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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey all. Below is a table I've been working on for the primary debates that's akin to the ones found on other primary pages, and I wanted to consult with other editors here before adding it in. It's a little big and maybe a bit difficult to manage, but it'd be consistent with the election articles from previous years. Perhaps there's a way to make it smaller?
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participants | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 Participant, first debate. P2 Participant, second debate. I1 Invitee, first debate. I2 Invitee, second debate. N Non-invitee. A1 Absent invitee, first debate. A2 Absent invitee, second debate. O Out of race (withdrawn). |
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | ||||
1 | June 26–27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT (for both) |
The Arsht Center Miami, FL |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | July 30–31, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, MI |
CNN | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | August 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | September 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | October 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | November/December 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | January 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | January/February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | March 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | April 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA |
Any comments or suggestions are appreciated! - EditDude ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | |||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9 p.m. EDT |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
P | I | * | NI | A | |||||||||||||||||
Jun 27, 2019 | 9 p.m. EDT | NI | A | P | I | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Feb 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Mar 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA (2020) | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA (2020) | TBA | TBA | TBA |
Mélencron ( talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Abbreviations for months, such as Feb, are used only where space is extremely limited. Such abbreviations should use three letters only, and should not be followed by a period (full point) except at the end of a sentence.I've stuck a couple non-breaking spaces in now as well. Mélencron ( talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I have created some cell templates dedicated to debates, and simplified the markup, so the table will be easier to update. See how it will look. — JFG talk 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participating candidates | Ref(s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Bullock | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | ||||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
TBA | I | I | O | O | P | W | TBA | TBA | O | P | TBA | TBA | P | N | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | [1] |
Jun 27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | TBA | O | O | A | I | O | W | TBA | TBA | P | O | TBA | TBA | O | N | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan–Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
References
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participating candidates | Ref(s) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Be. | Bi. | Bo. | Bul. | But. | Ca. | de B. | De. | Ga. | Gi. | Gr. | Ha. | Hi. | In. | Kl. | Me. | Mo. | O'R. | Ry. | Sa. | Sw. | Wa. | Wi. | Ya. | ||||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9‑11 pm ET |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News MSNBC Telemundo |
TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | [1] |
Jun 27, 2019 | 9‑11 pm ET | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | To be announced after qualification deadline on July 16, 2019 | [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan‑Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
References
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Update: Also just added an alternative TBA layout for the July debates. Danish Expert ( talk) 20:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that there are more candidates than debates, perhaps the solution to people's frustration with the wide table may be to swap rows and columns. Candidates would be rows, and debates would be columns. Anybody want to try that? — JFG talk 19:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1A | Jun 26, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
[1] |
1B | Jun 27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | |||
2A | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | [2] |
2B | Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
7 | Jan–Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
Candidate | P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1A | 1B | 2A | 2B | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
Bennet | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Biden | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Booker | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Bullock | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Buttigieg | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Castro | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
de Blasio | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Delaney | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gabbard | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gillibrand | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gravel | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Harris | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Hickenlooper | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Inslee | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Klobuchar | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Messam | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Moulton | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
O'Rourke | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Ryan | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Sanders | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Swalwell | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Warren | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Williamson | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Yang | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Ref(s) | [1] |
References
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mélencron ( talk) 19:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
When should we split the Debates section into its own article? Looking at the 2016 election, there was already a standalone article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums&oldid=668493104) by this point in time.
Thanks! David O. Johnson ( talk) 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a new filing with the FEC from a man named Paul A. Romero, which could possibly be the "notable" Paul Romero (middle name is Anthony). If so, I'd put him in the minor candidates section but his article says he lives in Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles while the FEC filing is coming from Fresno, California. Can't find any other sources. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/422163006038736906/578779934315773955/image0-36.jpg thoughts? Quvuq0737 ( talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Disagree He can get the Constitution amended. -- 2020primaryenthusiast ( talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with @Metropolitan90, @Vrivasfl, and others. Given today's edit, which I reverted, it's worth reopening this conversation to make sure we're all on the same page. Uygur is not eligible to become president. I searched the Internet and could not find any source suggesting that he is even considering a run. For every other candidate listed in the Announcement Pending section, there was speculation from major media outlets that they would run. Putting Cenk Uygur in that section, however, is unsourced and probably WP:CRYSTAL. Also, saying that he can single-handedly get the Constitution amended is highly speculative at best. Even ignoring political considerations, it would be practically impossible for an amendment to be ratified and to go into effect before November of 2020. I firmly believe that there is no basis to include Uygur in the Announcement Pending section. Jacoby531 ( talk) 00:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
^ The Constitution can be amended. See Article V. -- 2020primaryenthusiast ( talk) 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, the announcement as to who is going to be in the debates is less than a week away, and in anticipation of that, may I make some suggestions as to what to do when that time comes...
While the actual voting isn't for another eight months, we should get ready for it. It's not too early. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been bitching about this since that false consensus about getting rid of it– Indeed, you should stop "bitching about it", because the consensus was unanimous against your suggestion, so it's quite disruptive to call this a "false consensus". I don't see the point of your second and third suggestions at this time. I'm supportive of the fourth one: it would be better to have some summary narrative than a long list of bullet points. — JFG talk 12:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Now that the Democratic National Committee has announced who's going to be in the first debate, I've done what I suggested. @JFG stated that he didn't see the point of the second suggestion at that time. It was a head's up for when the announcement for the official list would be made. Well, now it has. Four major candidates, only one of which was an actual major candidate (Governor Bullock). Messem and Moulton were vanity candidates, and Gravel isn't a candidate at all, he's just given permission to some young hobbyist to play presidential campaign managers. Several of the hobbyists managed to get on a number of ballots last time, but the people here refused to acknowledge them, except on the "candidates" page. Please, note that @JFG and some others are very much against it. The reason I'm doing this is that @Mélencron says that there's another page for that. There is, but the fact is is that this is an index page for the Democratic primaries and that the basic information should be here. That means who's in and who's out as far as official recognition goes. Things change. The invisible primary is over and the debate season has begun. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"David O. Johnson talk contribs 170,133 bytes +1 Undid revision 902165738 by Arglebargle79 (talk) we don't have to go by what the DNC says" Well, we should. and here's why: they RUN the damn thing. Four years ago, they ran out several candidates in order to fix it for Hillary, and four years before that they refused to let in the delegates for several challengers to Obama, even though they got close or did better than 40% of the vote in some primaries. Also, we must never assume that the casual reader is going to go to other pages. Thus, in a "survey article" like this one, we need a summary of what the state of the race is. The DNC is running this race, and therefore we MUST defer to their judgment, even if we do not necessarily agree with it. NOT to have a separation of the invited candidates from the disinvited ones, is misleading. That is something we shouldn't do. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 10:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Geoffrey Fieger has never held elected office, and there's very little buzz about his nomination. I question whether we should add him to the 'people considering a run' section; I don't think he's notable enough to fit there.
If he does declare, we could add him to the 'other people seeking the nomination' section along with Arth et al., but until then I don't think he's notable enough to be on the page. AaronCanton ( talk) 06:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. He doesn't belong here. Only this one news publication is the only one that's covered his interest. Definitely not considered a major candidate. Alexjjj 19:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As a quick note, it appears to me that Sestak's logo would be above the threshold of originality due to its complexity and therefore can't be uploaded to Commons. It can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, but unless I'm mistaken, its usage would be restricted to a single article per WP:NFCC#7, which would presumably be the article on Sestak's campaign, if one is created, rather than this one. Mélencron ( talk) 13:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Have we forgot about them. ImMellow ( talk) 10:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone in the media is fretting about Google Trends on candidates and campaign issues but I've not seen much about Wikipedia page views (for better or worse). Mass views for the 25 articles may come handy. Nemo 08:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason he's excluded from candidates who've withdrawn? Thmazing ( talk) 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I know that Mayor Satch's candidacy could be considered non-notable, but he's a small town Mayor just like Buttigieg or Wayne Messam, so if those guys count, shouldn't he count as a major candidate? And it's not a hoax, here's the link to his Twitter announcement https://twitter.com/MayorSatch/status/1130920475012554752 — SeanByrne95 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
guest I did some research and found his profile pic and the other supposed former mayors are all stock images. This means that this is some large long-running conspiracy of some...sort. By who not sure, maybe a multi-year prank. However I can confirm, no evidence of Hansbay's existence exists.
Yep, this is a parody account. Messam and Buttigieg are real people. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
In many states, it is possible to vote in a Democratic Presidential primary, without being a member of that party (or effectively to do so, through the mechanism of same-day voter registration, thus allowing people to change their party registration on Election Day, and so amounting to much the same thing). In some states, only independents are permitted to take advantage of that, while in other states, the members of other parties are also allowed to do so. This dynamic had a huge impact on the results of individual primary elections in 2016 (albeit mainly on the Republican side, although it is widely suspected to have contributed to Bernie Sanders' victory in the Michigan primary as well). It would be extremely useful if someone were to add that information to this article. Ideally, a map could be used for that purpose....— Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOKeeffe ( talk • contribs)
In the campaign finance table at the bottom, for Warren is the individual contributions cell correct? Because the percentage of contributions less than $200 (70%) doesn't match up to the 16M total vs 6M individual donations, in my mind. Though I could be wrong, just making sure in the name of accuracy. Persistent Corvid ( talk) 22:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If so, can this be stated in the article? Persistent Corvid ( talk) 23:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please update the Campaign Finance section to reflect the second quarter figures? They're supposed to be make-or-break for who continues and who drops out after the first debates. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:284A:2ED4:6D01:DB69 ( talk) 23:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Any information on donations made on or after the debate nights would be helpful. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:284A:2ED4:6D01:DB69 ( talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible that we could hide the area between the start of 2018 and the midterm elections? There would then be more room to show to main events of 2019 onwards without being squeezed far too much. If not, I suggest we just cut off the pre-midterm part of the timeline with an explanation of the two events that happened previously. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders' Portrait isn't exactly flattering. I propose we use a different image where he doesn't have a scab on his face and is smiling. Quvuq0737 ( talk) 09:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to cover this ground, so we have it in writing that we indeed deliberated, the argument for/against considering Steyer a "major candidate".
The decision to continue to include him at this point would center upon a consensus that he has received substantial media coverage. He does not yet meet the criteria of inclusion in five independent national polls and does not meet the criteria of having held office, therefore we must agree that he meets the criteria of significant media coverage in order for him to be included as a major candidate at this time.
Does anyone agree/disagree that he has received significant media coverage, or wish to add an argument/evidence related to this? SecretName101 ( talk) 23:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and I saw campaign logos for candidates that withdrew, even before the primaries. It would seem to follow that we keep the logos for withdrawn candidates in this article as well. Other than sheer volume of candidates (which may be a concern that could cause us to want to resize logos for withdrawn candidates), is there a reason to remove the logos once a candidate withdraws? — C.Fred ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently I made an edit that capitalized the title to "U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" which was reverted. MOS:JOBTITLES was cited, but the formal title of United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is being addressed as a singular position and there's no article like "the" before it. The USSoH&UD article itself also capitalizes each instance of the title too. However the Manual says formality and specificity aren't acceptable excuses for capitalization so I'm taking the title capitalization thing from the table to the table. (pun intended if you know what I mean) -- MrHumanPersonGuy ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Paintspot: I've saw your edit and self-reversion. It's possible to change the order of Ojeda and Swalwell without glitches if they are changed in BarData and PlotData. I simply choose to make the edit this way because there was a previous edit putting them on that order, but I have no problem on the other if that's the policy. I just didn't want the glitches. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2020 democratic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
To decrease the number of declared candidates, it would be useful to weed them out based on if they qualified for the debates. Houdinipeter ( talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states:
There are some errors there. There are two former U.S. senators, not one (Biden is the other), and six former representatives, not three (the others are Gillibrand, Inslee, and Sanders). The fact that a candidate later went on to serve in yet another office doesn't mean that their former service doesn't count. We can add those candidates to their respective lists, although that means that some candidates would be double-counted. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Earlier today I removed the word "billionaire" from Tom Steyer's description in the Timeline section here: [5]. Selfiecity undid my revision here : [6] stating, "nothing wrong with that." My reasoning is this: there are other candidates who are multimillionaires, but they are not singled out. For example: Delaney is a "multi-millionaire" (see: [7]) It just seems unbiased to single out Steyer as a billionaire when Bullock, Sestak, Warren, O'Rourke, Biden, Bennet are multimillionaires. [8] Thoughts? David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the Gravel campaign is over just yet. This ABC article: [9] states that "The campaign is closing up shop sometime in the next week" (and it was published yesterday). The tweet cited in the Hill article just states "As the campaign ends, we're going to help build institutions on the left which can grow power, shape policy, and create strong activists for the long haul", indicating that it hasn't wrapped up. What are your thoughts? David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The Politico and The Hill pieces make it clear that he's out. It's not our job as editors to perform WP:OR trying to figure out whether RS got it wrong. — JFG talk 16:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is Gravel back in the declared candidates section? Wasn’t it agreed he withdrew? Devonian Wombat 02:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There were plenty of articles saying Gravel dropped out, and he hasn’t disputed that. Mikemikem ( talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
A couple of editors ( PoliticalJunkie2006 and 76.78.208.51) have maintained that Tim Ryan has dropped out of the race. PoliticalJunkie2006 has used this: [15] as evidence. I'm not seeing any solid proof. For example, Ryan had an interview earlier today [16] with MSNBC where he is still described as a 2020 candidate. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Incredibly small nitpick time, sorry. I recently made an edit increasing the number of candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major from >240 to >250 because I clicked on the following reference [1] and noted that the FEC listed 284 results, and thus I assumed there were 284 candidates. After an admittedly not very intensive look into the FEC website I noted all the candidates appeared to be legit, and as we have 24 major candidates, basic arithmatic told me we had 260 candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major, so it appeared to me that increasing the number to >250 was still correct and more precise. Plus 250 is a better number to round to anyway. In any case, the edit was reverted by someone on here I respect for making intelligent content edits so to be as civil as possible, and to follow WP:REVTALK, I posted my concerns here. The reason given was that the number of candiates was only 272 and if you take 24 from that you do indeed end up under 250, which makes sense. As respectfully as possible, I just dont understand where the 272 number came from. I thought there were just more people who had since applied, but only around 3 of them were within a week's recency, so some explanatory help would be greatly appreciated. WittyRecluse ( talk) 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Is there any place we can find an Ojeda campaign image that isn't copyrighted? We have one for all the other campaigns but the Ojeda one keeps getting reverted because of rights issues. WittyRecluse ( talk) 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Reports have surfaced that Hickenlooper is planning to drop out via a video that's expected to be released the morning of 8/15/2019. [1] I suppose, until the video surfaces, Hickenlooper hasn't officially suspended his campaign. MrVenaCava ( talk) 04:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
TDKR Chicago 101 added that Gravel had endorsed Sanders here, which I reverted here. SteelMariner added the information again here, which I cannot revert per 1RR. However, Gravel's campaign tweeted that he has not yet endorsed anyone, and even the Daily Beast source says that he will endorse, not that he already has. SCC California ( talk) 18:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I re-added the bit about Gravel endorsing Sanders. David O. Johnson removed it because it was "not included for other withdrawn candidates" but that's because neither of the other two have endorsed anyone to my knowledge. It is included in the declined candidates, though, for instance Kennedy endorsed Warren and Tester endorsed Bullock. This is also fairly standard for similar elections, so I see no reason it can't stay. I would suggest we leave his endorsement off Gabbard off the chart, since that's for the VP nomination and the article is specifically about the POTUS nomination. Thanks. SteelMariner Talk 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Jeff Boss - who has a Wikipedia page - isn't listed in the 'notable candidates without media coverage' section of the candidates list. Is there a reason for this? If not, I would request that he be added. Here is his website - one he has apparently not bothered to change the name of since his earlier Senate campaign - https://www.katz2020.com/
Nextly, there is a former Delaware State Senator, Mike Katz, who is running. He doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page, but he's held public office - the same rank as Richard Ojeda, who is listed here. I would request that he be added, though I don't know if you all want to make a page for him. By our current rules, he'd be put in the main list of candidates. Here he is: https://www.katz2020.com/]
Also, in light of Ami Horowitz seemingly dropping out, should we not put that somewhere? Perhaps a separate "minor candidates that have withdrawn" section? We certainly don't want to forget him when we get around to reorganizing the page after the election, and we should at least have some record of his running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 ( talk) 03:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Lastly, Robby Wells is apparently "Abassador for the International Human Rights Peace Commission". Should this be added to his description(and probably his own page): http://ihrp-commission.com/committe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 ( talk) 03:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps put Katz in 'withdrawn candidates', then, if we can figure out whether he's dropped out? And should we discuss changing the rules to be mentioned on here to exclude Boss and Katz? As for Wells, he does in fact have it on his website, in his bio section. And should Wells be considered a major candidate, seeing as he spoke along with the other candidates at the convention in South Carolina? Doubtful, but I'm not the one to pass judgement on these things. ~OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 ( talk) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to not to include the picture for Avenatti. We might as well include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commieowl ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC) WittyRecluse ( talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we include an undeciced percentage in the polling graph?
I think that would be relevant information to include, as people who don't vote make up over 10% of the voter base normally. WittyRecluse ( talk) 07:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Added Alan Howe, a still-running Democratic Presidential candidate from Carlisle, PA, to the list of "Other Notable Candidates". Alan is listed among the FEC's Top 50 candidates in terms of fundraising, and has been touring the country campaigning on a strong anti-Trump platform. His campaign website is at Howe2020.org/. He has been covered in the media at The Progressive, Sentinel, KHQA and Gant News, etc. The least you could do is put him BACK on the list as a notable candidate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C000:5:E9B2:AF54:35D8:7D44 ( talk) 00:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Just like the table of active candidates is alphabetical rather than the order that candidates got in the race, I think having the withdrawn candidates table in alpha order is best. We shouldn't have two different ordering systems for two tables on the same page without an overwhelming reason. Nevermore27 ( talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we add that Joe Sestak used to be an Admiral and a director in Bill Clinton's National Security Council? Quvuq0737 ( talk) 11:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Yang should definitely be in the polling graph. According to EVERY polling average listed, he is ahead of Beto O'Rourke. He is also ahead of Booker in all but one poll. I would do it myself but I don't know how. -- Naddruf ( talk) 04:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There's been an edit war going on as to whether the information Jimmy Carter will not make a Presidential run is important enough to include in the list of people who are not running for President. I don't feel too strongly about it, but that said, Carter is a previous one term President which I think is notable enough to have him included in the list. Additionally, I don't see what harm having him on the list does, but again, if general consensus is that the Carter information is not important, then I'll defer to that. WittyRecluse ( talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
"These individuals have been the subject of speculation, but have publicly denied or recanted interest in running for president."It doesn't say "this is a list of everybody who joked about running". Who actually has speculated that Jimmy Carter would run for president in 2020? Let's all use some common sense here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn’t call it a war, but perhaps there’s history. There are clearly different views! I don’t think Carter’s witty remark belongs in the encyclopaedia alongside those about whom there was genuine speculation of a possible run. It’s the sort of thing that used to go into a “trivia” section, when we had those, 100 years ago. Springnuts ( talk) 06:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems a little excessive to include people who've floated the possibility at any point within the last 6 months. In the case of Avenatti, first he stated that he wouldn't be running, then he said he wouldn't actually rule it out, and then he went silent about it for a month and a half. The current source for him as a potential candidate is from early August, and I can't find any newer ones when I try.
Should we lower the 6 month threshold to somewhere around 1-3 months? A six-month threshold made more sense before the debates, but now the field is thinning and it's no longer due nearly as much weight if someone says they're considering running but then go silent for half a year. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This isn't directly related to the content of this page, but I think we should merge Richard Ojeda's campaign article into the main page. We did this for Eric Swalwell, and Ojeda is less notable. He even withdrew before most candidates had entered the race. Please comment at Talk:Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign -- Naddruf ( talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Look, making the 2019 section into a bunch of little sections was both overdue and necessary. This way, it's easier to edit and makes revisions quite easy to do, now. They just click on the month instead of going all the way to January and editing from there. Or do you guys want it harder? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 17:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be better to sort them into 3-month long blocks, at the moment this massively extends the contents collopsable. Devonian Wombat 23:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to include Sanders' runs for Governor in '72, '76 and '86 (where he received less than 15% of the vote in all cases) and Senate in '72 and '74 (2.2 and 4.1% respectively), as @ BM6: prefers, it really calls into question the standard for inclusion in the table. Why not include his unsuccessful run for the U.S. House in '88? Why does this merit inclusion but not actual government experience like Klobuchar being Hennepin County District Attorney or Michael Bennet being Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, or any number of other things that could and (in my opinion) should be included are ruled not relevant? There's a pernicious double standard being set out here. I'm not a detractor of Bernie by any means but this seems like a ploy to include as much of a resume as possible for him in the table so he seems more impressive. I don't like it. Nevermore27 ( talk) 03:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Campaign events are currently listed as bullet points in a "timeline" format, which goes against the Wikipedia manual of style. I would suggest composing a short paragraph of prose for each month instead. Is there support for this change? — JFG talk 22:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking through the candidates' campaign articles and trying to determine which ones are notable on their own, and which should be merged with the candidates' biographies.
So far, of the candidates that dropped out, we have merged Seth Moulton, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, and Richard Ojeda. Of the candidates that remain in the race, we have merged Joe Sestak, Tim Ryan, and Steve Bullock.
Remaining articles for candidates who dropped out are Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Jay Inslee, and Mike Gravel. All of these people are important because they have been governors, senators, or mayors. However Hickenlooper and Bullock are also governors and they don't have a campaign article. According to Fivethirtyeight, neither Gillibrand, Inslee, nor De Blasio ever received more than 2 percent of the vote in a national poll since their campaign started. Gravel never received more than 1 percent. Gravel said he was running to spread awareness to issues, not to get elected, which may or may not make his campaign notable.
We have articles for the following candidates that remain in the race: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, John Delaney, Marianne Williamson, and Wayne Messam.
Out of these, I would definitely consider Wayne Messam for a merge (never been over 1 percent in a national poll, or participated in a debate). I would also consider merging John Delaney (possibly notable for his early declaration), Michael Bennet (although he is a senator, never been over 2 percent in a national poll), and Marianne Williamsom (never been over 2 percent). None of them are likely to participate in any future debates.
If things stay the way they are, that's fine as well. Naddruf ( talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How should Bernie Sanders' temporary suspension of his campaign be handled? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:5941:97E0:B6EA:CC38 ( talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
He didn't suspend his campaign. He just called off events in the near future. If you want to write it into the timeline you can.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Browsing through the list of candidates, I am disturbed by the prominent display of home state flags in a national election. Each candidate's "home state" is already listed in their "experience" section (except for Williamson and Yang who have not held political office). I suggest to remove this distracting column. — JFG talk 08:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Man whoever changed all of the candidate images must really not like photos where people look into the camera. I think we should change them back to their official congressional photos (for those in Congress, obviously) rather than most recent photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
In an article about the presidential primaries, I don't think there needs to be a column that tells the reader that Michael Bennet was born on November 28th, 1964 in New Delhi, India and that he's currently 54 years old. It just seems a little too off topic. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a suggestion/humble request: Would it be possible in the overview graph to mark which candidates participated in which debate? E.g., by putting some sort of marker at the corresponding intersections? -- 95.90.224.135 ( talk) 09:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
For the candidates that will clearly not be described as major, but still have a wikipedia article, I thought the consensus was to keep them in a list below the major candidates because they are still notable. Has this consensus changed?
@ Bob bobato:, I noticed that you removed Michael E. Arth from the non-major candidates list, but I think he should remain there. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yang. David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
theBOBbobato ( talk) 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
-Novice user: Why did you not put Ojeda as major? He was a State Senator and gained national attention during his house race and in the film by Michael Moore. I'm confused. How is he less notable than say, Messam, or Sestak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.48.25 ( talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair, but he gained "significant media coverage" as a congressional candidate. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:1C2:500:D890:E969:996A:8FE4:FA38 (
talk) 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This one-revert-only rule is becoming quite troublesome now that all these Ojeda fanboys are coming out of the woodworks and adding him back to being a major candidate despite clear consensus on the talk page. How can we address this and fix this from happening without violating our own rules? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Patrick is listed both in the Potential major candidates section and the |Declined section. He can't do both obviously, so which do we give more credence to? The more recent one? David O. Johnson ( talk) 01:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that the Marianne Williamson entry in the candidates table lists Iowa as "home state", and that looks wrong. She has said she moved to Iowa for the campaign, but that does not make it her home state. I'd suggest listing California as home state, and adding a footnote to explain that she has moved temporarily to Iowa in order to wage her presidential campaign. Asking for comments from other editors before applying the change. — JFG talk 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Donald Trump just changed his legal residence to Florida, and he listed as being from Florida on the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries page. Therefore, Williamson should be listed as being from Iowa. -- Numberguy6 ( talk) 02:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Method | Williamson residence | Trump residence |
---|---|---|
Current legal residence | Iowa | Florida |
Legal residence at declaration of candidacy | California | New York |
Current legal residence, unless move was purely for political reasons | California | New York [1] |
de facto residence | Iowa | Washington, D.C. |
de facto residence, excluding residences only used for official purposes | Iowa | Florida [2] |
Which above method should we use for determining residence?
Place your vote below this line: ---
@ CaptainAhab1841: Bennet should not be removed because his status as a child of a diplomat (probably) made him a citizen from birth, meaning he was a natural-born citizen, as the Supreme Court accepted in Perkins v. Elg. See Natural-born-citizen clause. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 19:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Hey all. Below is a table I've been working on for the primary debates that's akin to the ones found on other primary pages, and I wanted to consult with other editors here before adding it in. It's a little big and maybe a bit difficult to manage, but it'd be consistent with the election articles from previous years. Perhaps there's a way to make it smaller?
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participants | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P1 Participant, first debate. P2 Participant, second debate. I1 Invitee, first debate. I2 Invitee, second debate. N Non-invitee. A1 Absent invitee, first debate. A2 Absent invitee, second debate. O Out of race (withdrawn). |
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | ||||
1 | June 26–27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT (for both) |
The Arsht Center Miami, FL |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
||||||||||||||||||||||
2 | July 30–31, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, MI |
CNN | ||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | August 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | September 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | October 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | November/December 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | January 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | January/February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | February 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | March 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | April 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA |
Any comments or suggestions are appreciated! - EditDude ( talk) 00:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee | |||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | |||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9 p.m. EDT |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
P | I | * | NI | A | |||||||||||||||||
Jun 27, 2019 | 9 p.m. EDT | NI | A | P | I | * | ||||||||||||||||||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | ||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | Feb 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | Mar 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA (2020) | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA (2020) | TBA | TBA | TBA |
Mélencron ( talk) 01:34, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Abbreviations for months, such as Feb, are used only where space is extremely limited. Such abbreviations should use three letters only, and should not be followed by a period (full point) except at the end of a sentence.I've stuck a couple non-breaking spaces in now as well. Mélencron ( talk) 12:23, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I have created some cell templates dedicated to debates, and simplified the markup, so the table will be easier to update. See how it will look. — JFG talk 16:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participating candidates | Ref(s) | ||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bennet | Biden | Booker | Bullock | Buttigieg | Castro | Delaney | Gabbard | Gillibrand | Gravel | Harris | Hickenlooper | Inslee | Klobuchar | Messam | Moulton | O'Rourke | Ryan | Sanders | Swalwell | Warren | Williamson | Yang | ||||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
TBA | I | I | O | O | P | W | TBA | TBA | O | P | TBA | TBA | P | N | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | [1] |
Jun 27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | TBA | O | O | A | I | O | W | TBA | TBA | P | O | TBA | TBA | O | N | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan–Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
References
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Participating candidates | Ref(s) | |||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Be. | Bi. | Bo. | Bul. | But. | Ca. | de B. | De. | Ga. | Gi. | Gr. | Ha. | Hi. | In. | Kl. | Me. | Mo. | O'R. | Ry. | Sa. | Sw. | Wa. | Wi. | Ya. | ||||||
1 | Jun 26, 2019 | 9‑11 pm ET |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News MSNBC Telemundo |
TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | [1] |
Jun 27, 2019 | 9‑11 pm ET | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | TBA | ||||
2 | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | To be announced after qualification deadline on July 16, 2019 | [2] | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 | Jan‑Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
References
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Update: Also just added an alternative TBA layout for the July debates. Danish Expert ( talk) 20:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Given that there are more candidates than debates, perhaps the solution to people's frustration with the wide table may be to swap rows and columns. Candidates would be rows, and debates would be columns. Anybody want to try that? — JFG talk 19:24, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
No. | Date | Time | Place | Sponsor(s) | Ref(s) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1A | Jun 26, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT |
Arsht Center Miami, Florida |
NBC News/ MSNBC/ Telemundo |
[1] |
1B | Jun 27, 2019 | 9–11 p.m. EDT | |||
2A | Jul 30, 2019 | TBA | TBA Detroit, Michigan |
CNN | [2] |
2B | Jul 31, 2019 | TBA | |||
3 | Sep 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
4 | Oct 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
5 | Nov 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
6 | Dec 2019 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
7 | Jan–Apr 2020 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
8 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
9 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
10 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
11 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] | |
12 | TBA | TBA | TBA | [3] |
Candidate | P Present I Invitee * Invitee to other debate NI Non-invitee A Absent invitee TBA To be announced W Withdrawn | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1A | 1B | 2A | 2B | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | |
Bennet | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Biden | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Booker | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Bullock | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Buttigieg | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Castro | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
de Blasio | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Delaney | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gabbard | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gillibrand | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Gravel | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Harris | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Hickenlooper | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Inslee | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Klobuchar | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Messam | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Moulton | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
O'Rourke | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Ryan | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Sanders | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Swalwell | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Warren | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Williamson | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Yang | TBA | TBA | ||||||||||||
Ref(s) | [1] |
References
DNCdebates
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Mélencron ( talk) 19:46, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
When should we split the Debates section into its own article? Looking at the 2016 election, there was already a standalone article ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums&oldid=668493104) by this point in time.
Thanks! David O. Johnson ( talk) 18:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
There's a new filing with the FEC from a man named Paul A. Romero, which could possibly be the "notable" Paul Romero (middle name is Anthony). If so, I'd put him in the minor candidates section but his article says he lives in Sherman Oaks, Los Angeles while the FEC filing is coming from Fresno, California. Can't find any other sources. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 21:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/422163006038736906/578779934315773955/image0-36.jpg thoughts? Quvuq0737 ( talk) 03:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Disagree He can get the Constitution amended. -- 2020primaryenthusiast ( talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Agree with @Metropolitan90, @Vrivasfl, and others. Given today's edit, which I reverted, it's worth reopening this conversation to make sure we're all on the same page. Uygur is not eligible to become president. I searched the Internet and could not find any source suggesting that he is even considering a run. For every other candidate listed in the Announcement Pending section, there was speculation from major media outlets that they would run. Putting Cenk Uygur in that section, however, is unsourced and probably WP:CRYSTAL. Also, saying that he can single-handedly get the Constitution amended is highly speculative at best. Even ignoring political considerations, it would be practically impossible for an amendment to be ratified and to go into effect before November of 2020. I firmly believe that there is no basis to include Uygur in the Announcement Pending section. Jacoby531 ( talk) 00:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
^ The Constitution can be amended. See Article V. -- 2020primaryenthusiast ( talk) 03:00, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
Okay, the announcement as to who is going to be in the debates is less than a week away, and in anticipation of that, may I make some suggestions as to what to do when that time comes...
While the actual voting isn't for another eight months, we should get ready for it. It's not too early. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 14:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
I've been bitching about this since that false consensus about getting rid of it– Indeed, you should stop "bitching about it", because the consensus was unanimous against your suggestion, so it's quite disruptive to call this a "false consensus". I don't see the point of your second and third suggestions at this time. I'm supportive of the fourth one: it would be better to have some summary narrative than a long list of bullet points. — JFG talk 12:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Now that the Democratic National Committee has announced who's going to be in the first debate, I've done what I suggested. @JFG stated that he didn't see the point of the second suggestion at that time. It was a head's up for when the announcement for the official list would be made. Well, now it has. Four major candidates, only one of which was an actual major candidate (Governor Bullock). Messem and Moulton were vanity candidates, and Gravel isn't a candidate at all, he's just given permission to some young hobbyist to play presidential campaign managers. Several of the hobbyists managed to get on a number of ballots last time, but the people here refused to acknowledge them, except on the "candidates" page. Please, note that @JFG and some others are very much against it. The reason I'm doing this is that @Mélencron says that there's another page for that. There is, but the fact is is that this is an index page for the Democratic primaries and that the basic information should be here. That means who's in and who's out as far as official recognition goes. Things change. The invisible primary is over and the debate season has begun. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 00:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
"David O. Johnson talk contribs 170,133 bytes +1 Undid revision 902165738 by Arglebargle79 (talk) we don't have to go by what the DNC says" Well, we should. and here's why: they RUN the damn thing. Four years ago, they ran out several candidates in order to fix it for Hillary, and four years before that they refused to let in the delegates for several challengers to Obama, even though they got close or did better than 40% of the vote in some primaries. Also, we must never assume that the casual reader is going to go to other pages. Thus, in a "survey article" like this one, we need a summary of what the state of the race is. The DNC is running this race, and therefore we MUST defer to their judgment, even if we do not necessarily agree with it. NOT to have a separation of the invited candidates from the disinvited ones, is misleading. That is something we shouldn't do. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 10:32, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Geoffrey Fieger has never held elected office, and there's very little buzz about his nomination. I question whether we should add him to the 'people considering a run' section; I don't think he's notable enough to fit there.
If he does declare, we could add him to the 'other people seeking the nomination' section along with Arth et al., but until then I don't think he's notable enough to be on the page. AaronCanton ( talk) 06:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
I agree. He doesn't belong here. Only this one news publication is the only one that's covered his interest. Definitely not considered a major candidate. Alexjjj 19:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
As a quick note, it appears to me that Sestak's logo would be above the threshold of originality due to its complexity and therefore can't be uploaded to Commons. It can be uploaded to the English Wikipedia, but unless I'm mistaken, its usage would be restricted to a single article per WP:NFCC#7, which would presumably be the article on Sestak's campaign, if one is created, rather than this one. Mélencron ( talk) 13:52, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Have we forgot about them. ImMellow ( talk) 10:38, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Everyone in the media is fretting about Google Trends on candidates and campaign issues but I've not seen much about Wikipedia page views (for better or worse). Mass views for the 25 articles may come handy. Nemo 08:54, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason he's excluded from candidates who've withdrawn? Thmazing ( talk) 05:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
I know that Mayor Satch's candidacy could be considered non-notable, but he's a small town Mayor just like Buttigieg or Wayne Messam, so if those guys count, shouldn't he count as a major candidate? And it's not a hoax, here's the link to his Twitter announcement https://twitter.com/MayorSatch/status/1130920475012554752 — SeanByrne95 ( talk • contribs) 20:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
guest I did some research and found his profile pic and the other supposed former mayors are all stock images. This means that this is some large long-running conspiracy of some...sort. By who not sure, maybe a multi-year prank. However I can confirm, no evidence of Hansbay's existence exists.
Yep, this is a parody account. Messam and Buttigieg are real people. – Muboshgu ( talk) 20:27, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
In many states, it is possible to vote in a Democratic Presidential primary, without being a member of that party (or effectively to do so, through the mechanism of same-day voter registration, thus allowing people to change their party registration on Election Day, and so amounting to much the same thing). In some states, only independents are permitted to take advantage of that, while in other states, the members of other parties are also allowed to do so. This dynamic had a huge impact on the results of individual primary elections in 2016 (albeit mainly on the Republican side, although it is widely suspected to have contributed to Bernie Sanders' victory in the Michigan primary as well). It would be extremely useful if someone were to add that information to this article. Ideally, a map could be used for that purpose....— Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinOKeeffe ( talk • contribs)
In the campaign finance table at the bottom, for Warren is the individual contributions cell correct? Because the percentage of contributions less than $200 (70%) doesn't match up to the 16M total vs 6M individual donations, in my mind. Though I could be wrong, just making sure in the name of accuracy. Persistent Corvid ( talk) 22:30, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
If so, can this be stated in the article? Persistent Corvid ( talk) 23:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Could someone please update the Campaign Finance section to reflect the second quarter figures? They're supposed to be make-or-break for who continues and who drops out after the first debates. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:284A:2ED4:6D01:DB69 ( talk) 23:49, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Any information on donations made on or after the debate nights would be helpful. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:284A:2ED4:6D01:DB69 ( talk) 23:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible that we could hide the area between the start of 2018 and the midterm elections? There would then be more room to show to main events of 2019 onwards without being squeezed far too much. If not, I suggest we just cut off the pre-midterm part of the timeline with an explanation of the two events that happened previously. Onetwothreeip ( talk) 00:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders' Portrait isn't exactly flattering. I propose we use a different image where he doesn't have a scab on his face and is smiling. Quvuq0737 ( talk) 09:30, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Just to cover this ground, so we have it in writing that we indeed deliberated, the argument for/against considering Steyer a "major candidate".
The decision to continue to include him at this point would center upon a consensus that he has received substantial media coverage. He does not yet meet the criteria of inclusion in five independent national polls and does not meet the criteria of having held office, therefore we must agree that he meets the criteria of significant media coverage in order for him to be included as a major candidate at this time.
Does anyone agree/disagree that he has received significant media coverage, or wish to add an argument/evidence related to this? SecretName101 ( talk) 23:59, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:36, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I took a look at 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries, and I saw campaign logos for candidates that withdrew, even before the primaries. It would seem to follow that we keep the logos for withdrawn candidates in this article as well. Other than sheer volume of candidates (which may be a concern that could cause us to want to resize logos for withdrawn candidates), is there a reason to remove the logos once a candidate withdraws? — C.Fred ( talk) 19:54, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 00:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Recently I made an edit that capitalized the title to "U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development" which was reverted. MOS:JOBTITLES was cited, but the formal title of United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development is being addressed as a singular position and there's no article like "the" before it. The USSoH&UD article itself also capitalizes each instance of the title too. However the Manual says formality and specificity aren't acceptable excuses for capitalization so I'm taking the title capitalization thing from the table to the table. (pun intended if you know what I mean) -- MrHumanPersonGuy ( talk) 01:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@ Paintspot: I've saw your edit and self-reversion. It's possible to change the order of Ojeda and Swalwell without glitches if they are changed in BarData and PlotData. I simply choose to make the edit this way because there was a previous edit putting them on that order, but I have no problem on the other if that's the policy. I just didn't want the glitches. - Sarilho1 ( talk) 20:39, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2020 democratic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. signed, Rosguill talk 19:35, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
To decrease the number of declared candidates, it would be useful to weed them out based on if they qualified for the debates. Houdinipeter ( talk) 15:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
The article states:
There are some errors there. There are two former U.S. senators, not one (Biden is the other), and six former representatives, not three (the others are Gillibrand, Inslee, and Sanders). The fact that a candidate later went on to serve in yet another office doesn't mean that their former service doesn't count. We can add those candidates to their respective lists, although that means that some candidates would be double-counted. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
Earlier today I removed the word "billionaire" from Tom Steyer's description in the Timeline section here: [5]. Selfiecity undid my revision here : [6] stating, "nothing wrong with that." My reasoning is this: there are other candidates who are multimillionaires, but they are not singled out. For example: Delaney is a "multi-millionaire" (see: [7]) It just seems unbiased to single out Steyer as a billionaire when Bullock, Sestak, Warren, O'Rourke, Biden, Bennet are multimillionaires. [8] Thoughts? David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that the Gravel campaign is over just yet. This ABC article: [9] states that "The campaign is closing up shop sometime in the next week" (and it was published yesterday). The tweet cited in the Hill article just states "As the campaign ends, we're going to help build institutions on the left which can grow power, shape policy, and create strong activists for the long haul", indicating that it hasn't wrapped up. What are your thoughts? David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The Politico and The Hill pieces make it clear that he's out. It's not our job as editors to perform WP:OR trying to figure out whether RS got it wrong. — JFG talk 16:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Why is Gravel back in the declared candidates section? Wasn’t it agreed he withdrew? Devonian Wombat 02:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
There were plenty of articles saying Gravel dropped out, and he hasn’t disputed that. Mikemikem ( talk) 02:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
A couple of editors ( PoliticalJunkie2006 and 76.78.208.51) have maintained that Tim Ryan has dropped out of the race. PoliticalJunkie2006 has used this: [15] as evidence. I'm not seeing any solid proof. For example, Ryan had an interview earlier today [16] with MSNBC where he is still described as a 2020 candidate. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
Incredibly small nitpick time, sorry. I recently made an edit increasing the number of candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major from >240 to >250 because I clicked on the following reference [1] and noted that the FEC listed 284 results, and thus I assumed there were 284 candidates. After an admittedly not very intensive look into the FEC website I noted all the candidates appeared to be legit, and as we have 24 major candidates, basic arithmatic told me we had 260 candidates who did not meet the criteria neccessary to be deemed major, so it appeared to me that increasing the number to >250 was still correct and more precise. Plus 250 is a better number to round to anyway. In any case, the edit was reverted by someone on here I respect for making intelligent content edits so to be as civil as possible, and to follow WP:REVTALK, I posted my concerns here. The reason given was that the number of candiates was only 272 and if you take 24 from that you do indeed end up under 250, which makes sense. As respectfully as possible, I just dont understand where the 272 number came from. I thought there were just more people who had since applied, but only around 3 of them were within a week's recency, so some explanatory help would be greatly appreciated. WittyRecluse ( talk) 18:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |dead-url=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)
Is there any place we can find an Ojeda campaign image that isn't copyrighted? We have one for all the other campaigns but the Ojeda one keeps getting reverted because of rights issues. WittyRecluse ( talk) 23:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Reports have surfaced that Hickenlooper is planning to drop out via a video that's expected to be released the morning of 8/15/2019. [1] I suppose, until the video surfaces, Hickenlooper hasn't officially suspended his campaign. MrVenaCava ( talk) 04:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
TDKR Chicago 101 added that Gravel had endorsed Sanders here, which I reverted here. SteelMariner added the information again here, which I cannot revert per 1RR. However, Gravel's campaign tweeted that he has not yet endorsed anyone, and even the Daily Beast source says that he will endorse, not that he already has. SCC California ( talk) 18:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
I re-added the bit about Gravel endorsing Sanders. David O. Johnson removed it because it was "not included for other withdrawn candidates" but that's because neither of the other two have endorsed anyone to my knowledge. It is included in the declined candidates, though, for instance Kennedy endorsed Warren and Tester endorsed Bullock. This is also fairly standard for similar elections, so I see no reason it can't stay. I would suggest we leave his endorsement off Gabbard off the chart, since that's for the VP nomination and the article is specifically about the POTUS nomination. Thanks. SteelMariner Talk 13:14, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
References
Jeff Boss - who has a Wikipedia page - isn't listed in the 'notable candidates without media coverage' section of the candidates list. Is there a reason for this? If not, I would request that he be added. Here is his website - one he has apparently not bothered to change the name of since his earlier Senate campaign - https://www.katz2020.com/
Nextly, there is a former Delaware State Senator, Mike Katz, who is running. He doesn't seem to have a Wikipedia page, but he's held public office - the same rank as Richard Ojeda, who is listed here. I would request that he be added, though I don't know if you all want to make a page for him. By our current rules, he'd be put in the main list of candidates. Here he is: https://www.katz2020.com/]
Also, in light of Ami Horowitz seemingly dropping out, should we not put that somewhere? Perhaps a separate "minor candidates that have withdrawn" section? We certainly don't want to forget him when we get around to reorganizing the page after the election, and we should at least have some record of his running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 ( talk) 03:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Lastly, Robby Wells is apparently "Abassador for the International Human Rights Peace Commission". Should this be added to his description(and probably his own page): http://ihrp-commission.com/committe.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 ( talk) 03:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps put Katz in 'withdrawn candidates', then, if we can figure out whether he's dropped out? And should we discuss changing the rules to be mentioned on here to exclude Boss and Katz? As for Wells, he does in fact have it on his website, in his bio section. And should Wells be considered a major candidate, seeing as he spoke along with the other candidates at the convention in South Carolina? Doubtful, but I'm not the one to pass judgement on these things. ~OP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 ( talk) 06:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't see any reason to not to include the picture for Avenatti. We might as well include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Commieowl ( talk • contribs) 13:21, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC) WittyRecluse ( talk) 20:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we include an undeciced percentage in the polling graph?
I think that would be relevant information to include, as people who don't vote make up over 10% of the voter base normally. WittyRecluse ( talk) 07:43, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Added Alan Howe, a still-running Democratic Presidential candidate from Carlisle, PA, to the list of "Other Notable Candidates". Alan is listed among the FEC's Top 50 candidates in terms of fundraising, and has been touring the country campaigning on a strong anti-Trump platform. His campaign website is at Howe2020.org/. He has been covered in the media at The Progressive, Sentinel, KHQA and Gant News, etc. The least you could do is put him BACK on the list as a notable candidate. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C000:5:E9B2:AF54:35D8:7D44 ( talk) 00:02, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Just like the table of active candidates is alphabetical rather than the order that candidates got in the race, I think having the withdrawn candidates table in alpha order is best. We shouldn't have two different ordering systems for two tables on the same page without an overwhelming reason. Nevermore27 ( talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Should we add that Joe Sestak used to be an Admiral and a director in Bill Clinton's National Security Council? Quvuq0737 ( talk) 11:35, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Andrew Yang should definitely be in the polling graph. According to EVERY polling average listed, he is ahead of Beto O'Rourke. He is also ahead of Booker in all but one poll. I would do it myself but I don't know how. -- Naddruf ( talk) 04:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
There's been an edit war going on as to whether the information Jimmy Carter will not make a Presidential run is important enough to include in the list of people who are not running for President. I don't feel too strongly about it, but that said, Carter is a previous one term President which I think is notable enough to have him included in the list. Additionally, I don't see what harm having him on the list does, but again, if general consensus is that the Carter information is not important, then I'll defer to that. WittyRecluse ( talk) 00:46, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
"These individuals have been the subject of speculation, but have publicly denied or recanted interest in running for president."It doesn't say "this is a list of everybody who joked about running". Who actually has speculated that Jimmy Carter would run for president in 2020? Let's all use some common sense here. – Muboshgu ( talk) 01:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
I wouldn’t call it a war, but perhaps there’s history. There are clearly different views! I don’t think Carter’s witty remark belongs in the encyclopaedia alongside those about whom there was genuine speculation of a possible run. It’s the sort of thing that used to go into a “trivia” section, when we had those, 100 years ago. Springnuts ( talk) 06:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems a little excessive to include people who've floated the possibility at any point within the last 6 months. In the case of Avenatti, first he stated that he wouldn't be running, then he said he wouldn't actually rule it out, and then he went silent about it for a month and a half. The current source for him as a potential candidate is from early August, and I can't find any newer ones when I try.
Should we lower the 6 month threshold to somewhere around 1-3 months? A six-month threshold made more sense before the debates, but now the field is thinning and it's no longer due nearly as much weight if someone says they're considering running but then go silent for half a year. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:13, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
This isn't directly related to the content of this page, but I think we should merge Richard Ojeda's campaign article into the main page. We did this for Eric Swalwell, and Ojeda is less notable. He even withdrew before most candidates had entered the race. Please comment at Talk:Richard Ojeda 2020 presidential campaign -- Naddruf ( talk) 04:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Look, making the 2019 section into a bunch of little sections was both overdue and necessary. This way, it's easier to edit and makes revisions quite easy to do, now. They just click on the month instead of going all the way to January and editing from there. Or do you guys want it harder? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 17:35, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
I think it would be better to sort them into 3-month long blocks, at the moment this massively extends the contents collopsable. Devonian Wombat 23:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC) Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:46, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
If we are going to include Sanders' runs for Governor in '72, '76 and '86 (where he received less than 15% of the vote in all cases) and Senate in '72 and '74 (2.2 and 4.1% respectively), as @ BM6: prefers, it really calls into question the standard for inclusion in the table. Why not include his unsuccessful run for the U.S. House in '88? Why does this merit inclusion but not actual government experience like Klobuchar being Hennepin County District Attorney or Michael Bennet being Superintendent of Denver Public Schools, or any number of other things that could and (in my opinion) should be included are ruled not relevant? There's a pernicious double standard being set out here. I'm not a detractor of Bernie by any means but this seems like a ploy to include as much of a resume as possible for him in the table so he seems more impressive. I don't like it. Nevermore27 ( talk) 03:37, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Campaign events are currently listed as bullet points in a "timeline" format, which goes against the Wikipedia manual of style. I would suggest composing a short paragraph of prose for each month instead. Is there support for this change? — JFG talk 22:46, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking through the candidates' campaign articles and trying to determine which ones are notable on their own, and which should be merged with the candidates' biographies.
So far, of the candidates that dropped out, we have merged Seth Moulton, John Hickenlooper, Eric Swalwell, and Richard Ojeda. Of the candidates that remain in the race, we have merged Joe Sestak, Tim Ryan, and Steve Bullock.
Remaining articles for candidates who dropped out are Kirsten Gillibrand, Bill de Blasio, Jay Inslee, and Mike Gravel. All of these people are important because they have been governors, senators, or mayors. However Hickenlooper and Bullock are also governors and they don't have a campaign article. According to Fivethirtyeight, neither Gillibrand, Inslee, nor De Blasio ever received more than 2 percent of the vote in a national poll since their campaign started. Gravel never received more than 1 percent. Gravel said he was running to spread awareness to issues, not to get elected, which may or may not make his campaign notable.
We have articles for the following candidates that remain in the race: Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris, Pete Buttigieg, Beto O'Rourke, Andrew Yang, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Julian Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Michael Bennet, Tom Steyer, John Delaney, Marianne Williamson, and Wayne Messam.
Out of these, I would definitely consider Wayne Messam for a merge (never been over 1 percent in a national poll, or participated in a debate). I would also consider merging John Delaney (possibly notable for his early declaration), Michael Bennet (although he is a senator, never been over 2 percent in a national poll), and Marianne Williamsom (never been over 2 percent). None of them are likely to participate in any future debates.
If things stay the way they are, that's fine as well. Naddruf ( talk) 15:24, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
How should Bernie Sanders' temporary suspension of his campaign be handled? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:5941:97E0:B6EA:CC38 ( talk) 23:09, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
He didn't suspend his campaign. He just called off events in the near future. If you want to write it into the timeline you can.— Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 23:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Browsing through the list of candidates, I am disturbed by the prominent display of home state flags in a national election. Each candidate's "home state" is already listed in their "experience" section (except for Williamson and Yang who have not held political office). I suggest to remove this distracting column. — JFG talk 08:45, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Man whoever changed all of the candidate images must really not like photos where people look into the camera. I think we should change them back to their official congressional photos (for those in Congress, obviously) rather than most recent photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
In an article about the presidential primaries, I don't think there needs to be a column that tells the reader that Michael Bennet was born on November 28th, 1964 in New Delhi, India and that he's currently 54 years old. It just seems a little too off topic. Vanilla Wizard 💙 22:41, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
Just a suggestion/humble request: Would it be possible in the overview graph to mark which candidates participated in which debate? E.g., by putting some sort of marker at the corresponding intersections? -- 95.90.224.135 ( talk) 09:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
For the candidates that will clearly not be described as major, but still have a wikipedia article, I thought the consensus was to keep them in a list below the major candidates because they are still notable. Has this consensus changed?
@ Bob bobato:, I noticed that you removed Michael E. Arth from the non-major candidates list, but I think he should remain there. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 17:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yang. David O. Johnson ( talk) 17:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
theBOBbobato ( talk) 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
-Novice user: Why did you not put Ojeda as major? He was a State Senator and gained national attention during his house race and in the film by Michael Moore. I'm confused. How is he less notable than say, Messam, or Sestak? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.153.48.25 ( talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Fair, but he gained "significant media coverage" as a congressional candidate. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:1C2:500:D890:E969:996A:8FE4:FA38 (
talk) 17:37, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
This one-revert-only rule is becoming quite troublesome now that all these Ojeda fanboys are coming out of the woodworks and adding him back to being a major candidate despite clear consensus on the talk page. How can we address this and fix this from happening without violating our own rules? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:00, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Patrick is listed both in the Potential major candidates section and the |Declined section. He can't do both obviously, so which do we give more credence to? The more recent one? David O. Johnson ( talk) 01:26, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Just noticed that the Marianne Williamson entry in the candidates table lists Iowa as "home state", and that looks wrong. She has said she moved to Iowa for the campaign, but that does not make it her home state. I'd suggest listing California as home state, and adding a footnote to explain that she has moved temporarily to Iowa in order to wage her presidential campaign. Asking for comments from other editors before applying the change. — JFG talk 19:34, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Donald Trump just changed his legal residence to Florida, and he listed as being from Florida on the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries page. Therefore, Williamson should be listed as being from Iowa. -- Numberguy6 ( talk) 02:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Method | Williamson residence | Trump residence |
---|---|---|
Current legal residence | Iowa | Florida |
Legal residence at declaration of candidacy | California | New York |
Current legal residence, unless move was purely for political reasons | California | New York [1] |
de facto residence | Iowa | Washington, D.C. |
de facto residence, excluding residences only used for official purposes | Iowa | Florida [2] |
Which above method should we use for determining residence?
Place your vote below this line: ---
@ CaptainAhab1841: Bennet should not be removed because his status as a child of a diplomat (probably) made him a citizen from birth, meaning he was a natural-born citizen, as the Supreme Court accepted in Perkins v. Elg. See Natural-born-citizen clause. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 19:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)