive sockpuppet
|
---|
Even if they weren't a sockpuppet, the admin noticeboard would have still blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
I definitely support having portraits of the candidates. We should ask them which ones they would like us to use. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 18:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you still upset after getting bested on that other post? -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Are you still upset that nobody is taking you seriously? I am done engaging with your pettiness here. If you can't discuss content and instead use ad hominems, you should not be on Wikipedia. You will be reported at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. SCC California ( talk) 02:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC) I was recently censored. Please do not delete my commentary without my explicit approval. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:31, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
It was SCC California who said "are you still upset." I wouldn't mind if he were directed to offer me a formal apology! -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 23:19, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
|
@ Onetwothreeip: When you split off part of the article to Endorsements in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries with this edit, you created an orphaned citation problem because some citations appearing later in the article (specifically numbers 146, 159, 163 and 219) were referencing back to citations in the endorsement section. Would you mind going back and sorting this out?
In addition, this does seem to be something which is being discussed abive at #Propose removing endorsements and that discussion appears to be ongoing. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 04:24, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Denying disruptive sockpuppet
|
---|
Even if they weren't a sockpuppet, the admin noticeboard would have still blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
|
Am I crazy or was there some sort of consensus on here about removing the website links from the "candidates" table? Something about avoiding direct links, which is why the FEC filing links are refs now.
But I can't find that anywhere on the talk page. I might just be an idiot or possibly hallucinated those edits or something.
Point is: I came over to argue in favor of keeping the website links (and direct FEC links for that matter) for the sake of consistency with previous election articles. You can still visit Jim Webb's and Lincoln Chafee's defunct websites on the '16 primary page. Plus, most modern election pages provide links to each candidate's campaign website, just usually at the bottom of the page towards the references. Most modern election pages also don't have a large table for their candidates so I think it makes sense to change their location accordingly. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 11:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that the way these websites are added to pages keeps coming up over and over in discussions regarding external links.
I have always seen these within the context of WP:SOAPBOX/ WP:EL/ WP:SPAM/ WP:UNDUE, with a sauce of (future) maintenance. I understand the importance of campaign websites. The problem often starts when there is an undue focus on the campaign in the way we represent them, sometimes becoming literally (albeit unintended) soapboxing. For most of these type of lists we determine whether a subject is warranted to be in the list (which is here almost by definition covered, there will always be an independent source showing that someone is a candidate for the election). We list the person and relevant data, and as one of the last columns can have a column with external links relevant to the list/subject relationship. I have however seen lists which are just lists of names and affiliations, formatted as an external link to the campaign website (sometimes for the only candidate that has one ..). Regarding the maintenance, as mentioned above, I would strongly suggest to convert the link to a permanent archive link at either the date of withdrawing (last version before the withdrawal - if there is an explanation regarding the withdrawal on the next version of the website then that version is a good primary reference for the withdrawal), or at the date of the election (again, last version before the 'we won/lost' version, if any, &c.). There are many cases out there where the election pages are heavily edited in the time of the election, and afterwards quickly abandoned leaving utterly irrelevant campaign links (either the campaign site goes dead, or it goes on to a next campaign).
Now, regarding the version here ... we have next to each other '( Campaign • Website). Here, all campaigns are in itself deemed notable, and are wikilinked. I cannot see why we need to link to each of the websites while we have a Wikipedia article carrying the link to the campaign website, I don't see why we need to IAR on our policies and guidelines to link to these website on this page. I do not see any argument to say that these are, on this article, incredibly useful, the wikilink to the actual campaign is just there (right next to where the direct link was). The argument to include is a slippery slope - it is also incredibly useful to have the link to the car brand right next to the brand in a Wikipedia list of car brands so you don't have to click through and compare the brands right there (and I can make that argument for tea brands, viagra, house rental companies in Tanzania, whatever - and the global consensus is NOT to list those links like that).
I would strongly suggest that the relevant WikiProject(s) come(s) to a neutral and suitable consensus taking into account our policies and guidelines (i.e. properly advertised RfC) and works that into a 'Manual of Style' to represent candidates. We had a lengthy discussion 6 months ago, coming somewhat like a consensus as what I wrote here, but the articles that the discussion are over are in the dire state that I also describe (linkfarms of dead and irrelevant links). Unless there is a consensus that satisfies both the community and the WikiProject, there will be discussions like this, and they will not come to an end. MarchJuly is correct in his interpretation of the global consensus, and seen the large differences in styles throughout (some just plainly in direct contradiction wit policy and guideline) there is no 'common practice' to do this either - the only common practice is to include campaign websites in random ways. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:09, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Who went & put current/previous list of offices in a horizontal form? It was so neat & tidy in its previous vertical form. Why can't folks leave well enough alone? GoodDay ( talk) 03:31, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
A list of when primaries and caucuses are going to be held (or likely to be held) is more useful than a list which also includes when these elections are scheduled by default but are likely to be moved. That means for the time being we should omit New York being listed as holding a primary election on February 4, as this gives readers the impression that the primary election will be on February 4 when we know from the sources that this is very unlikely. The same applies to any similar cases since we shouldn't want people coming to the wrong conclusion, particularly New York residents. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 04:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Bloomie's is wavering [6]-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 18:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
I propose that we remove the endorsements section entirely, to conform to common practice in these types of article (for example 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries). As already discussed on this page, maintaining a list here and on individual candidate pages is onerous and fills the article with hundreds of trivial citations. While we could transclude the endorsements from each campaign article, that has its own issues because of the generic titles used in the collapsible box templates. There does not seem to be an upside to including a comprehensive list of endorsements here. Any objections?- Mr X 🖋 22:34, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
I support endorsements being listed. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 00:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
News just broke that he is expected to announce. Can he be added to the expected announcements section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:4597:6740:1132:66AE ( talk) 01:55, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
Source: https://fox8.com/2019/04/03/report-ohio-rep-tim-ryan-to-announce-presidential-campaign/amp/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B866:95F5:F940:A56E:634:1DBD ( talk) 02:07, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
The Gravel exploratory committee entry in the main table was deleted because someone said it looked like a prank, however, Gravel has now confirmed that he is exploring a run. https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1108213980483502083 Should it be restored? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCanton ( talk • contribs) 04:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Just threw something together for Gravel b/c he confirmed his run, it's really messy so hopefully someone more experienced can clean it up but it's a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvertuccio ( talk • contribs) 05:11, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't Gravel's home state be California, not Alaska? That's what his Twitter bio has listed. https://twitter.com/MikeGravel Bonnibel2282 ( talk) 05:29, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
In this tweet, Politico journalist Zach Montellaro claims to have spoken on the phone with Gravel, who confirmed that the committee was formed by "a group of students," who are travelling to California to meet with him and convince him to run. He says he's considering it and will decide after their meeting but that they need to "persuade [his] wife." IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 06:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I just got off the phone with Sen. @MikeGravel (I'm not joking). "It is a group of students ... who have the idea I should run. ... They're working on that, they're going to be coming out here to California to meet with me."
He said he'll decide after he meets with the students on if he'll run, but "they need to persuade my wife." I asked him if he knew about the exploratory committee: "They asked me if it was okay, I said they could do what they wanted, as long as they were doing it and not me!"
I was going to say, why did someone remove my addition of Mike Gravel? I cited the FEC filing... ANájeraWolcott ( talk) 14:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I think he should be included. He's signed off on the FEC filing and has held public office. Is the FEC filing not a sufficient source to show that he's running? Brachytrachelopan ( talk) 15:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I support inclusion. I mean he has an FEC form filled out, an acknowledgement from a credible reporter, it has been confirmed by Rolling Stone that it is in fact Gravel behind those tweets. At most we should include him into publicly expressed interest. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 15:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The only problem is that Gravel doesn’t appear to have any direct involvement in the Twitter account, the website or the exploratory committee.(I oppose inclusion of Gravel for what should be obvious reasons – he's not behind it and hasn't been convinced to run; it's the kids' choice to use the words "exploratory committee", not his.) Mélencron ( talk) 15:56, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The organizers, who initially pitched Gravel on the run with a policy memo, are flying out to California in April to convince him to to go from an exploratory committee to a full-on run. (“They need to persuade my wife,” Gravel said.) They have been in constant contact with Gravel over the last day.It's not apparent that Gravel has objected to this, but it's also important to note that Gravel is not doing the tweeting here and the statements from the account shouldn't be taken as if they were (i.e., it's also incorrect to state that "Gravel filed an exploratory committee", "Gravel declared X", etc.) Mélencron ( talk) 20:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
I boldly moved Gravel to publicly expressed interest, with a supporting quote in the ref. David O. Johnson ( talk) 23:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
Denying disruptive sockpuppet
|
---|
Even if they weren't a sockpuppet, the admin noticeboard would have still blocked them indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE Brendon the Wizard ✉️ ✨ 19:16, 31 March 2019 (UTC) |
I insist Gravel remain in the declared section -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I think that's my business. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 02:50, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Gravel should move to major declared candidate He already has more followers on twitter with Wayne Messum and is being covered by major media outlets like Washington Post, NBC, Fox, Politoco. He has also filed with the FEC. Additionally he has held a senate position and has already run for presidency before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.84.230.7 ( talk) 16:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes! Looks like @SCC California has been bested. -- Thefreeencyclopediamember ( talk) 17:06, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
|
Weak support of inclusion. I'm ambivalent to whether Gravel should be in the major candidates or the expressed interest section, but I think that the fact he has an official exploratory committee should be acknowledged in the article beyond just a mention in the timeline section. Every other candidate (except Williamson) was added to the section entitled "Declared candidates and exploratory committees" and the timeline chart immediately after forming such a committee. None of the other candidates directly said "I'm running for President" when they formed exploratory committee so I don't see why Gravel should be treated differently. I mean, it's quite likely that Warren didn't personally file her FEC paperwork and Gravel similarly gave his approval for the filing. It's also significant that an exploratory committee is not a guarantee that a candidate will run for president (i.e. Even Bayh in 2008). The options I think would be reasonable include:
Finally, I think that Gravel should be included in the timeline chart because other candidates were included as soon as they formed a committee and because if he actually runs we would mark him as having had an exploratory committee from that date. PaperKooper ( talk) 18:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Gravel has given consent for the exploratory committee to be formed. It's understood he is actually considering whether or not to progress that exploratory committee into a full presidential campaign (which is supposedly the purpose of such a committee), and for now he is in the same position that people like Warren and Gillibrand were in, and that Wayne Messum is now in. Reliable sources are taking this candidacy seriously now, even if he has no chance of winning like many of these candidates don't. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 21:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be some misinformation about who technically forms the exploratory committee and the relevance of that to who we consider to be a candidate. Gravel was involved in forming the exploratory committee, his consent is required for it, and this is about as much as any candidate involves themselves with the official forming of such a committee. Further, it's never been a requirement that a person must be adequately enthused about standing for election, and there is no reason to make a distinction for Gravel now. It's clearly an eccentric candidacy but it's an exploratory committee nonetheless. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:04, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
Reliable sources are taking this candidacy seriously now.I would like to see evidence of that because I certainly haven't seen any. Therequiembellishere ( talk) 05:02, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
This piece much more clearly appears to indicate that Gravel's now in on the idea, more so than a couple weeks ago:
Gravel told BuzzFeed News that he was less than enthused when Oks and Williams initially pitched him on launching another campaign two weeks ago.
He came around to the idea after the two wrote him a memo about pushing the party further left on domestic and foreign policy, assessed the current field of candidates, and laid out that the current policy outlook of the Democratic Party is closer to what Gravel proposed decades ago.
Just have to wait and see how this pans out, but I think it's still worth noting that Gravel himself wasn't behind the exploratory committee. Mélencron ( talk) 19:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
According to his twitter he's planning on announcing April 8th https://twitter.com/MikeGravel/status/1112880263879589889 Are Jay Morrison ( talk) 01:27, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
California's early voting starts the same day as Iowa caucuses. I have tried several times to put this little fact in the timeline, but someone has been taking it off. I can't understand why. This fact has been widely disseminated in the press and is really important. Let's discuss why: More people may actually vote in California on this day than participate in the Iowa caucuses. The reason I only put in California is that I cannot find when any other state's early voting starts. California is far more important than Iowa, as the winner of Iowa usually loses. When we find out when early voting starts in Texas we should have it too. After all, the campaign could be over the day after Super Tuesday. Whoever banks the most votes before election day will win the primary.
So let's add when early voting starts in South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states. Starting with California, because we know when it happens.
We should also list the forums and "cattle calls." These are major events, unlike single candidate town halls. The Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Looks like he is running by the end of the month.
https://demlist.com/demdaily-pitching-middle-america-the-contenders/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by SEC California ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that the distinction that should be made comes from the word "by." If someone says that they will make an announcement on date xyz, they should go into the formal announcement section, but if they simply say that they will announce by some date, they should stay in publicly expressed interest. SCC California ( talk) 20:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
In addition, I'd like to point out that this is the same source which is used to predict that Biden would run. I reached out to the author of the article (Kimberly Scott) to ask for her source with the following email at 12:39 PM Eastern: "Howdy Mrs. Scott, I read today's DemDaily and it said that Biden was expected to announce of April 22nd, but I can't find any other source making that claim. What is the source for that? Thanks, [My name]" She responded at 15:24 Eastern: "[My name], Thank you for following! That would be the inside scoop you get by reading DemList :) We will see if I am right. Have a good weekend! Kim" She seems to be confident, but her article is the only source I could find. Cookieo131 ( talk) 20:45, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Are town halls going to be listed in the article? Fox News is holding at least two, with Bernie Sanders and Howard Schultz, respectively. [12]. David O. Johnson ( talk) 21:51, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
...hasn't announced, and doesn't belong on the list; it's not what the story says, either. He's planning to run; he hasn't said publicly that he is currently a candidate. Mélencron ( talk) 17:20, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
wasn't the number of delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot 1,885 what happened,now it is in the 1,900s. Can someone explain why was this done? Alhanuty ( talk) 00:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
The current campaign finance tables may need to be simplified. We have one set of columns labeled "Campaign committee (as of March 31)" and another labeled "Committee, latest quarter (Q1 2019)". Is there a difference between the "campaign committee" and the "committee"? And March 31 is the end of Q1 2019. I am guessing that one of these sets of columns is supposed to reflect amounts raised and spent in the most recent quarter, and another set is supposed to reflect amounts raised and spent from the start of the candidate's campaign until the most recent filing date -- which, for some of these candidates, is going to be the exact same amount since many of them began their campaigns in the 1st quarter of 2019. But the column headings don't clearly explain that. In fact, looking at Julian Castro and John Delaney's data, it appears that one of them has their amounts switched around.
I think it might be better just to show in this article the amounts for the entire campaign to the most recent filing date for all candidates. Quarter-by-quarter financial data can be shown in the articles on the individual campaigns. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:45, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Gravel currently resides in California. [13] [14] Although he was a Senator from Alaska, should the table be changed to reflect what state he is currently from? Curdlash ( talk) 1:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Hi, someone removed Joe Sanberg in this edit here: [15]. Can someone else revert it? I can't do it for a few hours, or else it falls under WP:1RR. Thanks! David O. Johnson ( talk) 22:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I think that we should delete Joseph Sanberg off of the "Individuals who have publicly expressed interest" section. Let's be real, would a real encyclopedia include him? Obviously, no. He would probably not even get one tenth of one percent in any contest. We should only include non-public officials in this section if they have polled at 1%. Quvuq0737 ( talk) 01:15, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/04/michael-bennets-cancer-diagnosis-wont-deter-2020-campaign/586666/ Michael Bennet has already said publicly that he is running. Thoughts? Quvuq0737 ( talk) 17:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Currently the article appropriately mentions the total number of FEC filed candidates (232 as of April 21) for the Democratic Party presidential primaries. Today I however stumbled into these 2 problems, which I propose that we solve this way (but I am of course open to other suggestions about how to solve them):
I will appreciate your input and help, so that we can find the best way to solve the above 2 problems. Danish Expert ( talk) 15:40, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Today my to make a split of the overall chapter title "Declared candidates" into the two subtitles "Major candidates" and "Other candidates" (without making any other change besides of the title change to the featured content or its presentational layout) was reverted by @ David O. Johnson:.
To say it short, the previous talkpage debate 1 and debate 2 were primarily focused about how much detail about the "other candidates" should be included (and whether they were important enough also to have their own table created). My proposal to make the title split is certainly not intended for the purpose of expanding the uploaded material for the "other candidates" chapter in any way or form (as I prefer it shall remain as short as today).
Reason for my push to make the title split, is mainly to ensure that we have better article structure with more subchapters (which make it faster for readers to navigate and find the content they search), and as a secondary argument to keep presenting some title formulations and article structure which was presented and regarded as appropriate in the last seasons candidate article: 2016 Democratic Party presidential candidates. Please let me know if you support/oppose my proposed title change. Danish Expert ( talk) 15:34, 25 April 2019 (UTC)
What happened to the helpful "Announcement Expected" section? Stacy Abrams, Eric Holder, and Terry McAuliffe have all said they'd decide by the end of March (which is Sunday), and Mike Gravel (who has been put back into the chart as having an exploratory committee) has said he'll make an announcement on April 8th. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:6C25:6ADB:DA59:B5A9 ( talk) 00:21, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I find them useful. Some candidates are as good as their word, and should not be judged by the others. Also, failure to fulfil one's announcement is in itself a statement. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:ADBB:8326:11B0:66D2 ( talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Now that the "Individuals who have scheduled a formal announcement" section has reappeared, should n't Mike Gravel's April 8th announcement be included? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:FC10:DACD:D9C1:D2EA ( talk) 05:07, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
People with scheduled formal announcements should be listed in the section as well as in their own box (if applicable) so ALL announcements are in ONE place, a spot people know they can look at for the information. Butigieg has a scheduled announcement which should be there, not just in his own box. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:10A5:BF6B:F3FF:2C7A ( talk) 01:21, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I do not understand your comment above. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:85CE:108E:E4EE:559A ( talk) 01:42, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
We need a source to explain how the verification process will be performed by ActBlue and NGP VAN on the candidates fundraising data towards meeting the fundraising criteria for debate qualification. I could not find such source, but encourage all of us to still search for this (because I suspect eventually DNC/ActBlue/NGP-VAN/Others will publish something we can use as a verifiable source).
So far my own WP:OR (based upon looking at an ActBlue 2020 presidential fundraising template) managed to deduct and assume the verification process will comprise the following work on the pile of individual raw data submitted by candidates:
While the candidates self-reported fundraising raw data posted at twitter or a campaign website, might indicate they have met the "fundraising criteria for debate qualification" (i.e. Gabbard claimed support of 65,000 donors on April 11), this is far from certain to also be true after the verifying company has cleaned up the data. So these unverified figures are not allowed to be added to the Wikipedia article. We need to await the DNC publication (expected on June 13) before all verified donor data then can be added.
If you want to follow the progress for each candidates "raw data" towards meeting the criteria of min. 65000 individual donors, you can either check my list below or the 538 source. The following 2 candidates also included an hourly updated donor counter at their campaign website, which at the time of my post had reached: 24659 for Mike Gravel and 57225 for Marianne Williamson (Williamson is forecast to qualify on May 17 and Gravel on Aug.1, as both candidates recently scored 400 new donors/day).
Another fun preliminary observation, is how much each donor paid in average:
Finally we can extract the following observations from the above data (as of April 26):
Danish Expert ( talk) 07:00, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
De Blasio is expected to announce next week. I made the edit under formal announcement section but it was reverted. Feel free to undo. It will be the week of 6-10 May. Here is the supporting article 129.246.254.12 ( talk) 18:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
The first sentence of this article reads "The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and caucuses will be a series of electoral contests organized by the Democratic Party to select 3,768 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention and determine the Democratic nominee for President of the United States in the 2020 U.S. presidential election."
Since states that hold later primaries get bonus amounts of delegates, and states that hold their primary in a regional cluster get an additional bonus, NY, which has not yet definitely scheduled its primary date, could gain 25% more delegates if it chooses the right date in April to go along with other regional states. Since NY is only one of a number of states that have not yet fixed their primary date, how can we know yet for sure how many pledged delegates there will be, or how many will be needed to win the nomination on the first round? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:ED03:F49F:52B1:69B9 ( talk) 02:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
For the notable but non-major candidates, we have the following information provided:
Why do we repeat "and has an active campaign website" for each of these candidates? If a candidate didn't have an active campaign website, we probably wouldn't list them in this article at all. If that needs to be mentioned, it would be preferable to say, "Among the other candidates, notable ones who have active campaign websites include ...." And why do we link the minor candidates' campaign websites on this page, when there has come to be a consensus not to link the major candidates' campaign websites on this page? If people want to find links to the minor candidates' campaign websites, the place to look should be in the articles about the individual candidates. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
References
De Blasio and Abrams unlikely to run, an no one knows who Joe Sandberg is. I say knock that section out. The field is largely settled, especially with Bullock's announcement on the horizon. SAC California ( talk) 02:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been meaning to bring this up for a little while – on this and the endorsement articles, there are widespread MOS:SPECIFICLINK issues (as well as overlinking in general of U.S. states) where states and cities are repeatedly being linked separately when they shouldn't be – this is mostly one user's doing (and I've merely been following it for consistency), but these link issues should seriously be addressed and fixed. If others agree to it, I can do a quick run through this and related articles to target specific links where possible. Mélencron ( talk) 15:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
The timeline uses separate colors for "Active campaign" and "Exploratory committee". That is great, except that the info is getting destroyed as soon as a candidate withdraws. When that happens, the "Withdrawn candidate" color gets used. This is clearly wrong; the coloration implies that the candidate was withdrawn for the entire length of their campaign and is no longer withdrawn.
So far this only affects Ojeda. The data loss could get far worse as time goes by.
A correct rendition of that chart is in the page history:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=888458129
97.104.70.92 ( talk) 05:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
his whole timeline should not just be one color. In fact, if his timeline must stop at the moment he drops, that withdrawn color shouldn't even be there since Ojeda isn't continuing with the rest of them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:CB:8000:8EFD:790B:CCC4:3319:A7C6 ( talk) 14:15, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
deleted some superfluous content. please keep it off this page. -- 130.132.173.57 ( talk) 01:07, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Could the primary debate section be expanded to note who has qualified for the first debate?
A search only produced results for articles from mid-March. Ballotopedia has a chart on who has qualified: [18]
AusJeb ( talk) 17:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Today I reluctantly uploaded this compromise line, in order to include the preliminary findings of the 538 source to our wikipedia article, that 50% of you have been pushing so strongly for.
A mention of specific names on who has qualified as of today, would be a clear violation of Wikipedia policies, as neither 538 nor any other source can know this for sure, until DNC provide us with additional info.
The compromise I have written goes straight to the borders of what the policies can allow, but I guess could perhaps be argued not to be a direct violation (due to how careful it has been formulated). Personally I would have prefered not to write anything about the 538 source, and instead stayed silent about this matter until June 13. But I can also understand the strong desire expressed from 50% of you in this debate, that this tracking info about how far candidates have come to meet the criteria for participation in the first debate, also is of great interest for our readers of the article to follow. Danish Expert ( talk) 11:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Up until today, I visited Mélencron's sandbox to keep track of all the daily published polling criteria results. Today Politico's election analyst however also via Twitter published his detailed polling criteria checking excel sheet. This mean, that we now fully understand which method assumptions Politico applied when evaluating the polling criteria compliance.
I.e. they approved the scored results from all openended pollings (which CNN apparently did not), but only reported the polling results from Reuters for the "vote registered responders" and not for "all adults" (which is why they believe - contrary to 538+CNN, that De Blasio still did not meet the polling criteria).
I do not know to which degree we should use the provided source in our Wikipedia article (due to the previously above debated WP:OR concerns)? But it greatly helps understand, why Politico reaches the polling criteria compliance findings they publish from time to time, which is why I opted to share it with all of you here at the talkpage. If some of you have ideas on how this source could be used to further strengthen our data reports in the Wikipedia article, then please chime in with your proposals. :-) Danish Expert ( talk) 21:48, 17 May 2019 (UTC)