![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The consensus is against including Jeremy Gable as a candidate because his candidacy has not been covered by secondary reliable sources. The only source currently cited is a primary source, the FEC "Statement of Candidacy" form at http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_15951367215%200.
There is no prejudice against immediately restoring Jeremy Cable in the article if a secondary reliable source covers his candidacy.
Robert McClenon recommended we do RFCs for specific candidates that may or may not be worth including. I'll start with Jeremy Gable. Should Jeremy Gable be included as a candidate in this article yes or no? 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If Kanye West were to declare his candidacy for president for pm of the UK, he wouldn't be included in the wiki because giving Kanye even a sentence is insulting to the reader. It's wasting their time. Crewcamel ( talk) 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is Dwayne Johnson listed under potential Republican Candidates when 1. Nobody knows what party he is and 2. He did not say he was running for the Republican Nomination?
Are we sure this is a "highly visible" article requiring "Active arbitration remedies", it doesn't seem quite as visible as say Donald Trump. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
In the green party/independent section:
***Candidates in this section only need one source ***There should be one to three sources for a potential candidate
Pretty sure they do. Should we remove one of the rules?
Crewcamel ( talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
***You only need a minimum of 1 source to be included in "expressed," as opposed to 2 for "speculative" or "declined." ***There should be between 1 and 3 sources total.
![]() |
There is no contradiction here I believe. What it means is that you only need 1 source for the information to be verified. You can add up to 3 but only 1 is required minimum. You may want to reword it slightly so that it doesn't confuse editors in the future. Something along the lines of: 'Candidates in this section should have at least one source but no more than three.' Hope this helps! -=Troop=- ( talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
Analysis from Nate Silver and Donald Trump's cardiologist strongly suggests Trump will be either impeached or dead by 2020, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. Trump MAY be eligible to be re-elected, on the off-chance he isn't doing hard time for Treason or dead by that time. This is a 260-pound 74-year old man we're speaking of. His survival curve is not strong. 209.122.204.65 ( talk) 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Biden needs to be added to speculative section: [1]. Prcc27 ( talk) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Connecticut Gov Dannel Malloy has been showing up on a lot of 2020 lists. Please add him as a speculated candidate per these sources: 1, 2. Inspector Semenych ( talk) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
You don't know if any of these are true.It is 3 years from now!! GingerAleLover ( talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that since he has been opposing the corporatist wing of the party so much, and been Handpicked by Bernie Sanders as his Personal Successor, there is quite a big chance that he will run in 2020. Or at least be Bernie Sanders' running mate. He was the first Muslim ever to be elected to the congress, and with the huge role Identity politics played in the last election for the democrats , it wouldn't suprise me at all if people payed more attention to him because of that, or even voted for him because of that. If I was I betting man, I would put all I had on him at least running in 2020, especially if Tom Perez runs as well. As for sources, it's more than just my guy, there have been articles in the Washington post and Politicalstorm and NewYorkTimes and things like that, which also predict him running in 2020. SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Speculated in a |The Hill opinion piece, but no speculation that he is actually interested. Not sure whether or not this warrants adding him to Speculative candidates for the GOP http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/340094-opinion-scarborough-should-run-against-trump-in-2020 SecretName101 ( talk) 20:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The list was way too indiscriminate. Some of the people aren't running because they're not credible candidates; some probably will announce they are running after all in 2 years. I've removed all of them except Hillary Clinton as not being particularly notable or credible at this time. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? Didn't we already go through this with the celebrities? He's a comedian who went on Russian TV! He's not running. How about until he's not in his comedic mode and makes an announcement in the U.S. media he is removed? He doesn't even have a title, e.g. Governor, Senator, Mayor, etc. Are you ready to put Beyonce back on the list then too? 2601:589:4706:C2D8:B562:BA63:D2FC:F9CA ( talk) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is Cory Booker listed as "expressing interesting" for not ruling out a run but Bernie Sanders isn't..? He should be moved to the speculative section. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to pin down certain people's political parties. I just wanted to go over some problem candidates on the article. The following are registered with the respective parties above their names.
Republicans
Libertarians
Independents
I couldn't find anything definitive with these last three, just some specific political positions or interactions. Just because they hold or have donated to liberal or conservative causes doesn't mean they necessarily belong to the Democratic or Republican parties respectively. People like Bernie Sanders, Michael Flynn, David Clarke, and Jared Kushner are testaments to that.
Here are my suggestions for where to place everyone:
Thoughts? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 10:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The general election polling section gives Trump's poll numbers against several prospective candidates. However, the prospective candidates' names are not linked to their corresponding Wiki article, making it more difficult to determine who exactly Trump is being polled against. This is exacerbated by using only last names in the headers, creating significant ambiguity in some cases (e.g., "Johnson" apparently refers to non-politician Dwayne Johnson rather than previous presidential candidate Gary Johnson.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.248 ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Mary Ruwart recently hinted at possible interest in a 2020 run for Libertarian party nomination in an interview on salon.com. Here's the link: http://www.salon.com/2017/07/18/watch-is-she-2020s-gary-johnson/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.240.94 ( talk) 21:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Congresswoman Waters, who is in the "Expressed intrest in running" section, denied intrest in these ambitions about 9 hours ago according to "The Hill"
PS It means we should probably move her to the declined section now, here's the link to the article http://thehill.com/homenews/house/343047-maxine-waters-is-joking-about-2020-but-not-about-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePresident ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Mark Cuban is opening up the possibility of a run again.
MB298 ( talk) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey I'd hate to keep bringing it up but, Maxine Waters offically declined intrest in running for President. It's a little misleading to keep her in the expressed intrest section, again here's my source http://thehill.com/homenews/house/343047-maxine-waters-is-joking-about-2020-but-not-about-trump She is even qouted saying that it was a joke when she claimed intrest. If for some reason this isn't enough info please let me know, I'm not upset and I have nothing against her really, but i'm just really confused as to why she's still up there at this point. FuturePresident ( talk) 04:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank You! :) FuturePresident ( talk) 18:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Congressman John Delaney won't seek re-election in 2018 and is eyeing a 2020 presidential run according to Roll Call, Poltico, and The Washington Post FuturePresident ( talk) 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't Walter Randall Bannister listed as a candidate? He filed papers to run on June 9, 2017. His committee ID # is C00647412.
SOURCES: https://www.fec.gov/data/?search=BANNISTER+FOR+PRESIDENT+2020 https://www.facebook.com/BANNISTERFORPRESIDENT2020/ http://politics1.com/p2020.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.238.218 ( talk) 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
i found this article from today if it helps: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/us/politics/2020-campaign-president-trump-cotton-sasse-pence.html. thx. ( talk) 12:17, 5 August 2017 (ET)
Should Steve Bullock be moved to the "interested" section. He started a PAC which is seen as a strong lean towards a run for president: [4]. -- Governor Jerchel ( talk) 11:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Probably not yet, he's claimed that's to raise money for other Democrats. There's a solid chance he probably is going to run but, we shouldn't move him into intrested until he verbally expresses intrest in running FuturePresident ( talk) 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Dwayne Johnson is listed both under third party and democratic. I understand some logic since he is currently independent but may run with the democrats, however, I feel that he should be listed under only one category until he decides on one or the other, just to cut down on redundant parts of the article. What are your thoughts? Alex the Nerd ( talk) 12:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Dwayne Johnson is not a Democrat he is a Republican.
I strongly feel that Dwayne Johnson should be listed as a "Independent/Unaffiliated" candidate since he has not "expressed interest" in running as a Democrat according to any of the references. If candidates are classified as "expressed interest" then they should both express interest in running in general and running for that party or independent/unaffiliated. Thus, listing him as expressing interested in running as a Democrat is misleading based on the references. It seems to me partisans have edited this page to try and affiliate him with the Democratic Party (different individuals could view this as a positive or negative reflection of the party it should be noted.) Furthermore, if there is no evidence of Johnson expressing interest int he democratic party, then only reason he would be included is that people want him to run as a Democrat. In that case, he should also be listed as a Democrat and perhaps even a Libertarian and other 3rd parties as I'm sure people in each of those parties would like him to run. The best solution to me seems to be to create a separate category for individuals who have not specified which party they are expressing interest in. Otherwise or until he should only be classified as "Independent/Unaffiliated" If he has expressed interest in a specific party than that needs to be proved with a reference, until then unreferenced information should not be included. As an alternative perhaps it would be more appropriate to list him as a speculative candidate for the Democratic party then "expressed interest" for Independent/Unaffiliated or a new category for no party specified.-- Ldurkin ( talk) 21:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is Bernie Sanders listed as "Declined to be candidates" under "Third-party, independent, and unaffiliated candidates"? If it's because he declined to be an independent candidate (but didn't decline to be a candidate), this is misleading. I know that Bernie Sanders hasn't ruled out running in 2020.
I agree, I skimmed the references and none indicated he declined running as an indp/unaffiliated or the green party. I think he should be listed as a speculative candidate certainly for the dem's and independent/unaffiliated. First, the majority of expressed opinions in the reference indicate "he has not ruled it out" but also that he has not adequately "expressed interest" in my opinion to categorize him as such. Additionally, has an independent to caucuses with and is party of Senate leadership of the Democratic Party I think it is reasonable to speculate he would run as an Indp/Unaffiliated or Democrat. However, I question if there is adequate evidence to speculate he would run as a member of the green party. I think if we have to speculate him running as for the Green Party we could also speculate he could run for a number of other socialist 3rd parties. In fact based on this hopeful level of speculation, I could speculate he could run as a Republican to lead a hostile takeover of the party's primary. Thus, I have started another talk thread to discuss the topic of clarifying "speculative", "expressed interested" and listing as multiple parties. -- Ldurkin ( talk) 22:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There has been some debate on this page regarding how to classify individuals who have expressed interest or are speculative however they have not expressed interest in a party or independent/unaffiliated. Therefore, in discussing how to classify these individuals I think it's important to establish criteria for "expressed interest" In my opinion in order to be listed as "expressed interest" under a certain party I think that individual must express interest in running and running for that party. Otherwise, they could be listed as speculative for that party whoever in theory they could be speculative for every party they have not specifically declined. Another element that I'm proposing as part of a solution is to create a category for individuals who have expressed interest but not for a specific party or as an independent/unaffiliated.
Regarding the topic of listing individuals under multiple parties, I think the best solution is to not limit individuals to a specific party. Bernie Sanders is an excellent example. I am not well-versed in which parties he has expressed interest in or declined, however; a scenario could occur, if it hasn't already, where he declines a specific party, for example, the Green Party, but has expressed interest in another and/or is speculated for another. -- Ldurkin ( talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims that Harris has declined interest, based on the following reference:
However, Harris quickly dismissed talk of a presidential bid while at a Recode technology conference in May.
“I’m not giving that any consideration. I’ve got to stay focused,” Harris said.
But, according to Page Six of the New York Post, the senator is scheduled to make another trip to the Hamptons soon, where she will meet with influential Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
I object, strongly. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the future of this page at WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2020. Please discuss my WP:BOLD change (revision [5]) there. Power~enwiki ( talk) 17:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Should her position of Ambassador to the United Nations be included? I believe it should as while, it is not officially in the Cabinet, it is a Cabinet-level position. MB298 ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Journalist David S. Bernstein claimed on Twitter [1] that Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar and Gillibrand are telling donors they're running for president in 2020. The first three are in the "speculative candidates" section while Sen. Gillibrand is in the "declined" list, would this tweet count as a valid source to move her back to "speculative candidates"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.112.47 ( talk) 23:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd just wait for Senator Gillibrand to say something herself or walk back her previous statements declining to run. We can only really take the candidates word for it as of now since presidential speculation is all over the place. Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar also haven't clearly declined running for POTUS. FuturePresident ( talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (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 the "Speculative candidates" and "Declined to be candidates" sections on this article be merged into a single section, entitled "Media speculation"? Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It is normally impossible to tell in any way whether or not a politician is running for President over 3 years before the next presidential election. Many of the comments that people claim are "declining interest" are, in my opinion, simply an attempt to avoid answering the question publicly. I propose that the “declined” section be removed from this article until January 1, 2019, and the "speculation" section be renamed to "Media speculation" to make clear that the candidate themselves might not be personally speculating about a run. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting proposal, I'm not sure it's the answer but let me say this. I agree it's impossible to tell the true intentions of the majority of politicians and that Jan. 1, 2019 is a good date to begin enforcing stricter or more delineated categories. I agree speculation does need to be clarified or limited. Anyone could speculate about candidates and in theory that list could be endless. Media speculation narrows it to the media, however, If I sought out resources showing media speculation, we could easily populate this page with 100+ speculative Democrats. This also enters into the issue of people who have not expressed interest in a party. Another talk subject has discussed Dwayne Johnson, a registered Independent according to one source, who none of the sources indicate him expressing interest in a specific party or independent/unaffiliated. Therefore, I find it speculative he would run as a Democrat or independent or Republican which was speculated months ago. If we are going to speculate that he will run as a Dem then I find no reason we should not also classify him as running as a Republican or even for every other 3rd party. For Bernie Sanders, we have the situation where he could run as a Dem, Green, Independent/Unaffiliated or even another 3rd party. It's easy to see this scenario happening with other individuals as well. Until a better solution is agreed upon, I think we should not combine "speculative and declined" -- Ldurkin ( talk) 22:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the two sections. Same reasons as Ldurkin. -- Guanatala ( talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It's quite frankly absurd to include satirical candidates in the candidates section of this article. Colbert is a prime example. His "announcement" was clearly a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actamis ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
He has declared his intent to run for both Prohibition and Constitution nominations.
https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2017/06/01/prohibition-partys-bill-bayes-to-run-for-president/
MB298 ( talk) 05:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Making request for IP, see:
User talk:2602:302:D1A2:C740:9990:FB7F:B300:5ED6, John Kasich is not running against Donald Trump. (
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-cnntv/index.html) Please correct this semi protected article on the United States presidential election, 2020.
(I'm not editing it as I don't know where to move Kasich).
Seagull123
Φ
15:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not editing it as I don't know where to move Kasich. Seagull123 Φ 17:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Recently, three different Democratic primary polls were removed due to the way they were worded.
The two Harvard-Harris questions were:
While the Politico/Morning Consult question was (the question was asked before the 2016 election):
In hindsight, I don't support adding back the P/MC poll, since it asks who you'd like to see run for president, not who you'd vote for. But I'm on the fence with the H-H polls. H-H falls just short of asking who you'd vote for, but it is asking who your preferred candidate would be to lead the Democratic ticket. Can we get a consensus on this? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Trump and Pence should be under the title "Presumptive Incumbents" and not "Declared Major candidates", I don't know the reasoning behind that recent change but it's very unnecessary and degrades the article a bit. Pence should also be added back in general, since unless Pence directly states he won't be running or Trump drops him from the ticket, outsiders looking in might think Pence just declined reelection candidacy altogether. WalkerIndianaRanger ( talk) 23:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to address the orange elephant in the room. President Trump, at least at the moment, is actively campaigning for re-election in 2020. A few months ago we barred any mention of a 2020 Trump campaign, as it was seen as way too early without any sort of official statement. But as the 2020 Campaign article shows, the President has been holding campaign rallies as early as February 18. Not to mention that he's made several statements on how he fully intends to run and become a two-term president. I suppose we should remove Pence from the "Presumptive incumbents" section and just feature Trump as the sole major candidate in the GOP primary. I'm only asking if there's any objections to this, basically. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312285-cruz-responds-to-charlie-sheens-2020-invite http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article123890259.html
Sheen has expressed interest in running for the Presidency according to this links. Since an outsider candidate is something we should all be watching for I don't see why we shouldn't include Sheen here. Sheen's expressed interest in running for the Presidency before, such as in 2015.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/charlie-sheen-constitutional-republican-actor-come/ http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/12/charlie-sheen-comes-out-political-closet-says-hes
He also referred to himself as a "constitutional Republican" so I think its safe to put Sheen in the Republican primaries as "having expressed interest". TheCertifiedDonald ( talk) 22:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is Castro in publicly expressed interest by saying "I'm not taking that off the table" but saying "I'll look and see how things develop over the next year or so and then make a decision as to whether that's something I want to do" when Sanders said the same thing in an interview at the HuffPost [6] by saying “I’m not taking it off the table” while mentioning it is rather early and not decision has been made. Both Castro and Sanders said they're not taking it off the table but are waiting to make a decision since it is rather early. So why isn't Sanders in publicly expressed interest or Castro at speculative candidates? -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Been wondering this for a little while, Why is Adam Schiff in the "Expressed Interest" section? It seems like his statement was misinterpreted. Here is the part of the article that was most likely used in reference: "In response to a report Schiff is on a list of potential 2020 candidates for president, the congressman says he's only running for re-election. However, if Sen. Dianne Feinstein decides not to seek re-election next year, he would look at running "very seriously."
It was poorly worded by the writer but, I'm certain he means running for Feinstein's Senate seat in that situation. It wouldn't make any sense for him to change his mind on running for President based on whether Feinstein chooses not to run for re-election in 2018 or not. So I think we need to move him to the declined section. FuturePresident ( talk) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Carly Fiorina was added to the expressed interest section. I reverted this edit and then I was reverted myself. She has expressed interest for running for president, but has not explicitly expressed interest for the 2020 election. This is an article that exclusively deals with the 2020 election. Saying something as vague as "I want to be president someday" is not grounds for concluding that she is interested in running in 2020. She should be removed from that section. Prcc27 ( talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you verify that she was talking about 2020? If not, she shouldn't be added. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Should they be added to the independent section as a ticket? TexasMan34 ( talk) 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket/index.html?sr=fbCNN082517kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket0918AMStoryLink TexasMan34 ( talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
She filed as presidential candidate in 2016 from the state of Virginia where her family is from and where she started her career. It is where her home is.
From this NBC News source -> [7] can we add more candidates or no? Just a thought there are new names mentioned. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 04:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is Evan McMullin not mentioned? He's been quite visible and even formed a PAC.
There is a mistake in the Section "5.5.3 Declined to be candidates". Bernie Sanders doesn't rule out a presidential run, as the sources say. If something can edit the article, please delete Bernie Sanders from this section. Thanks Givibidou ( talk) 16:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If we're using the "not ruling it out" comments as expressing interest why is Brown not in the expressed interest section..? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The requirements to be included in the declined section is if an individual has one or two articles speculating that they may run (with the same rules as the potential candidates section), and one article where they decline a run. In my perusing around the web, I've come across several politicians who've publicly declined a 2020 run but have no other articles speculating about their possible candidacy outside of the occasional list or small mention.
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota
Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, former WH Chief of Staff, former U.S. Rep. from Illinois (could be argued this doesn't count as a declination)
Clare McCaskill, U.S. Sen. from Missouri
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico (and Libertarian nomination in 2012 and 2016)
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York City (this one's already in the article)
We shouldn't include regular individuals if they only have the one declination (I've also found ones for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tom Hanks, and Will Smith), but I was thinking maybe we could make an exception for politicians. Kind of like how we allow politicians to bypass the normal "5 national polls or more" requirement to be considered a "major" declared candidate. Just wanna know what you guys' opinions are on the matter. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 14:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel like we should add the state by state polls of Warren vs. Trump in 2020. [8] Prcc27 ( talk) 05:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
While his campaign is obviously satirical and he would be ineligible, failing to meet 2 out of 3 requirements (he's not a natural born citizen and hasn't lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years), but other "candidates" like him have been listed before. 2008 saw Stephen Colbert run a campaign, while 2016 gave us the 30-year-old Waka Flocka Flame and parody candidate 15-year-old Deez Nuts (I believe a Socialist candidate was also under 35). On second thought, Fox has met the requirements of being included, since he publicly "announced" outside of social media. I figure we could just specify that he's ineligible. We could stick him in the Independent/Unaffiliated section since he left the PAN in 2013. Something like this:
Name | Born | Current or previous positions | State | Announced | Ref | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Vicente Fox |
July 2, 1942 (age 82) Mexico City, Mexico |
President of Mexico 2000–2006 Governor of Guanajuato 1995–1999 |
![]() Guanajuato |
September 7, 2017 | [1] | Constitutionally ineligible. Not a natural born citizen; has not lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. |
Thoughts? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Prepare for impact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:19B4:8701:ED1A:F663:AB42:39D ( talk) 14:04, 16 September 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. |
Liberaltarian12345 ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
In an Interview on Fox News' "Objectified" Mark Cuban explicitly stated that if he ran in 2020 or ever it would be as a republican but gave subtle hints that he may run under a third party as he is strictly an independent. SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5007193/Mark-Cuban-says-challenge-Trump-Republican.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The information from the Libertarian Nominating Process and Green Party of the United States nominating Process pages could (and should) be ported over to this page. And if there is more information as to additional third parties, that could be brought here as well especially since the sources and everything are already there in the Wikipedia Format. SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we sticky the full inclusion criteria to the top of the talk page. For example, how many sources are needed to be a speculative or "expressed interest" candidate, how recent must they be? What are the requirements to be listed on the page (must you be eligible, ect.) A lot of these rules are likely buried in the archived talk pages but are difficult to follow since they change and are subject to further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dwayne Johnson should be removed from the list of individuals who have expressed interest. See article below: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/14/rearfrontcom/did-dwayne-rock-johnson-officially-file-run-presid/ 104.153.230.25 ( talk) 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to re-add the potential DNC convention sites that were deleted because the sources were "too old" and I was reverted without a clear reason. Can we please re-add the convention sites? Prcc27 ( talk) 05:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
The consensus is against including Jeremy Gable as a candidate because his candidacy has not been covered by secondary reliable sources. The only source currently cited is a primary source, the FEC "Statement of Candidacy" form at http://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_15951367215%200.
There is no prejudice against immediately restoring Jeremy Cable in the article if a secondary reliable source covers his candidacy.
Robert McClenon recommended we do RFCs for specific candidates that may or may not be worth including. I'll start with Jeremy Gable. Should Jeremy Gable be included as a candidate in this article yes or no? 23:56, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
If Kanye West were to declare his candidacy for president for pm of the UK, he wouldn't be included in the wiki because giving Kanye even a sentence is insulting to the reader. It's wasting their time. Crewcamel ( talk) 22:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Why is Dwayne Johnson listed under potential Republican Candidates when 1. Nobody knows what party he is and 2. He did not say he was running for the Republican Nomination?
Are we sure this is a "highly visible" article requiring "Active arbitration remedies", it doesn't seem quite as visible as say Donald Trump. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 07:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
In the green party/independent section:
***Candidates in this section only need one source ***There should be one to three sources for a potential candidate
Pretty sure they do. Should we remove one of the rules?
Crewcamel ( talk) 20:35, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
***You only need a minimum of 1 source to be included in "expressed," as opposed to 2 for "speculative" or "declined." ***There should be between 1 and 3 sources total.
![]() |
There is no contradiction here I believe. What it means is that you only need 1 source for the information to be verified. You can add up to 3 but only 1 is required minimum. You may want to reword it slightly so that it doesn't confuse editors in the future. Something along the lines of: 'Candidates in this section should have at least one source but no more than three.' Hope this helps! -=Troop=- ( talk) 20:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC) |
Analysis from Nate Silver and Donald Trump's cardiologist strongly suggests Trump will be either impeached or dead by 2020, so let's not get ahead of ourselves. Trump MAY be eligible to be re-elected, on the off-chance he isn't doing hard time for Treason or dead by that time. This is a 260-pound 74-year old man we're speaking of. His survival curve is not strong. 209.122.204.65 ( talk) 14:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Biden needs to be added to speculative section: [1]. Prcc27 ( talk) 21:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Connecticut Gov Dannel Malloy has been showing up on a lot of 2020 lists. Please add him as a speculated candidate per these sources: 1, 2. Inspector Semenych ( talk) 19:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
You don't know if any of these are true.It is 3 years from now!! GingerAleLover ( talk) 23:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I think that since he has been opposing the corporatist wing of the party so much, and been Handpicked by Bernie Sanders as his Personal Successor, there is quite a big chance that he will run in 2020. Or at least be Bernie Sanders' running mate. He was the first Muslim ever to be elected to the congress, and with the huge role Identity politics played in the last election for the democrats , it wouldn't suprise me at all if people payed more attention to him because of that, or even voted for him because of that. If I was I betting man, I would put all I had on him at least running in 2020, especially if Tom Perez runs as well. As for sources, it's more than just my guy, there have been articles in the Washington post and Politicalstorm and NewYorkTimes and things like that, which also predict him running in 2020. SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 18:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Speculated in a |The Hill opinion piece, but no speculation that he is actually interested. Not sure whether or not this warrants adding him to Speculative candidates for the GOP http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/340094-opinion-scarborough-should-run-against-trump-in-2020 SecretName101 ( talk) 20:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
The list was way too indiscriminate. Some of the people aren't running because they're not credible candidates; some probably will announce they are running after all in 2 years. I've removed all of them except Hillary Clinton as not being particularly notable or credible at this time. Power~enwiki ( talk) 03:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Seriously? Didn't we already go through this with the celebrities? He's a comedian who went on Russian TV! He's not running. How about until he's not in his comedic mode and makes an announcement in the U.S. media he is removed? He doesn't even have a title, e.g. Governor, Senator, Mayor, etc. Are you ready to put Beyonce back on the list then too? 2601:589:4706:C2D8:B562:BA63:D2FC:F9CA ( talk) 17:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
Why is Cory Booker listed as "expressing interesting" for not ruling out a run but Bernie Sanders isn't..? He should be moved to the speculative section. Prcc27 ( talk) 02:31, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
It's hard to pin down certain people's political parties. I just wanted to go over some problem candidates on the article. The following are registered with the respective parties above their names.
Republicans
Libertarians
Independents
I couldn't find anything definitive with these last three, just some specific political positions or interactions. Just because they hold or have donated to liberal or conservative causes doesn't mean they necessarily belong to the Democratic or Republican parties respectively. People like Bernie Sanders, Michael Flynn, David Clarke, and Jared Kushner are testaments to that.
Here are my suggestions for where to place everyone:
Thoughts? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 10:52, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
The general election polling section gives Trump's poll numbers against several prospective candidates. However, the prospective candidates' names are not linked to their corresponding Wiki article, making it more difficult to determine who exactly Trump is being polled against. This is exacerbated by using only last names in the headers, creating significant ambiguity in some cases (e.g., "Johnson" apparently refers to non-politician Dwayne Johnson rather than previous presidential candidate Gary Johnson.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.2.248 ( talk) 20:43, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Mary Ruwart recently hinted at possible interest in a 2020 run for Libertarian party nomination in an interview on salon.com. Here's the link: http://www.salon.com/2017/07/18/watch-is-she-2020s-gary-johnson/. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.240.94 ( talk) 21:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
Congresswoman Waters, who is in the "Expressed intrest in running" section, denied intrest in these ambitions about 9 hours ago according to "The Hill"
PS It means we should probably move her to the declined section now, here's the link to the article http://thehill.com/homenews/house/343047-maxine-waters-is-joking-about-2020-but-not-about-trump — Preceding unsigned comment added by FuturePresident ( talk • contribs) 19:17, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Mark Cuban is opening up the possibility of a run again.
MB298 ( talk) 02:47, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Hey I'd hate to keep bringing it up but, Maxine Waters offically declined intrest in running for President. It's a little misleading to keep her in the expressed intrest section, again here's my source http://thehill.com/homenews/house/343047-maxine-waters-is-joking-about-2020-but-not-about-trump She is even qouted saying that it was a joke when she claimed intrest. If for some reason this isn't enough info please let me know, I'm not upset and I have nothing against her really, but i'm just really confused as to why she's still up there at this point. FuturePresident ( talk) 04:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thank You! :) FuturePresident ( talk) 18:30, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Congressman John Delaney won't seek re-election in 2018 and is eyeing a 2020 presidential run according to Roll Call, Poltico, and The Washington Post FuturePresident ( talk) 16:38, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Why isn't Walter Randall Bannister listed as a candidate? He filed papers to run on June 9, 2017. His committee ID # is C00647412.
SOURCES: https://www.fec.gov/data/?search=BANNISTER+FOR+PRESIDENT+2020 https://www.facebook.com/BANNISTERFORPRESIDENT2020/ http://politics1.com/p2020.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.43.238.218 ( talk) 21:12, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
i found this article from today if it helps: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/08/05/us/politics/2020-campaign-president-trump-cotton-sasse-pence.html. thx. ( talk) 12:17, 5 August 2017 (ET)
Should Steve Bullock be moved to the "interested" section. He started a PAC which is seen as a strong lean towards a run for president: [4]. -- Governor Jerchel ( talk) 11:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi! Probably not yet, he's claimed that's to raise money for other Democrats. There's a solid chance he probably is going to run but, we shouldn't move him into intrested until he verbally expresses intrest in running FuturePresident ( talk) 18:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Dwayne Johnson is listed both under third party and democratic. I understand some logic since he is currently independent but may run with the democrats, however, I feel that he should be listed under only one category until he decides on one or the other, just to cut down on redundant parts of the article. What are your thoughts? Alex the Nerd ( talk) 12:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Dwayne Johnson is not a Democrat he is a Republican.
I strongly feel that Dwayne Johnson should be listed as a "Independent/Unaffiliated" candidate since he has not "expressed interest" in running as a Democrat according to any of the references. If candidates are classified as "expressed interest" then they should both express interest in running in general and running for that party or independent/unaffiliated. Thus, listing him as expressing interested in running as a Democrat is misleading based on the references. It seems to me partisans have edited this page to try and affiliate him with the Democratic Party (different individuals could view this as a positive or negative reflection of the party it should be noted.) Furthermore, if there is no evidence of Johnson expressing interest int he democratic party, then only reason he would be included is that people want him to run as a Democrat. In that case, he should also be listed as a Democrat and perhaps even a Libertarian and other 3rd parties as I'm sure people in each of those parties would like him to run. The best solution to me seems to be to create a separate category for individuals who have not specified which party they are expressing interest in. Otherwise or until he should only be classified as "Independent/Unaffiliated" If he has expressed interest in a specific party than that needs to be proved with a reference, until then unreferenced information should not be included. As an alternative perhaps it would be more appropriate to list him as a speculative candidate for the Democratic party then "expressed interest" for Independent/Unaffiliated or a new category for no party specified.-- Ldurkin ( talk) 21:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is Bernie Sanders listed as "Declined to be candidates" under "Third-party, independent, and unaffiliated candidates"? If it's because he declined to be an independent candidate (but didn't decline to be a candidate), this is misleading. I know that Bernie Sanders hasn't ruled out running in 2020.
I agree, I skimmed the references and none indicated he declined running as an indp/unaffiliated or the green party. I think he should be listed as a speculative candidate certainly for the dem's and independent/unaffiliated. First, the majority of expressed opinions in the reference indicate "he has not ruled it out" but also that he has not adequately "expressed interest" in my opinion to categorize him as such. Additionally, has an independent to caucuses with and is party of Senate leadership of the Democratic Party I think it is reasonable to speculate he would run as an Indp/Unaffiliated or Democrat. However, I question if there is adequate evidence to speculate he would run as a member of the green party. I think if we have to speculate him running as for the Green Party we could also speculate he could run for a number of other socialist 3rd parties. In fact based on this hopeful level of speculation, I could speculate he could run as a Republican to lead a hostile takeover of the party's primary. Thus, I have started another talk thread to discuss the topic of clarifying "speculative", "expressed interested" and listing as multiple parties. -- Ldurkin ( talk) 22:41, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
There has been some debate on this page regarding how to classify individuals who have expressed interest or are speculative however they have not expressed interest in a party or independent/unaffiliated. Therefore, in discussing how to classify these individuals I think it's important to establish criteria for "expressed interest" In my opinion in order to be listed as "expressed interest" under a certain party I think that individual must express interest in running and running for that party. Otherwise, they could be listed as speculative for that party whoever in theory they could be speculative for every party they have not specifically declined. Another element that I'm proposing as part of a solution is to create a category for individuals who have expressed interest but not for a specific party or as an independent/unaffiliated.
Regarding the topic of listing individuals under multiple parties, I think the best solution is to not limit individuals to a specific party. Bernie Sanders is an excellent example. I am not well-versed in which parties he has expressed interest in or declined, however; a scenario could occur, if it hasn't already, where he declines a specific party, for example, the Green Party, but has expressed interest in another and/or is speculated for another. -- Ldurkin ( talk) 22:25, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
Vote 4 DJH2036 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) claims that Harris has declined interest, based on the following reference:
However, Harris quickly dismissed talk of a presidential bid while at a Recode technology conference in May.
“I’m not giving that any consideration. I’ve got to stay focused,” Harris said.
But, according to Page Six of the New York Post, the senator is scheduled to make another trip to the Hamptons soon, where she will meet with influential Democrats, including Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey and former Attorney General Eric Holder.
I object, strongly. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:33, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I've started a discussion about the future of this page at WIkipedia talk:WikiProject Politics#United_States_presidential_election.2C_2020. Please discuss my WP:BOLD change (revision [5]) there. Power~enwiki ( talk) 17:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Should her position of Ambassador to the United Nations be included? I believe it should as while, it is not officially in the Cabinet, it is a Cabinet-level position. MB298 ( talk) 18:44, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Journalist David S. Bernstein claimed on Twitter [1] that Senators Booker, Harris, Klobuchar and Gillibrand are telling donors they're running for president in 2020. The first three are in the "speculative candidates" section while Sen. Gillibrand is in the "declined" list, would this tweet count as a valid source to move her back to "speculative candidates"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.188.112.47 ( talk) 23:15, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd just wait for Senator Gillibrand to say something herself or walk back her previous statements declining to run. We can only really take the candidates word for it as of now since presidential speculation is all over the place. Booker, Harris, and Klobuchar also haven't clearly declined running for POTUS. FuturePresident ( talk) 18:26, 11 August 2017 (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 the "Speculative candidates" and "Declined to be candidates" sections on this article be merged into a single section, entitled "Media speculation"? Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
It is normally impossible to tell in any way whether or not a politician is running for President over 3 years before the next presidential election. Many of the comments that people claim are "declining interest" are, in my opinion, simply an attempt to avoid answering the question publicly. I propose that the “declined” section be removed from this article until January 1, 2019, and the "speculation" section be renamed to "Media speculation" to make clear that the candidate themselves might not be personally speculating about a run. Power~enwiki ( talk) 06:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Interesting proposal, I'm not sure it's the answer but let me say this. I agree it's impossible to tell the true intentions of the majority of politicians and that Jan. 1, 2019 is a good date to begin enforcing stricter or more delineated categories. I agree speculation does need to be clarified or limited. Anyone could speculate about candidates and in theory that list could be endless. Media speculation narrows it to the media, however, If I sought out resources showing media speculation, we could easily populate this page with 100+ speculative Democrats. This also enters into the issue of people who have not expressed interest in a party. Another talk subject has discussed Dwayne Johnson, a registered Independent according to one source, who none of the sources indicate him expressing interest in a specific party or independent/unaffiliated. Therefore, I find it speculative he would run as a Democrat or independent or Republican which was speculated months ago. If we are going to speculate that he will run as a Dem then I find no reason we should not also classify him as running as a Republican or even for every other 3rd party. For Bernie Sanders, we have the situation where he could run as a Dem, Green, Independent/Unaffiliated or even another 3rd party. It's easy to see this scenario happening with other individuals as well. Until a better solution is agreed upon, I think we should not combine "speculative and declined" -- Ldurkin ( talk) 22:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree with keeping the two sections. Same reasons as Ldurkin. -- Guanatala ( talk) 21:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
It's quite frankly absurd to include satirical candidates in the candidates section of this article. Colbert is a prime example. His "announcement" was clearly a joke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Actamis ( talk • contribs) 00:48, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
He has declared his intent to run for both Prohibition and Constitution nominations.
https://amthirdpartyreport.com/2017/06/01/prohibition-partys-bill-bayes-to-run-for-president/
MB298 ( talk) 05:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Making request for IP, see:
User talk:2602:302:D1A2:C740:9990:FB7F:B300:5ED6, John Kasich is not running against Donald Trump. (
http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/20/politics/john-kasich-donald-trump-cnntv/index.html) Please correct this semi protected article on the United States presidential election, 2020.
(I'm not editing it as I don't know where to move Kasich).
Seagull123
Φ
15:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm not editing it as I don't know where to move Kasich. Seagull123 Φ 17:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Recently, three different Democratic primary polls were removed due to the way they were worded.
The two Harvard-Harris questions were:
While the Politico/Morning Consult question was (the question was asked before the 2016 election):
In hindsight, I don't support adding back the P/MC poll, since it asks who you'd like to see run for president, not who you'd vote for. But I'm on the fence with the H-H polls. H-H falls just short of asking who you'd vote for, but it is asking who your preferred candidate would be to lead the Democratic ticket. Can we get a consensus on this? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 20:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
Trump and Pence should be under the title "Presumptive Incumbents" and not "Declared Major candidates", I don't know the reasoning behind that recent change but it's very unnecessary and degrades the article a bit. Pence should also be added back in general, since unless Pence directly states he won't be running or Trump drops him from the ticket, outsiders looking in might think Pence just declined reelection candidacy altogether. WalkerIndianaRanger ( talk) 23:20, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I want to address the orange elephant in the room. President Trump, at least at the moment, is actively campaigning for re-election in 2020. A few months ago we barred any mention of a 2020 Trump campaign, as it was seen as way too early without any sort of official statement. But as the 2020 Campaign article shows, the President has been holding campaign rallies as early as February 18. Not to mention that he's made several statements on how he fully intends to run and become a two-term president. I suppose we should remove Pence from the "Presumptive incumbents" section and just feature Trump as the sole major candidate in the GOP primary. I'm only asking if there's any objections to this, basically. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 07:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/312285-cruz-responds-to-charlie-sheens-2020-invite http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/article123890259.html
Sheen has expressed interest in running for the Presidency according to this links. Since an outsider candidate is something we should all be watching for I don't see why we shouldn't include Sheen here. Sheen's expressed interest in running for the Presidency before, such as in 2015.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/feb/11/charlie-sheen-constitutional-republican-actor-come/ http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/02/12/charlie-sheen-comes-out-political-closet-says-hes
He also referred to himself as a "constitutional Republican" so I think its safe to put Sheen in the Republican primaries as "having expressed interest". TheCertifiedDonald ( talk) 22:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is Castro in publicly expressed interest by saying "I'm not taking that off the table" but saying "I'll look and see how things develop over the next year or so and then make a decision as to whether that's something I want to do" when Sanders said the same thing in an interview at the HuffPost [6] by saying “I’m not taking it off the table” while mentioning it is rather early and not decision has been made. Both Castro and Sanders said they're not taking it off the table but are waiting to make a decision since it is rather early. So why isn't Sanders in publicly expressed interest or Castro at speculative candidates? -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 16:06, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
Been wondering this for a little while, Why is Adam Schiff in the "Expressed Interest" section? It seems like his statement was misinterpreted. Here is the part of the article that was most likely used in reference: "In response to a report Schiff is on a list of potential 2020 candidates for president, the congressman says he's only running for re-election. However, if Sen. Dianne Feinstein decides not to seek re-election next year, he would look at running "very seriously."
It was poorly worded by the writer but, I'm certain he means running for Feinstein's Senate seat in that situation. It wouldn't make any sense for him to change his mind on running for President based on whether Feinstein chooses not to run for re-election in 2018 or not. So I think we need to move him to the declined section. FuturePresident ( talk) 23:02, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Carly Fiorina was added to the expressed interest section. I reverted this edit and then I was reverted myself. She has expressed interest for running for president, but has not explicitly expressed interest for the 2020 election. This is an article that exclusively deals with the 2020 election. Saying something as vague as "I want to be president someday" is not grounds for concluding that she is interested in running in 2020. She should be removed from that section. Prcc27 ( talk) 04:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Can you verify that she was talking about 2020? If not, she shouldn't be added. Prcc27 ( talk) 22:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Should they be added to the independent section as a ticket? TexasMan34 ( talk) 06:32, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
Take a look at this article http://www.cnn.com/2017/08/25/politics/kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket/index.html?sr=fbCNN082517kasich-hickenlooper-2020-unity-ticket0918AMStoryLink TexasMan34 ( talk) 21:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
She filed as presidential candidate in 2016 from the state of Virginia where her family is from and where she started her career. It is where her home is.
From this NBC News source -> [7] can we add more candidates or no? Just a thought there are new names mentioned. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 04:19, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Why is Evan McMullin not mentioned? He's been quite visible and even formed a PAC.
There is a mistake in the Section "5.5.3 Declined to be candidates". Bernie Sanders doesn't rule out a presidential run, as the sources say. If something can edit the article, please delete Bernie Sanders from this section. Thanks Givibidou ( talk) 16:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
If we're using the "not ruling it out" comments as expressing interest why is Brown not in the expressed interest section..? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
The requirements to be included in the declined section is if an individual has one or two articles speculating that they may run (with the same rules as the potential candidates section), and one article where they decline a run. In my perusing around the web, I've come across several politicians who've publicly declined a 2020 run but have no other articles speculating about their possible candidacy outside of the occasional list or small mention.
Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin
Mark Dayton, Governor of Minnesota
Rahm Emanuel, Mayor of Chicago, former WH Chief of Staff, former U.S. Rep. from Illinois (could be argued this doesn't count as a declination)
Clare McCaskill, U.S. Sen. from Missouri
Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico (and Libertarian nomination in 2012 and 2016)
Michael Bloomberg, former Mayor of New York City (this one's already in the article)
We shouldn't include regular individuals if they only have the one declination (I've also found ones for Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, Tom Hanks, and Will Smith), but I was thinking maybe we could make an exception for politicians. Kind of like how we allow politicians to bypass the normal "5 national polls or more" requirement to be considered a "major" declared candidate. Just wanna know what you guys' opinions are on the matter. IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 14:14, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I feel like we should add the state by state polls of Warren vs. Trump in 2020. [8] Prcc27 ( talk) 05:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
While his campaign is obviously satirical and he would be ineligible, failing to meet 2 out of 3 requirements (he's not a natural born citizen and hasn't lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years), but other "candidates" like him have been listed before. 2008 saw Stephen Colbert run a campaign, while 2016 gave us the 30-year-old Waka Flocka Flame and parody candidate 15-year-old Deez Nuts (I believe a Socialist candidate was also under 35). On second thought, Fox has met the requirements of being included, since he publicly "announced" outside of social media. I figure we could just specify that he's ineligible. We could stick him in the Independent/Unaffiliated section since he left the PAN in 2013. Something like this:
Name | Born | Current or previous positions | State | Announced | Ref | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() Vicente Fox |
July 2, 1942 (age 82) Mexico City, Mexico |
President of Mexico 2000–2006 Governor of Guanajuato 1995–1999 |
![]() Guanajuato |
September 7, 2017 | [1] | Constitutionally ineligible. Not a natural born citizen; has not lived in the U.S. for at least 14 years. |
Thoughts? IOnlyKnowFiveWords ( talk) 01:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Prepare for impact — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C1:19B4:8701:ED1A:F663:AB42:39D ( talk) 14:04, 16 September 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. |
Liberaltarian12345 ( talk) 03:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
In an Interview on Fox News' "Objectified" Mark Cuban explicitly stated that if he ran in 2020 or ever it would be as a republican but gave subtle hints that he may run under a third party as he is strictly an independent. SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 02:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5007193/Mark-Cuban-says-challenge-Trump-Republican.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490 SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 23:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
The information from the Libertarian Nominating Process and Green Party of the United States nominating Process pages could (and should) be ported over to this page. And if there is more information as to additional third parties, that could be brought here as well especially since the sources and everything are already there in the Wikipedia Format. SmallGVT.Joe ( talk) 23:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Can we sticky the full inclusion criteria to the top of the talk page. For example, how many sources are needed to be a speculative or "expressed interest" candidate, how recent must they be? What are the requirements to be listed on the page (must you be eligible, ect.) A lot of these rules are likely buried in the archived talk pages but are difficult to follow since they change and are subject to further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObieGrad ( talk • contribs)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2020 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dwayne Johnson should be removed from the list of individuals who have expressed interest. See article below: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/aug/14/rearfrontcom/did-dwayne-rock-johnson-officially-file-run-presid/ 104.153.230.25 ( talk) 03:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
I tried to re-add the potential DNC convention sites that were deleted because the sources were "too old" and I was reverted without a clear reason. Can we please re-add the convention sites? Prcc27 ( talk) 05:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)