Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries

De La Fuente inclusion

De La Fuente has been added again as a major candidate. Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that if he's going to be on all these ballots(especially with such a small amount of candidates in this primary), he should qualify as a major candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

De La Fuente is not a major candidate. As above with the media coverage, De La Fuente has not recieved anything close to substantial media coverage about his campaign, with the only articles being about his California suing of Trump about tax returns (which has gone away), press releases about the campaign (see ([[1]]) ) and an article from the Austin American-Statesman about non-major candidates, such as Bepis Cola ([[2]]). In addition, one of those making the edits is Angelafisher, who is mentioned by the ([[3]]) as something like his director of communications. The edits are purely promotional, by his campaign. In addition, his campaign contributions are almost entirely loans from himself, with only ~$6000 in individual contributions.For comparison, that's ~1/13 of Ojeda's total fundraising in double the time. Unless editors can demonstrate De La Fuente's campaign is well-known and considered serious by (a decent number of) media outlets, he is by definition a minor candidate. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that he is not a major candidate. I'm not exactly at what time this happened, but on September 7th, someone removed the criteria for being a major candidate:

i.e.

"The following major candidates have either (a) held public office, (b) been included in a minimum of five independent national polls, or (c) received substantial media coverage."

Should we reinstate it? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I also agree that he is not a major candidate per the three criteria mentioned above. Getting your name on the ballot does not make one a major candidate. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Here's the edit where the criteria was removed by KingOpti101: [4] David O. Johnson (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I removed De La Fuente as a major candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

De La Fuente's campaign has been receiving an increase in media coverage lately. The Associated Press, Yahoo Finance, San Diego Union Tribute and others have had articles on his campaign since the last time this was discussed. See: [[5]], [[6]], [[7]]. His campaign is certaintly notable, given the lawsuits and the amount of money he is spending. I believe that at the very least his financials should be listed at the bottom of the page along with the other candidates, since major media outlets have reported on them.XavierGreen (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I'd really only consider that San Diego Union-Tribune article to be "coverage." The Yahoo article mentions him for two sentences. The AP article is a literal press release from the campaign.

Speaking of which, it seems like a lot of these pro-De La Fuente edits have been coming from User:Joewendt. Joe Wendt appears to be the Chairman of the Florida Reform Party and is running for President himself. De La Fuente was the Reform Party's 2016 nominee for President. Maybe, possibly, perhaps, conceivably just a teeny bit biased. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Common sense would dictate that if I am a potential competitor to Mr De La Fuente in November should he be the nominee, then I do not have a pro-De La Fuente bias, because that wouldn't make any sense. I am posting facts, based off of reasonable criteria.Joewendt(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:17, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

You are posting facts, but what facts are entered into a page must generally reflect the relative importance of each individual the facts reference. The criteria you determine to be reasonable are not the same criteria used for all other candidates on the page, and as such they are not, in fact, reasonable. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Yahoo Finance article is specifically about campaign finances in the 2020 election and gives De La Fuente the same amount of coverage as each of the other candidates running.XavierGreen (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Well yeah it's notable that he's raised that much money for being a nobody but it should be noted that he's done so by funneling his own money into the campaign. Even then, you've got two articles (one of which being a list). Not exactly comparable to Williamson or Yang on the Democratic side. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

How he got the money is irrelevant, that he's outspending Trump's other challenger's is relevant and notable. Like i said whether or not he's a "major candidate" is a different story, the lawsuit he filed in California and his expenditures are notable enough for inclusion on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 13:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Unless De La Fuente is actually becomes a major candidate by using the funds to get included in debates, polls, and receive media coverage, I don't think the fundraising by a minor candidate is particularly relevant purely by itself, especially since, on the Democratic side, Henry Hewes has outraised Joe Sestak. But nobody would consider Hewes more important than Sestak, and there is no reason to include Hewes' fundraising on the Democratic Primaries 2020 page, either. Reverted to the status quo (i.e. not being included in fundraising) until it can be demonstrated there is a consensus to include De La Fuente in the fundraising section. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Then there's a case to remove Joe Sestak and include Henry Hewes.Joewendt(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

It's very clearly not, as fundraising is only a minor part of the campaign, see:Inclusion in debates, inclusion in polls, major media coverage. De La Fuente's and Hewes' campaigns have none of these, whereas Sestak and Sandford do. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The key difference is that De La Fuente has outspent all of Trumps other challengers combined, and major news media outlets have reported specifically on his fundraising. There is nothing in the inclusion criteria regarding who should be included in the fundraising column. De La Fuente is already notable enough to be mentioned on the page as at the very least a notable non-major candidate it therefore makes sense to include his financials as well.XavierGreen (talk) 04:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yet Mr De La Fuente has qualified for the primary ballot in more states than Sestak, Hewes, Walsh, Weld, or Sanford. Furthermore, there are candidates such as such as Steyer, who like Mr De La Fuente, have contributed large sums of his own money and barely registers in the polls, but has been viewed as a major candidate even thought he's only recently been in the debates. So, it's not really a fair criteria to include Sestak, Messam, and Steyer, but arbitrarily exclude De La Fuente when he meets the same minimal criteria. Joewendt (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Steyer and De La Fuente are in no way comparable: Steyer registers in polls from all polling companies, so does Sestak. In addition, Sestak has previously held office, and both are frequently mentioned in the media, "minimal critera" that De La Fuente fails to meet. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 05:00, 30 October

Steyer has not been frequently mentioned in the media, rather he has paid for commercials to raise his profile, additionally according to the Democratic Party's rules for debate inclusion he previous did not meet their criteria for debate inclusion meaning that he was not considered a major candidate and did not meet the "minimal critera". The Same goes for Sestak since he has not met the criteria to qualify for the debates, which in the Democratic Party is based on polling and fundraising. Joewendt (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC) 2019 (UTC)

Steyer meets the 5 poll criterion, which qualifies him as a major candidate. Additionally, your claim that Steyer is not frequently mentioned in the media is false, here are 3 articles from the last 3 weeks that are mostly about Tom Steyer: [8], [9], [10], all from major news sources. I found these from just a quick Google search. De La Fuente, as mentioned above by XavierGreen, barely has spotty local coverage. If Steyer spends a considerable amount of his own money on his campaign, then that perhaps is a controversial aspect of his campaign, but by the poll criterion certainly and arguably the media criterion, although that is subjective, Steyer still is a major candidate, campaign finance issues notwithstanding. All of your arguments centered around De La Fuente's inclusion make note of things like the amount of money he has spent and primary ballot access, which are not important markers of a campaign unless the campaign has proven to be major in other aspects. Your concern is with the fact that De La Fuente has not held prior public office, has not been included in major polling, and has not received substantial media coverage, and thus fails to meet the qualifications for major candidacy. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Whether or not he is a major candidate, he is still notable enough to be mentioned on the page as a candidate and was included on the page before the current attempt to add him to the page as a "major candidate". The fact that he is outspending all of Trump's other opposition and that major news outlets are reporting on it means that his finances should be included in the bottom financials section of the page. I think any candidate who is notable enough to be mentioned on the page should have their financials reported also.XavierGreen (talk) 14:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody here is arguing in favour of removing him from the page, as he is notable enough to have a wikipedia page. However, only major candidates have their finances reported, as reporting the finances of Jack Fellure etc. gives undue weight to their campaigns, and adds unnecessary clutter to the article. If the financials themselves had gained mainstream/significant media coverage, I think many here would be more open to it. But as is, the only (sparse) coverage is from alternative sites that may lack credibility, very local news, and campaign releases. This, by itself, does not constitute something work reporting on in an article that is meant to condense the information of ~2.5 years of (as of now) 4 peoples campaign's into 1 article. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 05:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I think this is definitely a deliberate effort from his campaign. Just between the FL Reform Party chairman and his communications director making a bunch of edits but also the overly flowery wording. De La Fuente, in a previous edit, was referred to as an "international business sensation" in the opening paragraphs. In the experience section he's listed as a "Business Tycoon" which going by the definition ("an entrepreneur of great influence, importance, or standing in a particular enterprise or field of business"), is being incredibly generous. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

As NebuchadnezzarHammurabi noted earlier on the talk page [11], Angelalfisher (who made this promotional edit [12] and undid my reversion of it), certainly appears to be tied to the Rocky 2020 campaign: [13]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Being involved in the Reform Party does not mean a connection to Mr De La Fuente's campaign. He is running as a Republican. The Reform Party has no interest in aiding a candidate that is not running under the party label. Descriptiors such as business tycoon are more esthetically pleasing, and are appropriate when someone owns multiple businesses Joewendt(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Wendt, all of your Wikipedia editing activity appears to be focused on editing pages related to De La Fuente's campaign such as trying to edit out the phrase "perennial candidate" on his personal page. If you have no stake in this race, please refrain from edit warring. Also, in addition, Wikipedia is not meant to be aesthetically pleasing as it's main purpose. It is meant to be accurate, and concise. Using "business tycoon" to describe De La Fuente is not accurate. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Based on the dictionary definition of perennial candidate, De La Fuente does not meet the criteria. Per the definition, A perennial candidate is a political candidate who frequently runs for an elected office but seldom wins. Now, last I checked, he has only ran for office in 3 elections so far. Certainly not a true perennial such as Harold Stassen or Paulsen. The criteria used to describe De La Fuente as Perennial candidate, Ron Paul must be labeled a Perennial Presidential candidate. Additionally, Ralph Nader has not been described as a Perennial candidate, even thought he has ran in multiple election cycles. As for the use of "business tycoon" no one has presented proof that he is not. Yet people have cited his involvement in the banking industry and using influence for financial gain. Now, that seems to be proof of Mr De La Fuente being a tycoon. Joewendt (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Not the place to discuss whether he is a perennial candidate or not, do that at his talk page. I was merely illustrating that your earlier claim of lack of bias is untrue. As to the use of "business tycoon", you must provide proof that he is such i.e. burden of proof is on you to prove your claims, not for other users to disprove your claims. Owning multiple business does not make a "business tycoon", as the definition used by wikipedia is ("an entrepreneur of great influence, importance, or standing in a particular enterprise or field of business"). I do not think Rocky De La Fuente qualifies under that criteria. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is the place to discuss his status as a perennial candidate, you brought it up. As for the use of "business tycoon" people have cited his involvement in the banking industry and using influence for financial gain, which is indicative of having the influence to be described as a tycoon. Additionally, there has been no evidence presented that in other countries were he has business interests he does not have substantial influence or standing. Joewendt (talk) 03:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

To echo the sentiments of NebuchadnezzarHammurabi above, the burden of proof for an identifier like "business tycoon" is on the person who introduces that terminology, there does not need to be proof of the contrary to remove such an identifier. As such, you will have to provide cite-able documentation of these "people" who have claimed his involvement in the banking industry is indicative of having the influence necessary to be described as a tycoon, not the other way around. The same goes for his influence and standing in other countries. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I would say that Donald Trump is more of a tycoon than De La Fuente is, considering I'm not at all sure what industry he's supposedly greatly influential or important in. I've at least heard of Trump before he ran in 2016. Even then, he's always referred simply as a "businessman" and not a "business tycoon," as the terminology is usually reserved for people like (using the Wikipedia article) Howard Hughes, Jeff Bezos, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and Henry Ford. You're seriously telling me that Rocky De La Fuente belongs in that same category? And don't you have a campaign to run or something, Joe? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Rocky needs to be included as this is a one-man race, and the other three candidates are in fact as minor as he is. None will probably get more than two or three percent. Rocky knows how to get on the ballot, and in fact, may very well get on more of them than Weld, Sanders and that other guy. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Rocky does not meet the requirements to be a major candidate. If you want to add him to the page, you need to receive consensus on changing what qualifies a candidate to be major. By the definition of major candidate agreed by consensus on this page, the other three candidates are not as minor as De La Fuente. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Lyndon LaRouche consistently made the ballot in many states during his 7 runs for the Democratic candidacy, yet I don't think many editors or outlets would consider him major. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, he was. He won delegates to the 1996 Democratic convention and they were disallowed in a fixed race. Same happened with several candidates (several of them received more than 40% of the vote) in 2012. The other three who were elected to offices are no more major than Rocky is. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

1996 was not a "fixed race". If you could provide a source for that from a reputable source, that would be great. And again, if you could provide media coverage, polls, or an elected office that show that Rocky is a major candidate, that would be great, as he's not been featured in any polls, has not been featured among the candidate gallery's of ABC, Fortune, Quartz, and the NYTimes, and that's just the first four I could find. Walsh, Weld and Sanford were included in all of these. In addition, all three of Walsh, Weld and Sanford have participated in debates by Business Insider, Politicon and Forbes (though Sanford missed the BI one). Ballot access are not indicators of "majorness". In 2012, John Wolfe Jr. made the ballot in a number of states. Yet, in New Hampshire, he recieved ~1/10 of the votes of Ron Paul. Should we be considering Ron Paul, a Republican, a major candidate for the Democratic nomination now? NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 23:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Funny you should talk about John Wolfe, because he got 41% of the vote in Arkansas and 23% in Louisiana, not to mention over a hundred thousand (100,000) votes nationwide. Ron Paul received only about four thousand write-in votes nationwide. There was a concerted effort by the Democratic National Committee to prevent any Wolfe delegates from being certified despite the fact that he won about 25 fair and square. Both Wolfe, and LaRouche in 1996, qualified for delegates to the conventions, and they were not permitted to have them attend. So yeah, 1996 and 2012 were indeed fixed. Look at the section on LaRouche in the 1996 convention article for further details.

Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Sup. Well, I’m new to this crap and I noticed that you guys aren’t listing my preferred candidate as a major candidate. What gives? He’s on the ballot in more states than Walsh and losertarian Weld. He’s been included in polls and gets about the same percentages as Walsh and Weld, at least according to dem references you put on the YouGuv polls. Even by the standards you guys list, he’s met 2 of the 3, media attention and polling. So, his name exclusion is bull. What gives. This ain’t right PaulAwesome1986 (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente edit war

I removed a mention of Rocky De La Fuente in this revision [14], but the IP address 190.6.91.194 undid my revision here:[15]. I looked at their edit history [16] and they've only edited info related to De La Fuente. It seems a little fishy. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Could just be a De La Fuente fan, and not someone directly related to his campaign, even though the campaign has a history of pro-De La Fuente edits. What's Wikipedia policy on looking up IP addresses? WittyRecluse (talk) 12:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Rocky’s on the ballot in Texas and Utah. Walsh is only on the ballot in Michigan and New Hampshire. DE la Fuente might be on all the Super Tuesday ballots. Walsh may not be on any...Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:31, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente has been added in polling by Economist/YouGov poll since December 2019. I believe he now qualifies as a major candidate along with Weld and Walsh: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/ua3ar45wbg/econTabReport.pdf#page153 Ryopus (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Happy December, y'all!!!!

The first, (rather fifth) real vote on impeachment, is scheduled to take place on Tuesday. That's right, Tuesday. If the House intelligence committee votes to forward draft articles of impeachment in its report, then that's the primary right there. But @David and @Wittyrecluse have banned any mention of impeachment until there's a vote, well here it is. The trial in January, should it happens, will be first of a principle candidate in an election of this type since Andrew Johnson's two months prior to the Democratic Convention in 1868. A draft report will be leaked to the press tomorrow. So I suggest that we add some impeachment stuff into the article on Wednesday because if I add it now, you will just delete it again.

Next topic: Tennessee and California are scheduled to announce their lists this week and Oklahoma's three-day filing window will be open. Rocky has already been declared a major candidate by Florida's Secretary of State and if Tennessee and California do as well, I hope you will follow their lead and put him back all the charts, which several editors currently find confusing. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think there needs to be much, if anything, said about impeachment in this article, because if Trump is impeached, he is expected to have sufficient support from the Republican majority in the Senate to be acquitted and remain in office for the rest of his term. Nor has the impeachment effort noticeably reduced Trump's support among Republican voters so as to reduce the likelihood that he will be renominated in 2020. Obviously, these situations could change, but we're not here to engage in pure speculation. As regards Rocky De La Fuente, he needs to get himself included in some polls before I will consider him a major candidate. He is running, and he is or will be on a bunch of ballots, but he isn't recognized as a major candidate by most sources. When he ran in the Democratic primaries in 2016, he didn't even get 1% as many votes as Hillary Clinton did. I don't expect him to fare much better as a Republican. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:04, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

These primaries have nothing to do with impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi just requested the Judiciary committee to start drafting articles of Impeachment. She wouldn't have done that if she didn't have the votes, and then some, to pass them. A trial is now guaranteed. The Trial of the primary's principle candidate broadcast on most TV networks has everything to do with the primary. The first formal vote selecting delegates, the Kansas State convention, is less than two months away. It's quite possible that on the day of the Iowa caucuses, this trial will still be going on. The House of Representatives is full of lawyers. Many of these lawyers are extremely skilled prosecutors. A once in a generation TV spectacular dominating the media for WEEKS? It's worth a mention on the timeline. If, and it's still speculation at this point, Trump should somehow lose, then the primary will be thrown into unprecedented chaos. As I have said numerous times, impeachment is the entire ball of wax. AS to the other thing, I've always said that Rocky is a joke. but so are Weld and Walsh. Ardini, Ely, et al, may get a significant (more than 2%) slice of the vote as well. Aside from Trump, there are no major candidates. the article should look like 2012 Democratic or 2004 Republican pages, focusing on the little guys because it's more interesting than an uncontested incumbent getting 95% of the vote. We should mention those who are on more than one ballot. Besides Rocky, there are three other guys who are on the ballot in 5 states. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And he was acquitted. This article reads too much like a Trump hit piece. Needs revising. His impeachment is irrelevant. The part about Bill Weld being the first Republican candidate running against an incumbent to win a delegate is irrelevant. The President has 97% of the vote so far. He is easily being renominated.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Bound delegates

Only Hawaii's delegates have been officially bound to Trump [17]; adding six other states and delegates from those states here: 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Declared major candidates is misleading. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

How is it misleading? I'm serious. How is it misleading? The man is running unopposed in a bunch of primaries, and rest listed have already canceled their primaries in order to hand over ALL their delegates to him. The only way that the delegates will be for someone else is if Trump is removed from office by the Senate in January or February. If that happens, the entire primary process will fall into total chaos. That's a delightful fantasy to be sure, but a fantasy it remains. As to impeachment itself, the vote is today and more than the 219 necessary votes have been announced to the public. Unless a fantasy remedy, such as a battalion of Marines invading the House chamber or the President's death or resignation, takes place, it will happen. That is not WP:Crystal, that is a cold hard fact. If the vote in the Trial is 53-47, or 55-45 to acquit, Then the race is over. Period. It will be as pro forma as 1984 and 2004 were. You know that. It is saying that Trump may lose those states where he's unopposed which is misleading. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:33, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

It is correct to say that he cannot lose those states where he is unopposed. However, it is not correct to say he has already won those states. He has not won them until the delegates are officially bound to him. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

We've already discussed this here: Talk:2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_1#Bound_Delegates,_Popular_Vote,_and_Contests_won,_part_two and here: Talk:2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_1#Bound_Delegates,_Popular_Vote,_and_Contests_won, at this point, you're just beating a WP:DEADHORSE. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:52, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Then why is it still neighing? @WittyRecluse is right when he says that Trump cannot lose where he is unopposed. This means he has won. period. If you cannot lose you've won. To say so is not misleading. To repeat: the only way Trump can lose these states is by fantasy action, such as the Senate removing the president and barring him forever from federal office. To assume that a fantasy action will take place is WP:Crystal is in it's most extreme form...which reminds me, @DaveJ, since you insist upon this denial, why did you permit a footnote to be added saying that the other states were finished?Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

If you cannot lose, then you will win, but you haven't won yet. I tried an analogy on this earlier, but here's another one. Suppose the Harlem Globetrotters (HG) schedule a basketball game against my local high school. HG will win, assuming they actually try. However, Wikipedia has no reason to say that HG has won prior to the end of the game. We are not proposing some fantasy scenario, we are just asking you to wait until the official end of the game for each state. And remember that you are not in control of the game clock. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Spiffy Sperry is right and that's an effective analogy. Remember, Arglebargle, I am not arguing for your position with my points. WittyRecluse (talk) 23:08, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it's not effective at all, as the Washington Generals have indeed won games on rare occasions. While Walsh and Weld have as much chance of winning as the Generals in all the primaries, they have exactly Zero in those states where only Trump is on the ballot. Trump has won in those states, and while I'm at it. The othr minor candidates should have bigger listings because they are far more interesting to the reader than Trump. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:19, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

It is true that Walsh and Weld have no chance of winning in those states. However, Trump has not won those states becuase the delegates have not been alloted. Perhaps a more accurate analogy is if the Generals and Globetrotters were going to play 56 games, each in a different venue. Say in 7 contests that there is a heavy Globetrotter bias. In one of the venues, the Generals are forced to forfeit. The other six venues refuse to let the Generals take the court. This is allowed under the league rules, but the league rules also require the game to be played regardless of whether or not the Generals are allowed to attend, unless they forfeit. Thus, there is a difference between the one forteit and the other 6 contests. For the forfeiture, the game is considered to be over once the Generals are officially forced to forfeit, and at that point, the Globetrotters officially have won. In the other 6 contests, the Generals cannot win, but becuase of the way the league is set up, the Globetrotters do not win unless they atleast score 2 points and time in both halves have expired. Therefor, while you can say the Globetrotters cannot lose, you cannot say they have won until the end of regulation where the points are recorded and the Globetrotters have officially won. WittyRecluse (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

For the other minor candidates, how interesting they are is irrelevent, the point of an encylopedia is to accurrately document the importance they hold to the topic at hand, which is very little. WittyRecluse (talk) 08:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Very little is important enough. We're talking about Pub quiz type stuff. For political junkies playing pub quiz, stuff like this is extremely useful. That's why we have all those teensy weensy joke parties that might get on the ballot in a state or two listed on the election's main page. Encyclopedia articles are supposed to tell a story. The story of this page is twofold: If the President is removed, the story of the primaries is one of chaos with a "dead leading candidate" on the ballot and not enough time to get him off. If he is not, then the story of the primary is how much competition the preordained nominee gets and how is it split. (John Wolfe getting 41% of the vote in Arkansas in 2012 was notable indeed). As to the Harlem Globetrotters analogy, it's still wrong because if the Generals don't or can't show up, then the game would be canceled and the fan's money refunded. If one team fails to show up, then it's forfeit. In those states where there is only Trump or the primary/caucus has been canceled, the league (the RSCs, has deemed the game forfeit and the president the winner by default.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

The point of the analogy is that the game, or delegate selection event, was not cancelled. So unless the event itself is canceled, then nothing is forfeit. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

in seven states they were, and someone here decided to remove that fact from this articleArglebargle79 (talk) 22:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

The delegates have not been assigned to Trump in those states, so until the delegates have been assigned, as in Hawai'i's case, Trump has not won. I don't understand why you keep bringing up this point constantly. It is clear that this is overwhelmingly the concensus opinion. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

If the consensus opinion was 3+3=8, it would still be wrong. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I haven't seen any indication that the concensus math is incorrect. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Colorado candidates

The current Colorado Secretary of State listing has Zoltan and Matthew John Matern, and does not have Rocky De La Fuente in the Republican list. (Don't be confused by the listing for Roque III, Rocky's son, as a Democrat.) I'm not certain if the omission of Rocky is an error or a rejection, but the Colorado entry may need to be addressed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason not to update it, so I updated it. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:09, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

And now that what appears to be the final update to the Colorado SoS page is done, Rocky still isn't there, so that seems to have been the right move. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Including minor candidates

Should all minor candidates be listed? I don't think a person should be listed, like Robert Ardini, if they don't have a Wikipedia article. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:LISTCRITERIA allows for lists where "every entry meets the notability criteria" and for "short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group". When editing, I default to removing non-notable list items, but maybe this page is a special case. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 22:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If Robert Ardini is notable, then someone should write a reliably sourced Wikipedia article about him, and then he can be listed among the minor candidates in this article. But if he's not notable, there's no good reason to list him under 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#On the ballot in five or more states, a section which is specifically stated as being for "notable" candidates. In fact, Ardini isn't even on the ballot in five states yet -- the Ballot access section of the article only lists four for him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Then make one. It shouldn't be too hard. He was nominated by the Republicans New York's silk-stocking district four years go. He also wrote a book about it and was a major advertising executive. He's on the ballot in Colorado, New Hampshire, California, and Utah, so we change it to four states. He was notable enough to automatically get on the ballot in California. The more the merrier! True there should be limits. They have to be on the ballot and thus be able to get votes. How's that? We should have everybody who's on the ballot somewhere listed as well. Censoring people out is just wrong. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As I stated before, this article is primarily about the minor candidates. The primary is fixed, Trump has already been given the party's provisional nod, and all you have left are a bunch of dreamers who invested time and money in an effort they know will fail. That includes Walsh and Weld. Rocky and son are doing it just for the fun of it, and they've actually put lots of effort into getting on the ballot where they're not wanted. Rocky is on the ballot in just as many, if not more, states than the two "major" candidates. If the challengers don't have a chance in hell, fine, but treat them equally then. What is this supposed to look like in a month? In two? The reason that Bob Ely has an article is because he got on the ballot in a few states and was laughed at by the press. Read the article. That's all he did. He earned his spot. So did the others who got on the ballot. Keep them in the article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The most recent close example would be the 2012 democratic primary, in which every candidate who qualified for any state is listed. As that page has stood the test of time, i believe that is the example we should follow here.XavierGreen (talk) 02:24, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I disagree, there are so many non-notable people on the ballot that including them all gives such people undue weight, especially as unlike in 2012, major candidates are challenging the incumbent. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:34, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

no there aren't. just two guys who were elected to something a long time ago. Look at Mike Gravel on the Democratic side. Back in the day, he was a Senator and got hundreds of votes for VP at the 1972 Convention. But last year? Two teenagers started a campaign as a lark. It wasn't serious. Nobody thought it was serious, hell, Gravel didn't even think it was serious. Was he a major candidate? NO!!!!! As to minor promotional/vanity candidates, take Marianne Williamson, for example, she didn't qualify until she qualified for debates. THEN she was a major candidate. Same with Andrew Yang. He built up a following as a fantasy candidate and was in all the debates (he was kicked out of the next one). The Republicans have changed the rules this time. It's a one-man race. Sure others may get on the ballot, but the rules say that unless Trump gets less than 50% in the primaries through super Tuesday, he gets everything, and if he just comes in first in a close race, he gets something like 70% anyway. So while giving the wannabees and hoo-hahs "undue" weight, we are telling the story of the primary. Unless, by some miracle, Trump is removed by the senate the primary is Pro-forma. It's too late to change the ballot even if he is, at least through March. So what is the GOP going to do? that's WP:Crystal. What's not, is that the minor guy on the ballot in more than one state are going to get thousands of votes. Some of them tens or even hundreds of thousands. That is an interesting story and very notable.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are referring to WP:CRYSTAL and then immediately afterward talking about minor candidates who are going to get hundreds of thousands of votes. That prediction seems unwarranted as yet. Maybe one of them will, but we don't know if that is true or who it will be until it actually happens. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

you once again misinterpret what I say. Walsh and Weld will get over a hundred thousand votes (like I said, thy ARE minor candidates) and because Rocky is on the ballot in just as many states, his grand total may be as well.

but that's not what's being talked about here. Going back over the results from similar cycles, otherwise non-notable challengers almost always get a substantial number of votes in a primary or two. The four people on the ballots in a number of states deserve to be mentioned because they made the effort and they will get thousands of votes. What is WP:CRYSTAL is saying that this is a competitive race and that Walsh and Weld will get a substantial percentage of the vote. This is 1972 not 1992. Getting back to the question at hand: Should all minor candidates be listed? I vote YES.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I didn't realize you were defining Walsh and Weld as minor candidates; this article has been classifying them as major candidates since they entered the race. I don't think we should treat all the minor candidates as being of similar standing to Walsh and Weld. That said, I should note that Rocky De La Fuente has started being included in polls (from YouGov/The Economist). If and when he is included in five polls, I will fully support classifying him as a major candidate (because I have supported the five-poll standard throughout this entire campaign) -- but not before then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente has been in four polls so far, its likely YouGov will have another poll come out within a week or so.XavierGreen (talk) 18:11, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree, also, I'd like to report that Rocky has been reported has having withdrawn from the race the day before Christmas. This was news to him!!!!! Apparently, some jerk in the Secretary of State's office decided to play a dirty trick. David O. Johnson was so very, very happy when he heard Rocky had withdrawn!!!! I had to put everything back.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Do you have an actual citable source that Rocky has not withdrawn from the Utah race, to contradict the Utah Secretary of States page and the reliable source reporting it? And whatever happened in Colorado, he continues not to be on the government's candidate list despite having been in the ballot order draw. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

According to Ballot Access News, De La Fuente has withdrawn from the primaries in certain states most likely because he wants to avoid problems with the "sore loser" laws if he runs as an independent in the fall. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:03, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

While De La Fuente may well withdraw from the Republican race, he has not done so yet -- he has only withdrawn from certain primaries. See this tweet from him yesterday (January 14), in which he wrote, "Just to be clear, I'm running against Trump in the Republican primary." And not only that, he has gotten included in his 5th national poll, so he actually qualifies as a major candidate by our standards. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Augustus Sol Invictus

I have moved Augustus Invictus to the section for minor candidates whose campaigns have been suspended. This is because:

• Invictus has been arrested and is charged with kidnapping and domestic violence against his wife. He is currently being held in jail without bond. [18]
• His campaign website [19] now says only, "Invictus MMXX is currently offline. Thank you for your interest in the Invictus MMXX campaign. The campaign is currently offline."
• His Twitter account [20] has protected its tweets and no longer shows them to the general public.

If any of these situations change, we can restore him to the active candidates section, but that's how things look for now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Mississippi problem

The ballot access chart entry for Mississippi is based on this reference from the Nachez Democrat, a Mississippi paper. However, that is a listing for who is on the ballot in Concordia Parish, which is in Louisiana. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:39, 16 January 2020 (UTC) Here is the list of who has submitted for it. Rocky, Trump, and Weld are the only three R candidates filed. I am removing the other names, but someone with better knowledge of when the candidates actually qualify in the state should maybe take a closer look at things. -Nat Gertler (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2020 (UTC) And checking the state's calendar, it looks like today was the end of filing,] so no more candidates will be added. Possibly some will fail to qualify, I suppose. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente and Tennessee

We have De La Fuente with a "no" on ballot access for Tennessee. However, our source is a December 3 article, and according to this AP article from the same day, De La Fuente had applied and was still in the midst of a verification process. I cannot find anything on the TN Secretary of State website that lists the candidates. Does anyone have newer information that could either confirm or correct our "no"? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

De La Fuente and polls

Editor @PrairieKid: just undid the recent moving of Rocky De La Fuente to the "major candidates" list, claiming existing consensus. However, the consensus was that "The following major candidates have either (a) held public office, (b) been included in a minimum of five independent national polls, or (c) received substantial media coverage" was the criteria, and that Rocky did not at the time live up to it. That remains the criteria, remains on the page... and as Opinion polling for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries shows, Rocky has been included in five polls by YouGov/The Economist. Having crossed that bright line, is there any reason to keep him out of the "major candidates" list now? (NOTE: I have been reached out to offline in the recent past by the candidate for inquiries regarding their Wikipedia coverage, but I am not financially linked to him, not working on his campaign, and not giving him any treatment beyond what an inquiry dropped on my talk page would get.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 05:52, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I see absolutely no issue with De La Fuente being a major candidate. What I find weird is that @Metropolitan90: moved De La Fuente to the major candidate section here: [21], yet PrairieKid is blaming NatGertler for making the move (I would presume that's who they mean when they stated in their edit summary here that: [22] "A user with [[WP:POV[[ made the change.") It just seems a little silly to me. De La Fuente has clearly met the threshold. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's a link to the subsection where Rocky is listed as having five polls: [23]. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Well, even properly bracketed, WP:POV is a descriptor of article content, not of users. (All humans have a point of view, of course.) I've got no conflict of interest, if that's the question . I've even had one of Rocky's volunteers take me to the conflict of interest noticeboard claiming that I had some sort of anti-Rocky COI, but I came through that inquiry clean. And of course, I am not Metropolitan. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I did move De La Fuente (RDLF) to the major candidate section, because he met one of the criteria which we have had in place for a while: "been included in a minimum of five independent national polls". I don't have a pro-RDLF point of view. On December 2, 2019, I wrote on this page, "As regards Rocky De La Fuente, he needs to get himself included in some polls before I will consider him a major candidate. He is running, and he is or will be on a bunch of ballots, but he isn't recognized as a major candidate by most sources. When he ran in the Democratic primaries in 2016, he didn't even get 1% as many votes as Hillary Clinton did. I don't expect him to fare much better as a Republican." Then, for some reason, YouGov/The Economist started including him in their polls. On January 9, I wrote on this page, "I should note that Rocky De La Fuente has started being included in polls (from YouGov/The Economist). If and when he is included in five polls, I will fully support classifying him as a major candidate (because I have supported the five-poll standard throughout this entire campaign) -- but not before then." So when he hit the 5-poll mark, I went ahead and moved him to the major candidate section. We have a 5-poll standard, and we ought to uphold our own standard by recognizing candidates as major if they meet that objectively measurable standard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I was referring to PaulAwesomeTwo, whose 3 edits prior to mine I incorrectly assumed were the edits in question. That was my mistake. To be fair, that editor's edit summaries ought to be cause for some notice. @Metropolitan90:, I apologize if I offended you in any way.

Anyway, to the meat of the issue, I strongly disagree that De La Fuente is a major candidate. I recognize Trump is in a tier all his own but to say De La Fuente is even close to the same type/level of candidate as Walsh and Weld is nonsense (all due respect). I recognize the importance of being consistent and adhering to previously set criteria, but I feel either an exception ought to be made or the criteria adjusted. Walsh and Weld meet all 3 criteria. In fact, they go far above and beyond, having held national office (although I concede Walsh's is on the light side), are included in nearly every poll, and have been featured numerous times on major broadcast networks, in print media, as well as in less mainstream places (blogs, vlogs, internet discussions, etc.). If nothing else, Walsh and Weld are clearly more serious about this run, with major campaign organizations and fundraising in the direction of a single office they are genuinely attempting to win--De La Fuente is a perennial candidate who ran for nine Senate seats in 2018 and is running for Congress concurrently with his run for President.

I may be melodramatic but I seriously think the Wikipedia's legitimacy regarding coverage of current events will be threatened by putting Rocky in with the other three. The tens of thousands of viewers of the main 2020 article will see that and either laugh or discount our remaining content. It seems like the type of thing that makes high school teachers look down on Wikipedia. Again, I implore: we should either change our criteria or make an exception. PrairieKid (talk) 06:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wow, you want someone who is currently outpolling (albeit within margin of error) the two candidates you hold up as major candidates to be considered minor? And you're worried about what the optics will be if we don't rework criteria so that we can exclude the sole remaining Latino in the presidential race? Can't say that I agree. But thank you for admitting that you are requesting a change of criteria to exclude Rocky, rather than your previous claim that criteria were changed to include him.] Could you now undo your edits and wait until you find consensus for reworking the criteria to exclude him? --Nat Gertler (talk) 07:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood that edit summary. I was not saying criteria were changed for Rocky; I was saying he should not be included and perhaps our criteria ought to be updated to better reflect what a major candidate is.

Second, and I feel silly saying this to a senior editor, you're not really assuming good faith there. I was not trying to be evasive or sneaky and I certainly did not flip-flop. I wish you had thought of it as the misunderstanding it was rather than me deliberately moving the goalposts. To be fair, I could also be reading more into your wording than you meant but you came across as rather abrasive, dismissive, and confrontational which are not constructive.

Again, on to the meat of the issue, in which polls is Rocky above the other 2? I do not see a single poll where he is above 1% whereas Welsh and Weld both have several. I am not saying we need to rework the criteria to exclude him; rather I think his meeting the criteria shows the criteria is poor. I do not have a problem with him specifically but he shows there is a problem with the criteria. I hope that makes sense. PrairieKid (talk) 07:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I understand the reference to POV, as PaulAwesomeTwo referred to RDLF as "my man" in this edit summary. I think there is justification for treating RDLF as being in the same level as Walsh and Weld -- not in media coverage, but in polling and funds. Specifically, the polling organization that has conducted more Republican primary polls over the last three months than all others combined does think it is worth their while to ask about RDLF, when they could easily have continued to ignore him instead had they preferred to do so. RDLF has hit 1% in each of those YouGov/Economist polls, not much worse than Walsh (three 1%'s and two 2%'s in those same polls) or Weld (two 1%'s and three 2%'s). RDLF also has a lot more cash on hand than Walsh and Weld combined according to the last FEC reports. Granted, almost all of that consists of his own loans to the campaign, but that means that he will have an easier time paying for advertising than Walsh or Weld will. I don't think that including RDLF as a major candidate will harm Wikipedia's legitimacy, and I think it would be a bigger defect in our integrity if we changed our criterion in order to exclude a candidate from being major, just after he finally satisfied that criterion. Some version of the 5-poll criterion has been in place for years, even going back before the last election (see here). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Oooo, sick move using 2015 PrairieKid against 2020 PrairieKid, hahaha! Can't argue with that guy. (Hopefully it comes across that I am laughing, not teasing or upset or anything.) Although, I guess that discussion shows my long-time dissatisfaction with the polling criteria.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying it's not entirely up to us to define notability but rather to trust other sources (in this case, YouGov/Economist) when they do so? While I see that point, I still do not agree with it. A polling organization asking about a candidate versus an encyclopedia designating them "major" or "minor" are two different things. And I think you answer your own point well in regards to finances; it's his own money. Again, I am not trying to change criteria to exclude him; rather, he shows why we need to change criteria. I am open to being wrong on this and conceding. I just wanted to express my strong opinion on the issue. If others are all on the same page, I promise not to harumph too much. PrairieKid (talk) 07:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

First, a correction on my earlier statement - I was saying that Rocky was polling ahead of the other two because in the latest poll results, he was listed ahead of the other two, which is generally listed in order of non-rounded total results (the rounding to a whole percentage can cover a range, particularly when the number is 1% - the highest possible "1%", 1.4999%, is basically about triple the lowest, .5000% ). However, digging deeper into the data there, I can see that the three candidates were not just in a statistical tie, they were in an actual tie for that poll. So Rocky was not ahead of the candidates you deem "major", he was getting exactly the same result as them. But if you weren't claiming that Rocky didn't meet our extant criteria for "major", why did you not change the article's "major" criteria to.... well, whatever it is you propose. (So far, the change seems to be adding "and isn't Rocky De La Fuente".) Please either restore the article to reflect that he meets the criteria, or change the criteria to exclude Rocky.... while realizing that in doing so, you're going against earlier consensus. As it is, the article is currently spinning the lie that Rocky does not meet the criteria currently listed. (And please realize that if you're going off of the idea that he isn't a major candidate because he did not previously hold office, was not raising the sort of funds his competitors were, and was putting money into his own campaign... you've just pulled Donald Trump out of the list of major candidates for 2016.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

You guys seem to have forgotten that the race is fixed. Trump has provisionally won ten states already, and unless the fantasy action of him getting kicked out by the Senate next month actually happens, he's going to win the nomination by default. The precedent here is Lawrence Lessing. He was a minor candidate too. Yet he was promoted to a major one when HE managed to get on five polls. Yes, the circumstances were somewhat different, Lessing was trying to get into the debates at the time and withdrew when the DNC, which was in the tank for Hillary, (Russia and all that), told him to go shove it. However, we here at Wikipedia never "demoted" him and he's still there as a major. It's the same thing as Rocky. He's got five polls under his belt, has been recognized as major by two states (California and Florida) and is on the ballot in nearly half the Union. That should be enough. As to recognition, Walsh and Weld have NOT been recognized by many states as major candidates. nor have they by the RNC. (Walsh has bitterly complained about this). The question is not whether it's going to be a rerun of 1992, or even 1976, the question is whether or not it's going to be a rerun of 1972 or not. IN 1972, Nixon had two challengers, one of whom, Pete McCloskey got 19% of the vote in NH and later got one delegate, and John Ashbrook, who never got more than 3% of the vote anywhere. Both withdrew early on. Therefore, Rocky should be put back as major.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I realize now my removal of RDLF was WP:BOLD (at the time, I thought I was following the consensus around him). I went ahead and self-reverted. With respect to WP:VOTE, it does seem I am the minority. Whereas y'all have slightly moved me to a greater understanding of RDLF's inclusion, it seems like I have not persuaded you at all. I won't beat a dead horse. I still think RDLF is clearly not on par with the other three (and, Nat, even clearer the difference between him and Trump in 2016). I still think his inclusion is a mistake that makes Wiki look bad. And I still think it points to a larger issue with the criteria. I like Arglebargle's idea for progressive criteria (see section below), although I believe their suggested criteria still need some work. If y'all agreed with me that RDLF is not on par with the others from the outset, it would be worth evaluating it; however, you don't seem to think it's broke so I won't bother trying to fix it. PrairieKid (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Random dem viewer of the article here, I agree he fits the major candidate criteria but only barely. I was VERY confused about his inclusion until seeing the polling which still surprises me, I've known of him and despite opposing views don't hate him this is just sudden and random considering I have read this 2020 wikipedia article group for over a year and never seen a perennial candidate be suddenly listed as major. Also no dislike but Fluente is weird, not calling him bad. Just sharing my viewer opinion for hopefully helping with decision making. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:500:D890:FD12:159B:6C88:672D (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

A solution (IhopeIhopeIhope!!!!)

The criteria should change with time. let's do a hypothetical for 2024: Biden has won and has announced he will retire after one term.

• November 10,2020-July 2023: Five major polls, elected officials, or major celebrities.
• August 2023-November 2023: the first two or invited to an officially sanctioned debate.
• December 2023 onward: Drop the polls, just officially sanctioned debates, or on the ballot in 15 states.
• Those who WERE considered major earlier on will remain major throughout.

While this would work for the Democrats this year (Yang and Williamson), it wouldn't for the Republicans because there have been NO authorized debates and the two former elected officials have not been recognized as legitimate by the RNC. So what we should do this year, have three tiers of candidates: the incumbent; the challengers; and the lunatics who managed to get on a ballot or five (even the nonnotable ones like Ardini). The RNC rules state that through Super Tuesday, any candidate who gets 50% or more gets all the delegates. As I have stated before, Trump will have clinched the nomination by Super Tuesday or the campaign will be in total chaos. Tick-tock, early voting begins in Michigan today. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear what problem this is a solution to, and it introduces more bases for endless finagling in the future. As you note, the lack of sanctioned debates does put a hiccup into things, and many (most?) of the ballots are declared after the start of December when you've eliminated any sort of coverage as qualifying folks. (As it is, our table of "ballot access" is problematic, as it includes things based on submission rather than on qualification, despite its header.) So no, I do not support this. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that our criteria for "major candidate" status need review, but I think that we should do that review by a Request for comment immediately after the 2020 general election. My personal choice would be 5 major polls or certain elected officers (I would not give a free pass to state legislators and small-city mayors, as we have been doing). But we'll need to have a fuller discussion about that. I think we'll be able to be more objective if we create our criteria without knowing exactly who will be helped by those criteria. (Also, we should rely on official sources to establish ballot access, since a candidate can submit petitions for ballot access yet not qualify.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree that having an WP:RfC discussion in November would be an excellent idea. The Rocky thing (which is now over, hooray!) was the cause of endless finagling this time out. Ballot access is very important, as is debate stage access. Without the latter, a candidate cannot get taken seriously. Do you think that Yang or Williamson would have been able to get on the ballot in most places without getting on the debate stage? Once she was kicked off the debate stage, her funding dried up and her poll ratings went from 2% to zero. Same with most of the "real" Democratic candidates like Kirsten Gillibrand or Beto O'Rourke. In cycles prior to 2016, candidates would have at least waited for some physical results such as the Iowa straw poll or the caucuses themselves before dropping out. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with the idea of a November RfC. The adjustments that I'd be looking toward would be replacing "five polls" with "polls from two polling sources" (that's in harmony with our idea of multiple sources in our notability guidelines; if the "elected official" is to be adjusted, I'd lean toward federal, statewide, or mayor of one of America's 100 most populous cities... but I tend to prefer criteria based on recognition from other sources than our opinions as to kind of candidate will be taken seriously. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I also support the position of a November RfC, Since we seem to be stating our preferences for inclusion, I think the inclusion standards for elected officials should be federal office, Governor, state Attorney General and state Secretary of State or mayor of a city with over 100,000 inhabitants, and I believe the polling criteria should be adjusted to inclusion in three polls. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Following up to my earlier comment, my personal choices would be 5 polls or one of the following offices: president, VP, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, Cabinet office (counting only the 15 executive departments), governor, or mayor of one of the 10 largest cities. For what it's worth, FiveThirtyEight.com defined a major public office, for purposes of getting a point toward being a major candidate, as "president, vice president, governor, U.S. Senate, U.S. House, mayor of a city of at least 300,000 people, member of a presidential Cabinet" [24], but those didn't automatically qualify a candidate as major for their purposes since they required additional criteria; for example, it took a couple of months for former Senator Mike Gravel to qualify. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I think additionally, the polls should come at least 2, and preferably 3, different pollsters. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:59, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Much of this article reads like a biased hit piece on Donald Trump. Donald Trump is basically unopposed for the nomination. The other guy winning a delegate is irrelevant. That part needs to go, along with talk about impeachmentBjoh249 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Where we go from here

Iowa is tomorrow and New Hampshire is next week. Trump will be "acquitted" by the Senate on Wednesday and after that, the race becomes non-notable. The only things that will be interesting are the monster rallies by the Trump campaign, and how the challengers do. Looking at the results from '16, getting over a hundred thousand votes in Texas and California could be as little as 2% of the vote. Political junkies and pub quizzers will be interested in that sort of thing.

--So where do we go from here? Well, we start cutting down the primaries calender. I just did it for February (Happy new month, y'all!), and around Leap year day, we should do it for March. If y'all want to do it earlier, that's probably better. Then there's the ballot access chart. I know that I created it and fought for it, but starting tomorrow, it will have outlived its usefulness. Either we get rid of it altogether, or we replace the yes and no boxes with results, either percentages or raw totals. It doesn't really matter which. Who was on the ballot where was the only "real result" of the primary so far outside of Hawaii and Kansas, and I don't want to relitigate the whole "Trump could still lose an uncontested primary" crap.

--Finally, there's the order on the candidates' chart. Weld is on more states than Walsh and is doing better than him in all the polling (what little there is of it). So we have the order: Trump, Weld, Walsh, Rocky. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

I disagree on removing the ballot access chart. There's no reason it can't be here alongside the results. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

There's no reason to eliminate the ballot access chart. The article will not be over-long with it in place. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

In a similar fashion, I've re-added NH, IA and NV to the Primary and caucus calendar section that were removed in this edit: [25]. I've also removed the redundancy here [26]. Again, I see no reason to overhaul the article. It's just fine as it is. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

What redundancy? the Iowa caucus is TODAY!!! The results will be known tomorrow, don'tcha know? The schedule chart is for future events that will take place in a while, not today or next week. Something will NOT happen last week. Predicting the past as if it will be some future event is dumb. Deleting February, a month that has already started is counterproductive to the max. Important campaign events, such as the President's state of the union address, which is tomorrow, shouldn't be included on the timeline because of the primary schedule? Really?

--The reason for the ballot access chart was to inform the reader who IS running WHERE. It's about future events. After all, you've got to be in it to win it. You look at a schedule to find out when something WiLL happen. When you take Amtrak to, say, Boston you consult one to find out when you have to show up. It's about the future. With a fluid thing like Wikipedia, when talking about future events, you need to move stuff when it actually happens or is about to happen. Once the results happen, we don't need it on the schedule anymore. Once we have the results, we don't need to know who's going to be running there anymore. As to Nat Gertler's comments and actions. The article WILL change drastically very, very soon. That's why I'm changing it to a results chart. With Iowa having percentages instead of checkmarks and exes, the reader will know what's happened and what hasn't. The checkmarks and exes can stay until the primary actually takes place. It'll make things easy for the reader. It'll be clear and won't make things overlong. We can have the national totals chart too, in fact, we should. We've already got a results page.

Iowa's results will be history tomorrow morning, a week later, New Hampshire's. Nevada's is already known. That's it for February. There's going to be the impeachment vote, the state of the Union, and then a monster rally on Monday. That's not WP:Crystal, that's scheduling. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

First, I don't think anyone argued that Trump could "lose an uncontested primary," just that he hadn't yet won an uncontested primary. Second, you say yourself that "We've already got a results page." So, there's no reason to change the ballot access table to a results table. Such duplication is unnecessary. And this is not like a train station schedule that needs to purge information, it's an encyclopedia. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:59, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a link on this article to the Results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries; it would be something like this section: [27]. Something we could do instead would be a tranclusion of a section of the Results article so it also appears in this article. Either way avoids needless duplication. I think the Results article should be the main focus for results, personally. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Have you looked at the 2016 page? For the past two and a half years, this has been an article about a future event. That's why you guys have been razzing me for all that alleged WP:Crystal stuff. This is an additional page from the main election page. You want to get more information? Click here! But for those who don't WANT more information, and just want a simple overview, we give them one. That's what this page is for. With impeachment over, the Republican race for the nomination is going to be a rather boring non-notable exercise. I designed the ballot access chart to be a temporary one to go "poof!" when the real results are coming in. We have real results from Iowa, we are going to have real results from New Hampshire in one short week. I put in an explanation, and yes, @David Johnson's right about putting a link to the results page there. I'll do that presently.

--But look at the 2016 and 2012 articles. They don't have a schedule at all. The reason is, is that we don't need it. it's not even trivia. The information about dates is part of the results and that's where it is. At this point in time, the article should be designed to be skimmed, rather than read, at least prior to the last primary's over, and if they want to go to the results page, and there's a need for one. then one should go there, but if one doesn't, then why make it harder for you're average pub quizzer to answer the question: who came in second in last year's Republican California primary?" The ballot access chart was for real results. The places where Trump's challengers were on the ballot were the only results available at the time, and for all but a few states, are the only real results we've got. This is going to change very rapidly next month. To make it easier for the reader, we should make looking stuff up easier. Less work for the reader, and after all, isn't that what this thing is for? Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• There's plenty of room. We can have a results table here (which may or may not need to be as extensive as the one in the Results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article), and still have a ballot access table too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

WTF Rocky de la Fuente?

He's a damn perennial candidate, not a major candidate. This addition is without consensus and goes against media coverage and plain common sense. I see only a single polling company has included him in their polls, in none of which is he above the 1% of people who press the wrong button or just don't want to pick another option. The one pollster doing a poll every couple weeks does not pass the criterion of being included in multiple polls. This section is transcluded to the main 2020 article and his inclusion is undue weight and rather embarrassing. Reywas92^Talk 02:38, 5 February 2020 (UTC) CNN, NYT, Fox, BI, ABC, WaPo, Al-Jazeera, etc. do not list him among the major candidates, and its original research to list him. A single polling company including him is not sufficient. Reywas92^Talk 02:50, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

• It's true that other media have not classified RDLF as a major candidate. But that wasn't a requirement to be labeled as a major candidate here. We have had, for quite a while, a criterion that inclusion in 5 independent national polls is good enough for a candidate to qualify as a major candidate. RDLF has met that criterion. I would consider it a violation of WP:NPOV to change the criteria to exclude a candidate, just because a candidate we don't think much of finally met the relevant criterion. (Also, the Al Jazeera piece is from before RDLF was included in any polls.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

  What a damn joke, what an ill-conceived and poorly implemented criterion that flies in the face of common sense. An isolated idea to include him by a single pollster running the same poll five times (and finding a rounding error) does not define being a major candidate. He's a perennial attention whore loser, not a major candidate by any stretch of the imagination. Reywas92^Talk 08:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were finished with all this. He made the cut. He's on the ballot on a majority of states, an, therefore, he's a major candidate. One can make the argument, and I have, that Weld and Walsh aren't major candidates either. We've decided to have a major discussion on the subject of criteria in November after this whole thing is over. (it's been archived, I think). Until then, it is what it is.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Walsh dropped out of the race, FWIW. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

This is getting really annoying. De la Fuente is not a major candidate. So STOP ADDING him is as such. Jeepers. GoodDay (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

neither is Bill Weld. This article is about the lesser candidates. Otherwise it's not notable.

How's this as a solution?

We split the candidates at Trump and everyone else. Incumbent and Challengers. Have a chart for Trump like he's already the incumbent (except for the color, which will change when he clinces a week after super tuesday), and have the challengers together on a chart like this:

colspan="8" style="text-align:center; font-size:120%; color:white; background:Template:Republican Party (United States)/meta/color;"|Candidates in this section are sorted by state ballot access
Bill Weld	Joe Walsh	Rocky de la Fuente	Zoltan Istvan	Robert Ardini	Matthew J. Matern	Robert Ely	Mark Sanford
		File:Rocky De La Fuente1 (2) (cropped).jpg
68th Governor of Massachusetts]] (1993–1997)	U.S. Representative (2011–2013)	perennial candidate	Transhumanist	2016 Republican nominee for Congress from New York	California attorney	Perennial candidate	68th Governor of South Carolina (1998–2002)
Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign	Campaign
W: 0 votes	W: Feb 6, 2020 0 votes	W: o votes	W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: 0 votes	W: Nov 11 2019 0 votes
<ref>\

I know that Ardini and Matern are nobodies from nowhere, but they're on the ballot more than two states (Matern is on Ten, I believe), and they're all garunteed over ten thousand votes. But keep them there as part of the record, as everyone is token oppostion to Trump, and besides, who is it hurting? You make everything clearer for the reader, and that's a good thing, right? I know that @GoodDay finds Rocky annoying, but I find Trump annoying. Annoying doesn't really matter in this case.

So let's vote: I say YES for the reasons I have explained before. Add an explanation as to how you vote)Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• No. We should not be redefining the requirements in the midst of things just because some folks don't like one candidate qualifying. We should not be anointing Trump, because even with the current balance, there are things that could totally mess up the race (not special to Trump; any candidate can die), and any change should be something that is good in the general case, not something special for this race. Even if we were to do it, we should not use this layout, at least not with the gendered blank pictures in cases where we don't have the photos, as one can quickly see that it creates more emphasis on the candidates that we have the least information on. Nor should we describe Rocky solely as "perennial candidate"; while I have defended the use of that descriptor, it should not be the sole or lead descriptor, as it reflects less than 10% of his life, in contrast to, say, "businessman" or "automotive dealership owner", which reflects a much larger span. And Robert Ely is in his second campaign, according to his page; losing once does not make one "perennial". --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

As to the descriptors of some of the people, changing them to something else is perfectly fine. I don't mind and that's not a real objection. As to not "anointing" Trump, well, the National committee did that over a year ago, and he's going to clinch the nomination on Super Tuesday. It will be pro forma after that. Should Trump die, then there would be chaos, but it wouldn't change anything. Ballot access for the rest of the primaries will be over by the 10th of March and all the Trump delegates would be declared uncommitted. None of the major challengers were actually major. Walsh and Sanford are already out, and while the former will get tens of thousands of otess, that's only because of early voting in a bunch of states. Trump has already won 15 states, including those who have refused to let challengers on the ballot or canceled their primaries altogether. Saying what good in gnerlal is a good idea, and in fact, is what I'm trying to do. A primary race with an incumbent is one with only token opposition. Since the McGovern/Fraiser reforms of 1971, only in 1976 and 1980 have sitting presidents lost primaries, and only in 1992 has anyone ever come close. This is not a competitive race. We should have the incumbent and the challengers here listed as such, and leave the results page as is, because the challengers are going to get votes through the end of March. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

• No, we should not be mentioning non-notable people in the main table for one thing, and putting Trump in his own section after the primaries have started because some editors are having a temper tantrum over De La Fuente being on the page is both incredibly disruptive to the readers of this page, and a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Also, since people like Bill Weld are clearly being treated more seriously than candidates like Zoltan Istvan, having them in the same section gives that latter Undue Weight. If there is consensus that the table needs to reflect Donald Trump's incumbency, a better solution would be similar to the 2020 Green Party presidential primaries page. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

I'd like y'all to look at the articles for the 2004 Republican Party presidential primaries and the 1996 and 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries, you will notice that they look very different than any of the contested primaries. We should have the article look like those, instead of the Democratic primary articles for this year and both sides in '16. It is not WP:CRYSTAL to say that an incumbent president, who has been endorsed by the National Committee is on a different level than his challengers, especially after he has already won ten states, nine of them by default. As to the non-notable candidates being on the same level with the notable ones, let me remind you that Ely and Istvan are nonentities who managed to get into a few newspaper articles and that the other two, Ardini and Matern, were notable enough to have gotten on the California ballot without petitions and may actually get more votes than Ely or Istvan. At this point and onward, the article is all about the challengers and whether or not they get more than a thousand votes anywhere. The race for the nomination itself is already over, our readers know it, EVERYBODY knows it,and it should be acknowledged. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

That's WP:CRYSTAL and you know it. We've been through this numerous times already. Splitting the section into Incumbent and Challengers would violate WP:NPOV; the idea of "proportionality", as you have called it in previous discussions, does not exist on Wikipedia. It's tiring to rehash the exact same discussions that we've had before. I don't know if you expect a different outcome this time or what. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

For those just tuning in; WP:NOV means "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic."

In order to be WP:NOV, we have to show things the way they are. In other words, depict the article showing that the race is non-competitive, the incumbent has only token opposition and can be proven to be such. That is neutral and follows the consensus in both the media and the Republican party. WP:NOV means we have to respect reality as it is. Non-NOV would be to insist that the president could still somehow lose the primaries he the only one on the ballot on. Non-NOV is saying that Hobbyist A, most not be mentioned because s/he doesnt have an article yet, while Hobbyist B, who had a campaign 8 years earlier and got laughed out of the room should because someone wrote an article about it at the time and he's therefore "notable,' should? We need to treat everyone equally except Trump, who is already the presumptive winner.

As to WP:Crystal..."Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future. All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred."

Take the Maine primary, for example, Trump is the only person on the ballot there and thus he will win it. That is completely verifiable. There is no "wild speculation" here. If he gets a thousand or a million votes he will win it and get all the delegates. The vote total, while interesting to some, is meaningless. There is polling data in New Hampshire showing that Trump will get 80 to 90% of the vote. Should we say that he's already won? No. But should we say that He's already won Maine? Yes. Why? Because he physically can't lose. CRYSTAL and NPV say no miracles. That means that if the polling data and the media consensus say one thing, then we should respect that.

Now back to the chart. On March 4, Trump will have almost a thousand delegates and no one else will have any. This is verifiable. How? The rules say so. 50% of the vote means winner take all. That is not speculation. I don't propose to place the chart in the article until the 4th. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

No What Arglebargle79 is saying doesn’t make sense. Arglebargle79 Is saying that Trump needs to be put separate from the other candidates because he is most likely going to win, and that it would be more neutral that way. But What Arglebargle79 is actually hypocritically because NOV states that we (the editors) must keep Wikipedia Articles neutral, which mean making all the candidates equally to each other in terms of how we address them. In other words We need to keep all the candidates together and not separate. Also Wikipedia does not make assumptions to determine how the article should be handled. Just because you assume that Trump will win doesn’t mean that he should be separate from the other candidates.BigRed606 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

On Super Tuesday Trump will have 847 delegates and Weld will have one. This is not WP:CRYSTAL, this is fact. Add to that, here are a bunch of primaries on the 10th and that he will have more than enough to have officially become the presumptive nominee. NOV means neutral, but it does not mean stupid or embarrassing.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"On Super Tuesday Trump will have 847 delegates and Weld will have one." That's the exact definition of the crystal ball policy: "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Wikipedia does not predict the future." You keep running around in circles. It's utterly pointless.David O. Johnson (talk) 23:08, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Again you forgot what I was saying. I was saying we should do this the day AFTER Super Tuesday. Saying that "ooh, that's WP:CRYSTAL and we shouldn't do it!!!!!!" is silly. But let's BE WP:Crystal for a moment and pretend that it's two weeks from tomorrow. AS all the polls (today) show, Trump has all the 847 delegates and about six million votes, while Weld has 120 thousand and everybody else has fifty thousand to 12 thousand. What do we do then? At what point does having 90% of the delegates needed for the nomination in a mostly uncontested race become recognized as a fait accompli by those editors here who want to misuse the rules to keep that hope against hope that somehow, someway, Trump might lose on March 10? The rules as they are now on February 18, state that if Trump gets 50% of the vote, he gets all the delegates. That means if it's Trump 50%+1, Uncommitted 40%-1 and Weld 10%, Trump will get everything. This the rule for ALL the super tuesday states. Y'all know this. So please tell me why we shouldn't do this the day after Super Tuesday. Not today, March 4.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

And you are misrepresenting the other editors of this page. I do not think any editors are editing as if they are hoping Trump might lose. You are arguing for doing something in the future based on events that have yet to happen. There is no need for this. Just wait for the events to happen! You've been told this numerous times, so read WP:IDHT. --Spiffy sperry (talk)

We ARE waiting for Super Tuesday, that's the point. A week has taken place. The Nevada caucus was canceled last fall. The State GOP said that an alternative vote would unanimously bind their delegation to Trump. I said we should acknowledge that. You said no. "he could lose!" To say otherwise would be WP:CRYSTAL. I said no it isn't. The day came and it went exactly as the Nevada SC said it would, and it wasn't CRYSTAL at all. So, a week from tomorrow, not today, should we make the changes I suggest?Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

So far, everyone but you in this thread has said no. It looks like you've gotten your answer. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Active campaign

What determains the 3 years active campaign status for donald trump? just curious? because i do not see any refs. 109.131.238.132 (talk) 04:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

There is an entry for February 18, 2017, the first item in the Timeline section, below the overview chart. The reference is http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/02/18/outside-washington-trump-slips-back-into-campaign-mode.html. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks 2A02:A03F:8B18:9300:80EE:7950:BC37:4F64 (talk) 05:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

New York

New York now has a filed-candidate list up. The only entrant listed as a Republican for President is De La Fuente. It lists his status as "valid"; I'm not sure if that means on-the-ballot or is some less complete status being validated. However, there is still a week left for the party to nominate someone, and longer than that for nomination by petition, so we cannot assume that he will be the only candidate on the ballot. (Note: I was notified by De La Fuente of his NY filing, but have verified it myself. I do not have a conflict of interest with regard to the candidate.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:39, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Someone has now added New York to the ballot access table. However, all we have is a list of who has filed (so far, as of yesterday, still just Rocky.) However, having taken the time to dig into matters, that's not enough to get on the ballot - the party has to approve the candidate (per this.) That does not appear to have happened. We should eliminate the New York line until we have a ballot announcement. .Anyone disagree? --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And now we have the final list of who filed - Rocky, Walsh, Weld, and the incumbent. They have another week to request removal, but that still doesn't say who the party will approve being on the ballot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

And, as an example of why we should not add this material prematurely: De La Fuente and Walsh are off the ballot (which I've updated on the table), and NY may not even have a primary. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Rocky on ballots

Multiple editors today (@Mommmyy:, @62.112.114.51:) are changing what ballots Rocky is on, without new sourcing. In at least some cases, they are getting this wrong - claiming that he's on the Colorado ballot, for example. Here's the list of primary candidates in Colorado; Rocky-the-Republican is not on there anywhere (his son, RoqueIII-the-Democrat is), and he is not at the list of withdrawn candidates that's above the list. Here is a sample ballot, again, no Rocky. I've already done one revert today because of these changes; I am asking that others (including the people who made the changes) review them for accuracy and sourcing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC) And, having found a Missouri sample ballot, Rocky's not on that either. Barring any sourcing, I am undoing the edit that placed him as being on those ballots. The posters may be intending to list places where Rocky applied and withdrew, but if he did so before the ballot was set, then he's not on the ballot (and may not have qualified for the ballot.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Ballot Access News You could have added a citation needed tag instead of undoing it. Mommmyy (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

@Mommmyy: Ballot Access News says he withdrew from those states, but it does not say that he's going to be on the ballot, or even that he had qualified before withdrawal. I saw no reason to leave false information there with the "citation needed" rather than having true, sourced information. Rocky withdrew from Utah too late to get off the ballot, but that doesn't appear to be true for the other states. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Having now found Arkansas sample ballot listing Rocky, I'm putting that Yes-with-withdrawal back in, but this Alabama sample ballot shows that he is not on the ballot for that state. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

SOS pages do not have links or list of withdrawn candidates. Rocky was in Colorado Ballot Order but not in the Candidate List now because he has withdrawn from Colorado and he had also qualified in Alabama and Missouri too. He withdrew from Alabama, Colorado and Missouri but his son is still on the ballot as a democratic candidate there. Feel free to call the SOS gov websites if you don't feel these are not enough to prove Rocky qualified but withdrew from these states.Mommmyy (talk) 19:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see the description of the table above the table. "Yes" means the candidate is on the ballot for the primary contest, and "No" means a candidate is not on the ballot. - it's not "has qualified for", it's not "has filed for". Your edits were claiming that he is on ballots that he simply isn't on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@NatGertler: Qualified means he was on the primary ballot but withdrew later. Qualified does not mean he was there before the ballot was set. Mommmyy (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I see... you're using "ballot" to mean something besides the sheet of candidates given to the voter to select on... you know, a ballot. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, goody, an IP editor has once again added the claim that Rocky is on ballots he's not on. Please stop. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:26, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

That's not me, Nat! I prefer using account for editing instead of IP. Ping that IP here to show some evidence or something. As you were not convinced with what I provided before. Mommmyy (talk) 08:07, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I have restored them to "No" but added a footnote indicating that he filed but withdrew before ballots were set for appropriate states. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente as a Perennial Candidate

There are now over 80 sources that mention De La Fuente as a candidate, and make zero mention that he is a Perennial Candidate. Can we stop labeling him as a perennial candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B04B:2185:A804:EB1F:D5D5:4FCD (talk) 17:11, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Plenty of available sources describe him as a perennial candidate. Even the fact that he's been labeled "perennial" has gotten coverage. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I can't believe I'm saying this, Enough with Rocky!

Rocky is on the ballot in over 20 states. In some, like Illinois, he's the only challenger to Trump on the ballot. How he does is interesting, and it's already been decided that he's a "major candidate" and to count his votes. Same with Weld and those people you don't want to even mention because they're so obscure.
the primary race will be over on Wednesday. Trump will be around 125 votes short of the number needed to nominate not including those primaries and caucuses the following week where he's unopposed. That part is not WP:Crystal, it's fact. The Rules say that. The discussion doesn't matter anymore. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Additional ballot access possibilities

Currently, our Ballot Access table has three possible prime entries: "Yes" (is on ballot), "No" (is not on ballot), and "–" - is not yet qualified but has time to still apply. I think that it might be useful to add "Void" (name is on ballot, votes will not be counted) as a worthy additional state - certainly, if one is coming here to figure out who is running in your state, the fact that a vote for that particular candidate will not be counted is of interest. (This happens when a candidate removes himself from a state's race after the ballot has been designed, such as De La Fuente in Utah.) My main concern with adding it is that there will be calls to add other conditions, ones marking candidates who qualified but withdrew in time to not be on the ballot, or who filed and withdrew before being qualified, or who filed but did not qualify, and if we make those primary entries with their own color, what is a fairly clear table becomes much harder to parse. (Making those notes that can go with "No" would not be such a problem.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

using that logic, than a W option should be added to those who withdrew from the primary before the filing deadline. It would indicate that had they remained, they would have been on the ballot had they not withdrew.--2600:1006:B051:EDAB:9DE5:EF2:D11:CE50 (talk) 04:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. With the race all but over, it's now unnecessary and should be gotten rid of. There is a very nice variation on the primary calendar on the Democrat's primary page which might make a nifty replacement.

It looks like this:

2020 Democratic primaries and caucuses

Date	Total pledged delegates		Primaries/caucuses	Biden	Buttigieg	Klobuchar	Sanders	Warren
February 3	41		Iowa caucuses	6	14	1	12	8
February 11	24		New Hampshire primary		9	6	9
February 22	36		Nevada caucuses	9	3		24

}

with one or two obvious changes, it'll fit in perfectly.

Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WP:DROPTHESTICK. You've tried and gotten no support for its elimination. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Day after tomorrow, 10PM Pacific standard time

There will be a presumptive nominee

The reason is that Super Tuesday will have happened. The race will be over. Trump will have added 14 more states to his haul and they will give him 85% of the delegates he needs to win. As I have said ad Infinitum, it will be physically impossible for him to lose the thing. @David Johnson has been reverting my preparations for this because it's "too early." No, it's not too early. This is not sports, although it can seem that way at times. This is not the 1973 Belmont stakes where Secretariat is doing the run of his life and thrilling the crowds. Yes, the officials did not leave when he was 30 furlongs ahead (the thing was two minutes long), but the race was not fixed. You can argue that when Nats beat the Cubbies last summer after nearly losing it in the 9th inning shows (my baby brother and I were walking out at the time and turned back) that it ain't over 'till it's over, but this is not comparable. The Republican nomination process is fixed. We can pretend it's still a competitive race for a day or two without looking dumb, but not after.

To repeat: On Wednesday morning, Trump will have officially won 19 states and have nearly 900 delegates, 85% of what is needed. Add to that, three states where he's unopposed. That puts him over the top. It's over. The zombie primary will go on until June, but it will all be superfluous. Not recognizing this is what is non-neutral and unencyclopedic. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The "preparation" you are calling for is entirely unnecessary. Why can't you listen to the volume of response you've gotten on this and other talk pages? It doesn't matter that you or everyone else know what is going to happen. When it happens, it will be documented here with reliable sources. I repeat, there is no need to prepare. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What's with the Map?

Yeah just curious, can we get an update to the Map already?Subman758 (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)