![]() | 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 5 |
She will only be 34 years old in 2020, and therefore constitutionally ineligible. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Lohan be included in this article as a declared candidate? [1]
I'm just starting to look into these articles, and noticed there are articles already made for the 2020 election and 2024 election. Would this not fall under WP: Crystal Ball? TJD2 ( talk) 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Went here to see if Kanye West is included. There he is. Don't editors think he was just joking or drunk at the time he 'declared'?--— SquidHomme (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has somewhat over half the potential electoral votes it needs to be implemented, and the Hill article used as a source for its possible implementation basically just says that and explains what the NPVIC is. Unless we have reliable sources saying that there's enough momentum behind it for it to have a chance of being implemented by then, I think bringing it up in this article is WP:UNDUE. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this should be created after the 2016 elections.-- 87.92.105.131 ( talk) 06:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In an April 2016 interview of Marco Rubio, Marco states that he will not run for President in 2020 and will remain in the Senate to act as a 'balance' to whoever is President. This is about as clearly as he could have put it outside of a straight "no". http://www.bradenton.com/news/politics-government/article95808687.html Alec Holbeck ( talk) 01:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to the resume and titles of people. I the usual style is, the person's current title, or if the person is a private citizen who has held political office or had been nominated for president or vice president, the highest position he or she has held. For example, George McGovern remained a senator until 1981. When he ran for president again in 1984, he was always referred as "1972 presidential nominee," not "former Senator" or "former Congressman."
Paul Ryan, is currently Speaker of the House, and is referred by his current title, never "2012 Vice presidential nominee." The late William E. Miller on the other hand is always referred to as "1964 Vice presidential nominee" and Sarah Palin is referred to as a former governor, why? Because being a vice presidential nominee is a lower rank than a governor. Miller's nomination was the highest rank he obtained before fading into obscurity.
On Wednesday afternoon at three p.m. we will probably know who won the election. If Mrs. Clinton wins, then all the potential candidates listed should cease to be listed. Since 1996, the rules of the Democratic party have been fixed in favor of the incumbent in order to prevent a repeat of the divisive 1980 primary. Several minor candidates who should have gotten delegates were denied them in 2012.
While on the Republican side, there were serious challenges in 1976 and 1992 against an incumbent, it is generally considered bad form to do so, and in the former case President Ford had never been elected to the post of either president or vice president, which is a unique anomaly in American history.
We still have three days, and the entire article is to some extent "crystal ball." Arglebargle79 ( talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I figure that we should have a schedule for maintenance;
Please do, thanks to the amount of hatred and discontent, it appears every person who has a mouth to run thinks they could be a candidate. This page is a mess of speculation without regard to the reality of what 4 years could bring and the nature of a campaign being about more than just a big name mouthing off. 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
He has said he is thrown this name in for a residence, should we include him?-- TVWolf ( talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that there are many celebrities claiming they're running for President. Among them are Chris Rock, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Kanye West (along with many others). Should we include them, since this seems to be more of a trend than actual campaign? Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk) 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bobby232332 ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It says that Hillary Clinton has declined to run for president in 2020, with thesun.co.uk/news/2160591/did-hillary-clinton-just-fire-the-starting-gun-on-michelle-obamas-2020-presidential-bid/ and telegraph.co.uk/news/0/which-democrats-could-challenge-donald-trump-in-2020-presidentia/ as sources. I looked at those articles, and I don't think it mentioned Hillary Clinton ruling out a 2020 presidential run, unless I read them wrong. So, I'm disputing what the Wikipedia page says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiratePablo ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The article states that "It is the tradition in both parties that potential candidates stand down in deference to the incumbent president". This is usually the case, but it seems a bit premature to say this is what will happen in 2020. Incumbent presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both faced serious primary challengers. Couldn't the same happen to President Trump? 99.244.232.198 ( talk) 00:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The ref tag is broken in the Paris Hilton line of the potential candidates section of the independent section. 66.103.163.60 ( talk) 02:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have submitted my candidacy to the FEC and intend on running in 2020 as an average American citizen fighting to everyday Americans.
Shawn Eric Rundblade (D) Waukesha, WI
Here is the FEC Form 2 info http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P00005330/1125763/
Shawnrundblade ( talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Shawn Rundblade
i bet your going to withdraw before 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.159.83 ( talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference 31 for Kamala Harris ( http://www.laweekly.com/news/with-head-start-on-senate-kamala-harris-will-run-for-president-too-5460010) is literally a joke, it was published on April 1 and there's a link to other April Fools Day coverage at the bottom of the article. I mean I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that disqualifies it as a source.
Should we include Mike Pence in the list of potential GOP candidates in case President Trump does not run ? Hektor ( talk) 08:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we remove the potential GOP candidates? Since they were based mostly on Trump's losing, it seems like a good idea to remove them and bring post-election sources in. (Or sources that account for the possibility of Trump's winning) Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk) 17:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Since Kanye likes Trump now, should we remove him from the list of presidential candidates or should we await for official confirmation he is withdrawing his campaign? DaCashman ( talk) 01:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's a video of Trump talking about Kanye. [3] He's liked him since at least September 2015. Emily Goldstein ( talk) 08:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Under the "Declined candidates" subsection of the "Republican Party" section, it lists Ben Carson. It describes him as the "[n]ominee for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development since 2016." Is that accurate? My understanding was that, as of writing, Donald Trump is considering nominating him for that position but hasn't decided yet. Can anyone confirm or deny whether he's currently the nominee? PiratePablo ( talk) 23:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The change in the sections were done without consulting users, so I am here to ask for your opinion. I believe potential was always used, someone correct me if I am wrong. Here is what I've gathered on the definitions of potential and speculative according to the Oxford Dictionary:
Potential: "Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future." [4]
Speculative: "Engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge." [5]
Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
To my knowledge, you're right that potential was always used. Personally, I think "potential" makes more sense than "speculative." For example, if a politician says, "I might run in 2020," then that would count as a potential candidate, because it's straight from the horse's mouth. That person would not count as a speculative candidate, however, because they're not really the subject of speculation, per se- they're just the subject of potential. But that's just my opinion. So, personally, I think we should change it back to "potential." But we should get feedback from more users before we decide to change it or keep it. PiratePablo ( talk) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think speculative works. Idrgaf, but "potential" candidates technically includes anybody over the age of 35. Even if we're not just speaking technically, that really could mean anybody over the age of 35 with military, government or business experience at this point. Kanye wants to run for crying out loud. Speculative means that people are thinking about him running, and while that still would include some people who shouldn't be included - Paris Hilton, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Joe Biden, etc. - that name would better indicate what we're getting at. The condition that they are speculated by reputable sources would be disseminated below the section title. But again, idgaf. DaCashman ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. You've changed my mind. I now think that "speculative" makes more sense than "potential." PiratePablo ( talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! DaCashman ( talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't mention it. PiratePablo ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
CNN recently put out a small list of speculative candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, found here. Included are: Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey (however, they quote her as saying that she "would never run for office"), Stephen Colbert, and Tim McGraw for the Democratic nomination as well as Kayne West and Dwayne Johnson, who are both already listed on the page. Should they be added to the page or ignored as just baseless speculation? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 10:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe Hanks and Winfrey should be ignored in this case. As you said, Winfrey stated that she'd never run for office, and Hanks is a very unlikely candidate. Colbert is a wild card in this, he did run in '08, but it was more of a joke than anything. I could see him as a real candidate, but he'd probably do something like Kimmel did with his "Vice-Presidential run." McGraw is also a tossup, He did say he would possibly enter politics at around the time the 2020 election comes around, but I'd just wait to see if he announces anything. Crashguy42 ( talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following poll, found at https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Politico_MCPostVPToplines-1.pdf, from the Republican section:
Poll source | Sample size | Date(s) | Margin of Error | Tom Cotton | Ted Cruz | John Kasich | Mike Pence | Marco Rubio | Paul Ryan | Donald Trump | Others | Don't Know |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Politico/Morning Consult | 1,989 | October 5–6, 2016 | ± 2% | 1% | 10% | 11% | 13% | 8% | 11% | 7% | 4% | 34% |
The reason I removed it is that the question posed was, "If Donald Trump were to lose the 2016 election, which one of the following Republicans would be your top choice to see run for President in 2020?". Trump did not lose the 2016 election, and so the premise of the question is no longer valid. It stands to reason that Republicans would be much more likely to support Trump for the 2020 nomination if he won the 2016 general election than if he lost it. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since Donald Trump is the presumptive incumbent for the 2020 election and will most likely be seeking re-election at that point, should we include him in infobox as of right now? -- Proud User ( talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Write your comment below the following line, in a format similar to this:
Do you think it's time we closed this RfC? There is strong consensus to not add Trump as incumbent for the Republicans per WP:CRYSTAL. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Her inclusion is sourced to Heavy, which has been repeatedly cited as not RS, and something called Romper. LavaBaron ( talk) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The home state of Dwayne Johnson is listed as California, which his state of birth, but according to his article and http://miami.curbed.com/2014/10/1/10040852/the-rock-moves-into-55m-southwest-ranches-house-immediately-orders-1, he resides in Southwest Ranches, Florida. Which state should be listed as his home state? MB298 ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that Florida should be listed. In politics, a person's home state is generally considered to be their state of their residence, not necessarily their state of birth. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was born in New York, but his home state is virtually universally listed as Vermont because he's a Senator from Vermont. PiratePablo ( talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura were removed as speculative candidates for the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. Why? Is there anywhere that says they're not running? Crashguy42 ( talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura didn't meet the qualifications of being listed after the Election. Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not refuting your claim, but perhaps you could explain that in further detail? How did they not meet qualifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA ( talk) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
As this article is about an event that takes place in 2020? IMHO we should be editing in that those potential candidates would no longer be holding some of their current offices or have assumed their future offices. For example, Joe Biden won't be Vice President by 2020 & Tammy Duckworth will be a US Senator by 2020. Future status should match future events. GoodDay ( talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed GoodDay tried to put Jack Fellure on the page as a major candidate. He is NOT. He is merely a retired hobbyist who has no intention of doing anything beyond sending a couple of letters to the FEC. How do I know this? It was what he did after he announced for president in November of 2012.
For this page (and it's too damn early to even think about), leave the barely notable fringe guys out of the main page until 2019 at least if they are "running" as a minor party candidate, and entirely if they're a major party "candidate", although when the separate page is created in a couple of years' time, it might be nice. Donald Trump is unique in that he's the only "vanity candidate" who actually won.
For the time being, list Trump and Pence as the incumbents and the others ONLY if they have been mentioned by reliable media. This should only change if for some reason Trump or Pence are removed from office.
That being said, there will be no polling for the Republicans to speak of, as there was no polling for them in 1984 and 2004 at all and none for 1992 until the end of the year. There is an incumbent.
To repeat. No minor vanity candidates on the main page. Unless they are mentioned by the mainstream media. okay? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||
| |||
| |||
![]() The electoral map for the 2020 election, based on populations from the
2010 census. The 2020 Election will be the last election to use the data from the 2010 Census; subsequent elections will use information from the as yet to be collected
2020 United States Census. | |||
|
What I am talking about is the Republican candidates section. where you have he hobbyist Jack Falere listed as a major candidate even though he isn't. Remove him and put Trump back there, please. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Just flipping trough my watch list and saw that Dwayne Johnson was a Speculative candidate. Is this true? JustAGuyOnWikipedia ( talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering the sources are quoting him as having expressed interest, I might even suggest giving him the "publicly expressed interest" category as Biden does for the Dems. DaCashman ( talk) 05:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In an interview on Fox News the president-elect clearly states that he will be in office "eight years."
This publicly shows that he expects to run for a second term, thus making him, if nothing else, a potential candidate, so let's put him back, okay? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 18:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's be patient and wait until Harris & Duckworth become US Senators. For now, showing them as State Attorney General of California & a Representative from Illinois, is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 14:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is Jack Fellure front and center with a big ol' picture yet Donald Trump has nothing? The only thing that mentions Donald Trump in the republican party section is a rather biased presumption that he may not be willing or able to run. He has stated very clearly he is "willing" to run in an interview on Fox News, and i don't know how we can speculate at this stage in the election that he won't be "able" to run. (Whatever that means). Crewcamel ( talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Much as I hate to admit it, GoodDay's suggestion is probably the best one. The line "president-elect Donald Trump, barring major change in circumstances, will be eligible to seek reelection" is about as speculative as Wikipedia is qualified to be right now. Sure, Bernie said one thing on Bill Maher one time. Outside of the source being cited, it doesn't look very credible. 4 years ago, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were the most discussed presidential candidates and Trump was getting write-ins in the Iowa primary. Too much changes in that amount of time. DaCashman ( talk) 09:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The heading in the "Declared minor candidates" section said, "Candidates in this section have never held public office and/or have not been featured in at least five national primary polls." I changed the "and/or" to "and". After all, if a candidate was featured in at least 5 national primary polls, we would classify them as a major candidate even if they had never held public office. And if a candidate who had held a major public office sought to challenge for the 2020 nomination, but no national primary polls had been held yet or they hadn't been listed in five of those polls yet, we would probably still classify that person as a major candidate. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Follow my advise. Don't add any candidates to this article, right now. Wait until after January 1, 2019. GoodDay ( talk) 22:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Should Tammy Baldwin be added as a speculative candidate? I have seen several sources suggesting or speculating that she could/should run in 2020 including 538, USA Today, The New Yorker, and Citizen Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.101.147 ( talk) 08:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I support this. DaCashman ( talk) 08:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add something about Mike Pence being a candidate if that were the case. It is almost impossible that he would primary Trump, but he would be the front-runner and most likely would run if those were the circumstances.-- Guiletheme ( talk) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Najeh Rosario ( talk) 02:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/03/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-2017-resolution-visit-us-states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 ( talk) 05:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Just figured I'd point out some instances of inconsistency in the page. We ought to have every case of "U.S." include the periods. Clinton and Kander both include "US" instead. Castro and Cuomo should also include "U.S." in front of their titles as Secretaries (and obviously Castro should be noted as a former Secretary once Carson replaces him later this month and the same goes for Biden being replaced by Pence and Michelle Obama with Melania Trump).
Duckworth and Harris should have their "from Illinois" and "from California" descriptions moved forward so they read "U.S. Senator from Illinois" rather than "U.S. Senator [...], U.S. Representative from Illinois." Similarly, Warner should ditch the "from Virginia" portion of his governorship, as it was already stated he was from Virginia when describing his time in the Senate, the same goes for Brown with "U.S. Representative from Ohio."
I'd also suggest adding in the following formerly held positions to the page:
and possibly Stein - Candidate for Governor of Massachusetts (2002, 2010)
Finally, I say we change Joe Kennedy III to his article name of Joseph P. Kennedy III. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 18:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Stevie hinted at running in 2020 on The Late Show this week. Should he be added as "publicly expressed interest" in the independents section, citing his show and the CNN piece about celebrities who might run? Or ought we to just leave it since it's a comedy show and he might've been kidding? DaCashman ( talk) 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wmpetro ( talk) 02:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a picture of the independent candidate Jeff Sharp.
I noticed that Donald Trump's been removed as a potential candidate, specifically as "potential incumbent" When clearly he is. WP:Crystal Ball basically is an injunction against listing something out of the ordinary happening in the future. Trump NOT being the incumbent in 2020 is just such a thing. There was a perfectly good picture there and it should be put back, and remain there until the "airport/DMV" picture is released to the public.
Anyone disagree? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I thought that was really bizarre too. Especially because they also didn't include Mike Pence. All the people who think Trump's gonna get impeached assume Pence will be prez and Ryan will be VP. Also, not only is Trump getting impeached/resigning a really far out prediction in terms of precedence, it's also far out in terms of reason. We gotta put him back in. Man has defied expectations many times before. DaCashman ( talk) 05:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned somewhere else, I favor deleting all speculative candidates. GoodDay ( talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a poll on an instagram page called democrats_for_2020 that needs to be put in the polling. https://www.instagram.com/p/BPJQW9FAAdv/?taken-by=democrats_for_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolothegeneral ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Kanye west postposed his presidential run until 2024. He tweeted it after his meeting with president elect Trump. https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/808769227847036941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.78.251 ( talk) 19:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are there so many declined candidates? Most or all of the speculative candidates listed would certainly say they have no plans to run for president anyway. That section is rather pointless at this stage in the election.
Also, can i ask for permission to remove tom hanks, George clooney and Oprah from the "declined" section. It isnt very notable that Oprah Winfrey is not planning to run for president. No one expected her to run in the first place. Crewcamel ( talk) 08:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is sanders listed as a democrat? He is no longer a democrat. If anything, he should be in the independents section. Mocha2007 ( talk) 02:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sanders is a Democrat for presidential run purposes. He stays an independent in Vermont only. In other arenas he is essentially a Democrat. I don't think his organization, Our Revolution, endorsed one candidate that wasn't registered Democrat, and he's currently in the process of reforming the actual party. DaCashman ( talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The observer article cited for Gillibrand says she denied she will running, but the quote that follows says nothing about 2020. Does anyone have another source that she denied she will run or a direct quote?
And for Cuomo, he said that rumors he is planning to run are not true, but he also said he doesn't have any plans beyond 2018. Which brings up that we should probably discuss whether the threshold for being included in the "declined" list is saying that they are "not planning to run" or are "planning not to run" because the what Cuomo said is closer to the former and implies he hasn't made a decision. Aliiqve ( talk) 21:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to remove Hillary Clinton from "speculative candidates". She is almost certain not run, and I don't think there is any reason to think she will. And I say this as a supporter of hers. Amac90 ( talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know that it's still three years out, and all sorts of stuff can still happen, but the cycles have been quite consistent since 1972, and they always follow the exact same pattern:
1) The invisible primary, potential candidates start talking with potential supporters and explore whether or not they are going to have enough support to finance a run in the upcoming primaries.
This lasts through the spring of the previous year (in this case, 2019), when a series of debates and forums will begin take place. This will happen on the Democratic side as that party is currently in diserey and there is no front-runner. It will not happen on the Republican side, as in 2019, even if Trump is a complete disaster (which I fully expect him to be, although if he does "make America Great again" that would be very nice), he will still be president and the full weight of the Republican party will go down on any challenger like a ton of bricks. This is what happened to Pat Buchanan in 1992. If you go back to the link I put up (and it was unceremoniously taken down) from USA Today, you will notice that the President and his people are already saying that they're going to run when the time comes.
2) Primary season, there's going to be talk of reform in the next couple of years, but the primaries will happen in some form. This is not w:chrystal ball, this is looking at previous cycles and the current rules. who will be in the Democratic race I dunno. Not a clue. But then again I'm not talking about changing that. However we must mention the primaries, because they WILL happen. There was a Presidential election during the Civil War, and there was a congressional election during World War I (the armistice agreement wasn't until a week after the vote).
3)The conventions. There will be conventions. In every single cycle with an incumbent there were conventions. It is W:Crystal to say there won't be any.
4) Incumbents: The incumbent will be a Republican. It will either be Trump, Pence, or the product of the 25th Amendment, although there has only been one double vacancy in the entire history of Second Republic (1789-). There hasn't been a coup in the entire history of the US.
Also, only ONE Republican President has lost primary in the past century, that was in 1976. Reagan beat Ford, but Ford won the nomination. On the Democratic side, Kennedy beat Carter in 1980, and Carter won.
Thus, there will be no polling on the GOP side, at least for the next two years.
Yes, it's three years until candidates start officially announcing. But the article should have something about the schedule when things should happen. Dwayne Johnson on the Republican side? Puh-LEZE!!!! Celebrities say they might run for president all the time. Reagan had already been a Governor. Trump is unique, genuinely unique, so he can't be taken as a precedent.
So let's do this right shall we? either let's have a two paragraph stub with a little picture of Trump, or we do a full outline of the cycle that can be filled in later on as the occasion arises. Limit the potential candidates who are listed on major polls and leave the celebrities and the hobbyists out.
If you want a genuine discussion on how this page should look, then fine. I'm all for that. But there was no consensus for this.... Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
He might still be open to running, according to this New York Times article, dated on January 17, after his decline. "I'll run if I can walk." This was already mentioned by other editors in a few places on Biden's wiki page.-- 71.194.19.81 ( talk) 07:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I moved her from "Declined" to "Speculative". There's lots of coverage speculating she'll run. Also, take a look at the source claiming she declined. A New York Observer piece she "claims she's not running", but provides the quote: “I’m running for Senate in 2018 and I really am very grateful for the opportunity to serve this state and believe it’s a platform where I can really help the most vulnerable and work on issues like this and really make a difference.” Of course she's talking about her 2018 reelection. She did not say she wouldn't run in 2020, just that it's not presently her focus. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that the notion that Katy Perry, Will Smith, Chris Rock, or Tim McGraw will run in 2020 is quite ridiculous, all four (plus Val Demings) have been speculated to run by two separate reliable sources including The Hill, Business Insider, The Washington Post, and CNN. They all provide reasoning behind their speculation as well, so they ought to be included for fitting the criteria of the list. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 02:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Speculative Candidate for President 2020, Democrat Nancy Pelosi KH030218 ( talk) 03:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"...has been reached to make it so that the political parties that received at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox." This statement is technically incorrect, because a member of the Libertarian Party and a member of the Green Party received faithless electoral votes. If we change it to "earned" at least one electoral vote or automatically include the Libertarian and Green parties as well, this statement would be correct.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sheryl Sandberg is apparently said to be considering a run.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/25/sheryl_sandberg_for_president_132885.html https://politicalwire.com/2017/02/01/sandberg-makes-big-donation-planned-parenthood/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3022:1:6C00:A5E9:8C82:8E59:CCA0 ( talk) 16:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The minute Katy Perry became a "candidate," this list verged on the boundaries of bull****. Many a candidate are not even being discussed as serious ones. Only Hillary, Bill de Blasio, John Bel Edwards, Kristen Gillibrand, Jason Kander, Caroline Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer and Elizabeth Warren are the ones that seem to appear to have extensive coverage. Unless an article discusses a potential candidate exclusively, they should be hidden. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 23:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey everybody, i firmly believe that the qualifications for a "speculative candidate" should be more stringent. However, taking the example set by the content of this page i am including Lindsay lohan as a candidate who has publicly expressed interest. She voices support for her candidacy in this usa today article. [1] I believe not including her would be a violation of wp:crystal Crewcamel ( talk) 19:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I've seen a news article from AOL News that Clinton has said she will likely run again. Why isn't she listed as expressing interest? Necropolis Hill ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I was checking out the potential sites and i came to conclusion that it would be sensible that democrats put their convention in a rust belt state (Wisconsin/Michigan). Any ideas? JDPEG ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2016 (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 5 |
She will only be 34 years old in 2020, and therefore constitutionally ineligible. FiredanceThroughTheNight ( talk) 06:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should Lohan be included in this article as a declared candidate? [1]
I'm just starting to look into these articles, and noticed there are articles already made for the 2020 election and 2024 election. Would this not fall under WP: Crystal Ball? TJD2 ( talk) 01:35, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Went here to see if Kanye West is included. There he is. Don't editors think he was just joking or drunk at the time he 'declared'?--— SquidHomme (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact has somewhat over half the potential electoral votes it needs to be implemented, and the Hill article used as a source for its possible implementation basically just says that and explains what the NPVIC is. Unless we have reliable sources saying that there's enough momentum behind it for it to have a chance of being implemented by then, I think bringing it up in this article is WP:UNDUE. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 08:43, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I think this should be created after the 2016 elections.-- 87.92.105.131 ( talk) 06:28, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
In an April 2016 interview of Marco Rubio, Marco states that he will not run for President in 2020 and will remain in the Senate to act as a 'balance' to whoever is President. This is about as clearly as he could have put it outside of a straight "no". http://www.bradenton.com/news/politics-government/article95808687.html Alec Holbeck ( talk) 01:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
When it comes to the resume and titles of people. I the usual style is, the person's current title, or if the person is a private citizen who has held political office or had been nominated for president or vice president, the highest position he or she has held. For example, George McGovern remained a senator until 1981. When he ran for president again in 1984, he was always referred as "1972 presidential nominee," not "former Senator" or "former Congressman."
Paul Ryan, is currently Speaker of the House, and is referred by his current title, never "2012 Vice presidential nominee." The late William E. Miller on the other hand is always referred to as "1964 Vice presidential nominee" and Sarah Palin is referred to as a former governor, why? Because being a vice presidential nominee is a lower rank than a governor. Miller's nomination was the highest rank he obtained before fading into obscurity.
On Wednesday afternoon at three p.m. we will probably know who won the election. If Mrs. Clinton wins, then all the potential candidates listed should cease to be listed. Since 1996, the rules of the Democratic party have been fixed in favor of the incumbent in order to prevent a repeat of the divisive 1980 primary. Several minor candidates who should have gotten delegates were denied them in 2012.
While on the Republican side, there were serious challenges in 1976 and 1992 against an incumbent, it is generally considered bad form to do so, and in the former case President Ford had never been elected to the post of either president or vice president, which is a unique anomaly in American history.
We still have three days, and the entire article is to some extent "crystal ball." Arglebargle79 ( talk) 15:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I figure that we should have a schedule for maintenance;
Please do, thanks to the amount of hatred and discontent, it appears every person who has a mouth to run thinks they could be a candidate. This page is a mess of speculation without regard to the reality of what 4 years could bring and the nature of a campaign being about more than just a big name mouthing off. 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
He has said he is thrown this name in for a residence, should we include him?-- TVWolf ( talk) 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It's come to my attention that there are many celebrities claiming they're running for President. Among them are Chris Rock, Paris Hilton, Lindsey Lohan, and Kanye West (along with many others). Should we include them, since this seems to be more of a trend than actual campaign? Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk) 16:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Bobby232332 ( talk) 02:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It says that Hillary Clinton has declined to run for president in 2020, with thesun.co.uk/news/2160591/did-hillary-clinton-just-fire-the-starting-gun-on-michelle-obamas-2020-presidential-bid/ and telegraph.co.uk/news/0/which-democrats-could-challenge-donald-trump-in-2020-presidentia/ as sources. I looked at those articles, and I don't think it mentioned Hillary Clinton ruling out a 2020 presidential run, unless I read them wrong. So, I'm disputing what the Wikipedia page says. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PiratePablo ( talk • contribs) 02:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The article states that "It is the tradition in both parties that potential candidates stand down in deference to the incumbent president". This is usually the case, but it seems a bit premature to say this is what will happen in 2020. Incumbent presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter both faced serious primary challengers. Couldn't the same happen to President Trump? 99.244.232.198 ( talk) 00:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The ref tag is broken in the Paris Hilton line of the potential candidates section of the independent section. 66.103.163.60 ( talk) 02:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I have submitted my candidacy to the FEC and intend on running in 2020 as an average American citizen fighting to everyday Americans.
Shawn Eric Rundblade (D) Waukesha, WI
Here is the FEC Form 2 info http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P00005330/1125763/
Shawnrundblade ( talk) 03:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Shawn Rundblade
i bet your going to withdraw before 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.52.159.83 ( talk) 23:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Reference 31 for Kamala Harris ( http://www.laweekly.com/news/with-head-start-on-senate-kamala-harris-will-run-for-president-too-5460010) is literally a joke, it was published on April 1 and there's a link to other April Fools Day coverage at the bottom of the article. I mean I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure that disqualifies it as a source.
Should we include Mike Pence in the list of potential GOP candidates in case President Trump does not run ? Hektor ( talk) 08:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we remove the potential GOP candidates? Since they were based mostly on Trump's losing, it seems like a good idea to remove them and bring post-election sources in. (Or sources that account for the possibility of Trump's winning) Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk) 17:13, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Since Kanye likes Trump now, should we remove him from the list of presidential candidates or should we await for official confirmation he is withdrawing his campaign? DaCashman ( talk) 01:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Here's a video of Trump talking about Kanye. [3] He's liked him since at least September 2015. Emily Goldstein ( talk) 08:06, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Under the "Declined candidates" subsection of the "Republican Party" section, it lists Ben Carson. It describes him as the "[n]ominee for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development since 2016." Is that accurate? My understanding was that, as of writing, Donald Trump is considering nominating him for that position but hasn't decided yet. Can anyone confirm or deny whether he's currently the nominee? PiratePablo ( talk) 23:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
The change in the sections were done without consulting users, so I am here to ask for your opinion. I believe potential was always used, someone correct me if I am wrong. Here is what I've gathered on the definitions of potential and speculative according to the Oxford Dictionary:
Potential: "Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future." [4]
Speculative: "Engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge." [5]
Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
To my knowledge, you're right that potential was always used. Personally, I think "potential" makes more sense than "speculative." For example, if a politician says, "I might run in 2020," then that would count as a potential candidate, because it's straight from the horse's mouth. That person would not count as a speculative candidate, however, because they're not really the subject of speculation, per se- they're just the subject of potential. But that's just my opinion. So, personally, I think we should change it back to "potential." But we should get feedback from more users before we decide to change it or keep it. PiratePablo ( talk) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I think speculative works. Idrgaf, but "potential" candidates technically includes anybody over the age of 35. Even if we're not just speaking technically, that really could mean anybody over the age of 35 with military, government or business experience at this point. Kanye wants to run for crying out loud. Speculative means that people are thinking about him running, and while that still would include some people who shouldn't be included - Paris Hilton, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Joe Biden, etc. - that name would better indicate what we're getting at. The condition that they are speculated by reputable sources would be disseminated below the section title. But again, idgaf. DaCashman ( talk) 02:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
That's a good point. You've changed my mind. I now think that "speculative" makes more sense than "potential." PiratePablo ( talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! DaCashman ( talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't mention it. PiratePablo ( talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
CNN recently put out a small list of speculative candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, found here. Included are: Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey (however, they quote her as saying that she "would never run for office"), Stephen Colbert, and Tim McGraw for the Democratic nomination as well as Kayne West and Dwayne Johnson, who are both already listed on the page. Should they be added to the page or ignored as just baseless speculation? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 10:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe Hanks and Winfrey should be ignored in this case. As you said, Winfrey stated that she'd never run for office, and Hanks is a very unlikely candidate. Colbert is a wild card in this, he did run in '08, but it was more of a joke than anything. I could see him as a real candidate, but he'd probably do something like Kimmel did with his "Vice-Presidential run." McGraw is also a tossup, He did say he would possibly enter politics at around the time the 2020 election comes around, but I'd just wait to see if he announces anything. Crashguy42 ( talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the following poll, found at https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Politico_MCPostVPToplines-1.pdf, from the Republican section:
Poll source | Sample size | Date(s) | Margin of Error | Tom Cotton | Ted Cruz | John Kasich | Mike Pence | Marco Rubio | Paul Ryan | Donald Trump | Others | Don't Know |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Politico/Morning Consult | 1,989 | October 5–6, 2016 | ± 2% | 1% | 10% | 11% | 13% | 8% | 11% | 7% | 4% | 34% |
The reason I removed it is that the question posed was, "If Donald Trump were to lose the 2016 election, which one of the following Republicans would be your top choice to see run for President in 2020?". Trump did not lose the 2016 election, and so the premise of the question is no longer valid. It stands to reason that Republicans would be much more likely to support Trump for the 2020 nomination if he won the 2016 general election than if he lost it. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since Donald Trump is the presumptive incumbent for the 2020 election and will most likely be seeking re-election at that point, should we include him in infobox as of right now? -- Proud User ( talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Write your comment below the following line, in a format similar to this:
Do you think it's time we closed this RfC? There is strong consensus to not add Trump as incumbent for the Republicans per WP:CRYSTAL. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Her inclusion is sourced to Heavy, which has been repeatedly cited as not RS, and something called Romper. LavaBaron ( talk) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The home state of Dwayne Johnson is listed as California, which his state of birth, but according to his article and http://miami.curbed.com/2014/10/1/10040852/the-rock-moves-into-55m-southwest-ranches-house-immediately-orders-1, he resides in Southwest Ranches, Florida. Which state should be listed as his home state? MB298 ( talk) 05:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I think that Florida should be listed. In politics, a person's home state is generally considered to be their state of their residence, not necessarily their state of birth. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was born in New York, but his home state is virtually universally listed as Vermont because he's a Senator from Vermont. PiratePablo ( talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura were removed as speculative candidates for the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. Why? Is there anywhere that says they're not running? Crashguy42 ( talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura didn't meet the qualifications of being listed after the Election. Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm not refuting your claim, but perhaps you could explain that in further detail? How did they not meet qualifications? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA ( talk) 23:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
As this article is about an event that takes place in 2020? IMHO we should be editing in that those potential candidates would no longer be holding some of their current offices or have assumed their future offices. For example, Joe Biden won't be Vice President by 2020 & Tammy Duckworth will be a US Senator by 2020. Future status should match future events. GoodDay ( talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
I noticed GoodDay tried to put Jack Fellure on the page as a major candidate. He is NOT. He is merely a retired hobbyist who has no intention of doing anything beyond sending a couple of letters to the FEC. How do I know this? It was what he did after he announced for president in November of 2012.
For this page (and it's too damn early to even think about), leave the barely notable fringe guys out of the main page until 2019 at least if they are "running" as a minor party candidate, and entirely if they're a major party "candidate", although when the separate page is created in a couple of years' time, it might be nice. Donald Trump is unique in that he's the only "vanity candidate" who actually won.
For the time being, list Trump and Pence as the incumbents and the others ONLY if they have been mentioned by reliable media. This should only change if for some reason Trump or Pence are removed from office.
That being said, there will be no polling for the Republicans to speak of, as there was no polling for them in 1984 and 2004 at all and none for 1992 until the end of the year. There is an incumbent.
To repeat. No minor vanity candidates on the main page. Unless they are mentioned by the mainstream media. okay? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||
| |||
| |||
![]() The electoral map for the 2020 election, based on populations from the
2010 census. The 2020 Election will be the last election to use the data from the 2010 Census; subsequent elections will use information from the as yet to be collected
2020 United States Census. | |||
|
What I am talking about is the Republican candidates section. where you have he hobbyist Jack Falere listed as a major candidate even though he isn't. Remove him and put Trump back there, please. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Just flipping trough my watch list and saw that Dwayne Johnson was a Speculative candidate. Is this true? JustAGuyOnWikipedia ( talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Considering the sources are quoting him as having expressed interest, I might even suggest giving him the "publicly expressed interest" category as Biden does for the Dems. DaCashman ( talk) 05:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
In an interview on Fox News the president-elect clearly states that he will be in office "eight years."
This publicly shows that he expects to run for a second term, thus making him, if nothing else, a potential candidate, so let's put him back, okay? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 18:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Let's be patient and wait until Harris & Duckworth become US Senators. For now, showing them as State Attorney General of California & a Representative from Illinois, is acceptable. GoodDay ( talk) 14:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Why is Jack Fellure front and center with a big ol' picture yet Donald Trump has nothing? The only thing that mentions Donald Trump in the republican party section is a rather biased presumption that he may not be willing or able to run. He has stated very clearly he is "willing" to run in an interview on Fox News, and i don't know how we can speculate at this stage in the election that he won't be "able" to run. (Whatever that means). Crewcamel ( talk) 00:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Much as I hate to admit it, GoodDay's suggestion is probably the best one. The line "president-elect Donald Trump, barring major change in circumstances, will be eligible to seek reelection" is about as speculative as Wikipedia is qualified to be right now. Sure, Bernie said one thing on Bill Maher one time. Outside of the source being cited, it doesn't look very credible. 4 years ago, Mitt Romney and Ron Paul were the most discussed presidential candidates and Trump was getting write-ins in the Iowa primary. Too much changes in that amount of time. DaCashman ( talk) 09:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
The heading in the "Declared minor candidates" section said, "Candidates in this section have never held public office and/or have not been featured in at least five national primary polls." I changed the "and/or" to "and". After all, if a candidate was featured in at least 5 national primary polls, we would classify them as a major candidate even if they had never held public office. And if a candidate who had held a major public office sought to challenge for the 2020 nomination, but no national primary polls had been held yet or they hadn't been listed in five of those polls yet, we would probably still classify that person as a major candidate. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Follow my advise. Don't add any candidates to this article, right now. Wait until after January 1, 2019. GoodDay ( talk) 22:59, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Should Tammy Baldwin be added as a speculative candidate? I have seen several sources suggesting or speculating that she could/should run in 2020 including 538, USA Today, The New Yorker, and Citizen Times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.101.147 ( talk) 08:46, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
I support this. DaCashman ( talk) 08:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd like to add something about Mike Pence being a candidate if that were the case. It is almost impossible that he would primary Trump, but he would be the front-runner and most likely would run if those were the circumstances.-- Guiletheme ( talk) 18:32, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Najeh Rosario ( talk) 02:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jan/03/mark-zuckerberg-facebook-2017-resolution-visit-us-states — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.243.14 ( talk) 05:23, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Just figured I'd point out some instances of inconsistency in the page. We ought to have every case of "U.S." include the periods. Clinton and Kander both include "US" instead. Castro and Cuomo should also include "U.S." in front of their titles as Secretaries (and obviously Castro should be noted as a former Secretary once Carson replaces him later this month and the same goes for Biden being replaced by Pence and Michelle Obama with Melania Trump).
Duckworth and Harris should have their "from Illinois" and "from California" descriptions moved forward so they read "U.S. Senator from Illinois" rather than "U.S. Senator [...], U.S. Representative from Illinois." Similarly, Warner should ditch the "from Virginia" portion of his governorship, as it was already stated he was from Virginia when describing his time in the Senate, the same goes for Brown with "U.S. Representative from Ohio."
I'd also suggest adding in the following formerly held positions to the page:
and possibly Stein - Candidate for Governor of Massachusetts (2002, 2010)
Finally, I say we change Joe Kennedy III to his article name of Joseph P. Kennedy III. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 18:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Stevie hinted at running in 2020 on The Late Show this week. Should he be added as "publicly expressed interest" in the independents section, citing his show and the CNN piece about celebrities who might run? Or ought we to just leave it since it's a comedy show and he might've been kidding? DaCashman ( talk) 22:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Wmpetro ( talk) 02:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a picture of the independent candidate Jeff Sharp.
I noticed that Donald Trump's been removed as a potential candidate, specifically as "potential incumbent" When clearly he is. WP:Crystal Ball basically is an injunction against listing something out of the ordinary happening in the future. Trump NOT being the incumbent in 2020 is just such a thing. There was a perfectly good picture there and it should be put back, and remain there until the "airport/DMV" picture is released to the public.
Anyone disagree? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I thought that was really bizarre too. Especially because they also didn't include Mike Pence. All the people who think Trump's gonna get impeached assume Pence will be prez and Ryan will be VP. Also, not only is Trump getting impeached/resigning a really far out prediction in terms of precedence, it's also far out in terms of reason. We gotta put him back in. Man has defied expectations many times before. DaCashman ( talk) 05:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
As mentioned somewhere else, I favor deleting all speculative candidates. GoodDay ( talk) 22:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a poll on an instagram page called democrats_for_2020 that needs to be put in the polling. https://www.instagram.com/p/BPJQW9FAAdv/?taken-by=democrats_for_2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lolothegeneral ( talk • contribs) 22:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Kanye west postposed his presidential run until 2024. He tweeted it after his meeting with president elect Trump. https://twitter.com/kanyewest/status/808769227847036941 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.78.251 ( talk) 19:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Why are there so many declined candidates? Most or all of the speculative candidates listed would certainly say they have no plans to run for president anyway. That section is rather pointless at this stage in the election.
Also, can i ask for permission to remove tom hanks, George clooney and Oprah from the "declined" section. It isnt very notable that Oprah Winfrey is not planning to run for president. No one expected her to run in the first place. Crewcamel ( talk) 08:17, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Why is sanders listed as a democrat? He is no longer a democrat. If anything, he should be in the independents section. Mocha2007 ( talk) 02:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Sanders is a Democrat for presidential run purposes. He stays an independent in Vermont only. In other arenas he is essentially a Democrat. I don't think his organization, Our Revolution, endorsed one candidate that wasn't registered Democrat, and he's currently in the process of reforming the actual party. DaCashman ( talk) 21:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
The observer article cited for Gillibrand says she denied she will running, but the quote that follows says nothing about 2020. Does anyone have another source that she denied she will run or a direct quote?
And for Cuomo, he said that rumors he is planning to run are not true, but he also said he doesn't have any plans beyond 2018. Which brings up that we should probably discuss whether the threshold for being included in the "declined" list is saying that they are "not planning to run" or are "planning not to run" because the what Cuomo said is closer to the former and implies he hasn't made a decision. Aliiqve ( talk) 21:32, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Request to remove Hillary Clinton from "speculative candidates". She is almost certain not run, and I don't think there is any reason to think she will. And I say this as a supporter of hers. Amac90 ( talk) 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I know that it's still three years out, and all sorts of stuff can still happen, but the cycles have been quite consistent since 1972, and they always follow the exact same pattern:
1) The invisible primary, potential candidates start talking with potential supporters and explore whether or not they are going to have enough support to finance a run in the upcoming primaries.
This lasts through the spring of the previous year (in this case, 2019), when a series of debates and forums will begin take place. This will happen on the Democratic side as that party is currently in diserey and there is no front-runner. It will not happen on the Republican side, as in 2019, even if Trump is a complete disaster (which I fully expect him to be, although if he does "make America Great again" that would be very nice), he will still be president and the full weight of the Republican party will go down on any challenger like a ton of bricks. This is what happened to Pat Buchanan in 1992. If you go back to the link I put up (and it was unceremoniously taken down) from USA Today, you will notice that the President and his people are already saying that they're going to run when the time comes.
2) Primary season, there's going to be talk of reform in the next couple of years, but the primaries will happen in some form. This is not w:chrystal ball, this is looking at previous cycles and the current rules. who will be in the Democratic race I dunno. Not a clue. But then again I'm not talking about changing that. However we must mention the primaries, because they WILL happen. There was a Presidential election during the Civil War, and there was a congressional election during World War I (the armistice agreement wasn't until a week after the vote).
3)The conventions. There will be conventions. In every single cycle with an incumbent there were conventions. It is W:Crystal to say there won't be any.
4) Incumbents: The incumbent will be a Republican. It will either be Trump, Pence, or the product of the 25th Amendment, although there has only been one double vacancy in the entire history of Second Republic (1789-). There hasn't been a coup in the entire history of the US.
Also, only ONE Republican President has lost primary in the past century, that was in 1976. Reagan beat Ford, but Ford won the nomination. On the Democratic side, Kennedy beat Carter in 1980, and Carter won.
Thus, there will be no polling on the GOP side, at least for the next two years.
Yes, it's three years until candidates start officially announcing. But the article should have something about the schedule when things should happen. Dwayne Johnson on the Republican side? Puh-LEZE!!!! Celebrities say they might run for president all the time. Reagan had already been a Governor. Trump is unique, genuinely unique, so he can't be taken as a precedent.
So let's do this right shall we? either let's have a two paragraph stub with a little picture of Trump, or we do a full outline of the cycle that can be filled in later on as the occasion arises. Limit the potential candidates who are listed on major polls and leave the celebrities and the hobbyists out.
If you want a genuine discussion on how this page should look, then fine. I'm all for that. But there was no consensus for this.... Arglebargle79 ( talk) 22:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
He might still be open to running, according to this New York Times article, dated on January 17, after his decline. "I'll run if I can walk." This was already mentioned by other editors in a few places on Biden's wiki page.-- 71.194.19.81 ( talk) 07:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I moved her from "Declined" to "Speculative". There's lots of coverage speculating she'll run. Also, take a look at the source claiming she declined. A New York Observer piece she "claims she's not running", but provides the quote: “I’m running for Senate in 2018 and I really am very grateful for the opportunity to serve this state and believe it’s a platform where I can really help the most vulnerable and work on issues like this and really make a difference.” Of course she's talking about her 2018 reelection. She did not say she wouldn't run in 2020, just that it's not presently her focus. – Muboshgu ( talk) 02:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
While I agree that the notion that Katy Perry, Will Smith, Chris Rock, or Tim McGraw will run in 2020 is quite ridiculous, all four (plus Val Demings) have been speculated to run by two separate reliable sources including The Hill, Business Insider, The Washington Post, and CNN. They all provide reasoning behind their speculation as well, so they ought to be included for fitting the criteria of the list. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 02:17, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Speculative Candidate for President 2020, Democrat Nancy Pelosi KH030218 ( talk) 03:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
"...has been reached to make it so that the political parties that received at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox." This statement is technically incorrect, because a member of the Libertarian Party and a member of the Green Party received faithless electoral votes. If we change it to "earned" at least one electoral vote or automatically include the Libertarian and Green parties as well, this statement would be correct.-- Molandfreak (talk, contribs, email) 23:45, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Sheryl Sandberg is apparently said to be considering a run.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2017/01/25/sheryl_sandberg_for_president_132885.html https://politicalwire.com/2017/02/01/sandberg-makes-big-donation-planned-parenthood/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3022:1:6C00:A5E9:8C82:8E59:CCA0 ( talk) 16:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
The minute Katy Perry became a "candidate," this list verged on the boundaries of bull****. Many a candidate are not even being discussed as serious ones. Only Hillary, Bill de Blasio, John Bel Edwards, Kristen Gillibrand, Jason Kander, Caroline Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, Tom Steyer and Elizabeth Warren are the ones that seem to appear to have extensive coverage. Unless an article discusses a potential candidate exclusively, they should be hidden. Shhhhwwww!! ( talk) 23:45, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey everybody, i firmly believe that the qualifications for a "speculative candidate" should be more stringent. However, taking the example set by the content of this page i am including Lindsay lohan as a candidate who has publicly expressed interest. She voices support for her candidacy in this usa today article. [1] I believe not including her would be a violation of wp:crystal Crewcamel ( talk) 19:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
References
I've seen a news article from AOL News that Clinton has said she will likely run again. Why isn't she listed as expressing interest? Necropolis Hill ( talk) 22:49, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I was checking out the potential sites and i came to conclusion that it would be sensible that democrats put their convention in a rust belt state (Wisconsin/Michigan). Any ideas? JDPEG ( talk) 21:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)