Jump to content

Talk:2020 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk | contribs) at 17:28, 17 February 2018 (→Steve Bannon and "Potential" Candidates: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Former good article nominee2020 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
October 30, 2015Articles for deletionKept
November 1, 2015Good article nomineeNot listed
March 1, 2017Articles for deletionKept
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 22, 2015.
The text of the entry was: Did you know that potential candidates in the United States presidential election of 2020 include Tom Cotton, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West?
Current status: Former good article nominee


How should we sort the polls?

The statewide polls are sorted by alphabetical order by state, but the national polls are sorted by which candidate was most recently included in a poll. This seems a bit inconsistent; I think sorting the national polls by alphabetical order like we do for the statewide polls would make things seem more organized. Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense. It's alphabetical by state, then based on recency of the poll. The only state with more than one match-up as of now is Michigan, it's Trump vs. Biden, Sanders, and Warren. The polls were released at the same time and therefore happen to be sorted alphabetically. If we go alphabetically in the national polls the first poll to be featured will be a Pence vs. Generic Dem. poll... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's much easier to find the candidate you're looking for when it's sorted alphabetically. Prcc27 (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, the newest statewide poll is the Texas poll and yet it is not at the top. So that's further proof that it is inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 06:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's all for relevancy. Winfrey is at the top right now because her Golden Globes speech blew the hell up. Warren, Sanders, Gillibrand, and the like are all also near the top because they're getting the most media buzz. Franken, for example, is right at the bottom since nobody expects him to run after the whole #MeToo thing with him. We sort states alphabetically, candidates by recency. I think it's pretty simple. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 05:05, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When people update the article and post new polls they keep on forgetting to move the candidates with the most recent polls to the top of the section. Consequently, the section is currently not organized by date or alphabetical order, and we can infer this problem will persist. This could easily be avoided if the section was ordered alphabetically by the candidates' names, then editors wouldn't have to worry about moving the candidates each time a new poll comes out. Prcc27 (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Condense Minor Candidates

I agree with having them listed, but do Jeff Boss and Geoffrey Finger need to have their own pictures and flags listed? Can we condense them into a smaller list? DaCashman (talk) 05:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • On a related note, I would suggest that we find a better way to describe the minor candidates than just listing offices they have run for before. We should try to indicate what career or way of making a living they have. Being a former candidate for office is worth listing, but it's not an occupation or qualification. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they should be removed completely. The list will have hundreds of people before the election. Maybe there should be some type of threshold to be listed as a candidate on the page. Any suggestions?Political Geek (talk) 05:30, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have a good standard that stops there from being hundreds of people listed. They need to meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. That has been enough in previous elections. Letupwasp (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Cuban & Dwayne Johnson's Party Affiliations

Mark Cuban and Dwayne Johnson are both Independents. Cuban has made a statement saying he would probably run as a Republican, maybe an Independent, but not a Democrat. Johnson hasn't said anything about which party he'd prefer to run on. There's been plenty of speculation that both of them could run under the Republican or Democratic parties, as well as Larry Sharpe on Reason openly throwing out the idea that either of them may run as a Libertarian due to their liberal social views (even though Cuban says he's more of a social moderate) and conservative fiscal views. I think we should go one way or the other: have them both in all four sections (Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, and Independent), or JUST the ones they've publicly talked about (so Johnson would only appear in the Independent section, Cuban excluded from Libertarian). IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:10, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • As neither has expressed a single word about running as Libertarians, neither being members of the Libertarian Party, you can safely exclude their names from the Libertarian section. Bunco man (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why is Johnson listed in the Republican section, but not the Democrat section..? That's inconsistent. Prcc27 (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Johnson has not expressed a single word about running as a Democrat or Republican, and isn't a member of either party... IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor has either person expressed a single word about running as Libertarians. You based your efforts on the comments of Libertarian Larry Sharpe. Sharpe has also said that it would be great if Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Massie run as Libertarians. Should they be added? No, of course not, as they are solid Republicans and have not expressed a single hint of leaving their Party and running as Libertarians. Bunco man (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Solid Republicans..? I thought they were Independents, which would mean we need to remove Johnson from the Republican section. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was talking about Rand Paul, Justin Amash and Massie being Republicans. Bunco man (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well Amash and Massie don't have any other references about running in 2020, period. So they're not even included in the Republican section. Paul does, so he actually IS in the Libertarian section (Correction: WAS. I actually don't know when he was removed, but one of his two sources are based on him running as a Libertarian: http://redalertpolitics.com/2016/12/14/libertarians-want-rand-paul-lead-2020-trump/ so I'm definitely adding him back). I don't really have a problem with either option but we have to go one way or the other. If Johnson stays in the Democratic & Republican sections, he has to also be in the Libertarian section with Cuban. If they aren't in the Libertarian section, Johnson needs to be taken off the other two sections. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • @IOnlyKnowFiveWords: You need to cease disrupting the article. adding candidates to numerous sections where they do not belong is cauing the rest of us more work than is needed. I also removed your Rand Paul addition in the Libertarian section as your two sources do not mention Paul running as a Libertarian. Someone calling him a lower-case libertarian is not saying that he is running as an upper-case Libertarian. You also need to stop adding Johnson and Cuban into numerous party sections. Bunco man (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Bunco man: lol "This individual is not registered to the political party of this section, but has been the subject of speculation or expressed interest in running under this party." Not to mention that the article in question is explicitly about Rand Paul as a favorite among Libertarians and the possibility of him running under the party. "In a new poll, survey participants overwhelmingly support Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) to run on the libertarian ticket in 2020 against President-elect Donald Trump over their 2016 candidate Gary Johnson." Like I said: Johnson & Cuban don't have to be in the Libertarian section if you remove the former from the democrat and GOP sections; pick one 🅱ud. :) IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @IOnlyKnowFiveWords: The article you use as a source is from 2016 from a right-wing organization. There are organizations that call Trump a Libertarian, so will you also add his name to the Libertarian Party candidates? I don't care why or why not you want to put Johnson and Cuban in the Republican AND Democratic sectionss, but there is no source or reason to add them to the Libertarian Party section. Stop being disruptive to the article! Bunco man (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
                • @Bunco man: December 14, 2016. More than a month after the election. Red Alert Politics is now owned by The Washington Examiner, it's certainly right-wing but we also use refs from left-wing sources like HuffPost, for example. Regardless, I don't see how a site being particularly right-leaning would have an effect on their reporting about how Rand Paul could challenge the right-wing incumbent president via a third party run. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:12, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Castro ref.

Should push his expiration date to early August.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/372523-julian-castro-i-have-every-interest-in-running-for-president-in-2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.105.250 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Holder ref.

Holder has refused to rule out a presidential bid.

Suggested edit: Move Holder back to PEI, and set expiration date to 08-07-2018.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/372705-holder-wont-rule-out-presidential-run — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.105.250 (talk) 17:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Andrew McCatty is a Candidate for President of the United States

Page: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_2020

According to the FEC Gov website Scott Andrew McCatty is a Candidate for President of the United States.

Scott is a Write-in Candidate from the State of Florida. votescotty.com

[1]

65.32.98.8 (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2018 (UTC)Scott McCatty[reply]

There isn't a Wikipedia article for this person, so he's not notable and cannot be listed as a candidate. And if the only thing that makes him interesting is filing paperwork with the FEC it's likely that a Wikipedia article would quickly be deleted. Letupwasp (talk) 15:00, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that all candidates should/need to be listed, "notability" and majority rule is the basic rule for Wikipedia. Truth and knowledge is not important. There are candidates in this article who simply should not be listed, but because they have notability they are welcomed. Call them what you want and place them where you want, doesn't matter, it only takes one blog post to be able to list Trump or Clinton as libertarian, never-mind the truth and facts. I won't support you (don't support any candidate) but I agree that you should be listed in the independents section. Bunco man (talk) 16:01, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ me next time, bud. I disagree that we should just add anyone that's filed with the FEC to this page. See this NPR count of 129 people who've filed to run in 2020. And that was in May 2017, before even John Delaney filed in July. And I'm sorry that you've got a problem with choosing who's put in on this page is based on actual media sources, take it up with the writers of the respective articles. Here's Siraj Hashmi's Facebook page, maybe you should ask him to delete his completely preposterous story about how Rand Paul - self-described libertarian conservative, 1st place winner of a hypothetical Libertarian Party presidential primary poll that is the subject of said article, and son of Libertarian Party member and their 1988 presidential nominee Ron Paul - may run as a Libertarian in 2020 when there was a similar amount of speculation about him running in 2016. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:44, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Bannon and "Potential" Candidates

The possibility of a Bannon Candidacy are remote, most can agree on that. He has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Trump Presidency. He himself, according to Vanity Fair and Business Insider, has stated that he will not run for president so long as Trump runs for reelection, which he is (see FEC filing of Trump Presidential Campaign 2020). Most on this page can also agree that he is a member of the alt-right-he himself has labeled himself as such. The alt-right advocates for policies that would raise taxes for the wealthy, reduce free-trade and reduced American interventionalist policies. Whether these policies are good and bad is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are not mainstream republican values. If he is to be considered a potential candidate, others such as David Duke and Richard Spencer, whom are also not mainstream need to be listed. For the reasons listed above, I have very rationally attempted to remove Steve Bannon from the list of Potential Candidates. His place has been justified, however, because he could "potentially" run. Well, if this is the case, we need to add every single Republican in Congress, every Republican Governor and every Republican actor to the list as well. Each one of those could "potentially run". That would be ridiculous, however. Instead, why don't we only include individuals that have not denied the idea, but have been floated as potential candidates by the media such as Romney? Steve Bannon will only run if Trump quits. In this article, we should use ceteris peribis (all current conditions staying the same), in other words, if the election is held this week, would person x consider running?

  1. ^ https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00006619/?tab=about-candidate
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=826174076"