Talk:2016 United States presidential election

Rick Santorum

Rick Santorum announced http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/rick-santorum-is-running-for-president-again--and-says-this-time-will-be-different/2014/12/09/0c955498-7fca-11e4-9f38-95a187e4c1f7_story.html?tid=hpModule_f8335a3c-868c-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.194.253.75 (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

This article is unclear if he is really running yet or if he will run. Is he a candidate or has he expressed intention?ObieGrad (talk) 18:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree that that article is unclear. There's no direct declaration of candidacy from Santorum himself. and

this article states he "hasn't made a formal announcement yet". However, he is discussing plans for his campaign, which definitely sounds like expression of intent to run--Rollins83 (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC).

I recreated an intention to run section and put Santorum in it. Any opinion on whether intention to run should be before, or after, exploratory committees?ObieGrad (talk) 14:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

ObieGrad, I think you have it listed correctly, with "intention" below "exploratory". Setting up a committee, after all, is a formal step towards a candicacy which holds more weight than mere verbiage.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Rosanne Barr Running

Does this twitter post from Rosanne Barr constitute a candidacy?

https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/527164551855218689 ObieGrad (talk) 18:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

A little too vague, IMO. "Third party needed or bust"? Not sure how to take that. I don't think it should be taken as an actual declaration, though at the very least it's a big hint that she's looking into to running again in 2016. --Rollins83 (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Jim Gilmore hints at running in 2016

Former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore is hinting he might run in 2016: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/gilmore-hints-at-another-presidential-run-in/article_c285e768-0995-5c60-b891-9da7dd9fc843.html. I would add him to the list of potential republican candidates under the "publicly expressed interest" heading, but I don't yet have editing access to the page. Could someone please do this? Thanks in advance.--Cagey Slim (talk) 23:26, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done--Ddcm8991 (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Gilmore was a candidate in '08! This should be said along with his qualifications (VA Gov., etc)Mhoppmann (talk) 21:46, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 December 2014

Please add these sources to the entry on Jeb Bush: http://www.businessinsider.com/jeb-bushs-2016-run-would-have-huge-implications-for-the-republican-party-2014-12

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/jeb-bush-begins-make-his-move-n268511

http://www.sltrib.com/news/1951581-155/jeb-bush-speaks-in-south-carolina 98.173.176.125 (talk) 22:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done We do not want a WP:LINKFARM - the maximum number of references for any candidate is three - Arjayay (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2014

I feel under Third party and independent candidates

I feel Roger E. Nichols the unity party candidate for president should munched. https://www.facebook.com/nicholsforpresident

I feel use information that should United States presidential election, 2016. He plan to start campaign around March or April of next year. 

Stevendanielsen (talk) 21:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done Sorry, but Mr. Nichols dosen't appear to meet the notability standards required to be included on the election page. For starters, he must meet the standards of WP:GNG and/or WP:NPOL and have a standalone wikipedia article. Secondly, his candidacy must be verified by reliable independent sources (which facebook is not). So, for the time being at least, it's unfortunately a no.--BobfromtheBeltway (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2014

John Thune should be put back on the list of potential candidates. Even though he previously said he wasn't going to run, recent sources now say he's "keeping his options open" and "not ruling out" running for president in 2016. Sources: http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40354&Itemid=57, http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/227093-sen-thune-not-closing-door-on-2016-run?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter, http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2014-12-17/thune-doesnt-rule-out-white-house-bid-as-jeb-bush-tests-water Harold0077 (talk) 19:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

DoneObieGrad (talk) 14:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Republican vs Democrat vs Independent

Okay, so I'm not American, so I may be missing the point here, but why are some candidates being listed as Republican or Democrat when they're clearly Independent, such as Jeff Boss, Vermin whatever et al? Are their candidacies merely misplaced here? --rm 'w avu 03:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

They just have to file with FEC for the 2016 Democratic primary. Even though they are lesser-known candidates, that doesn't mean they aren't running as Democrats. Mhoppmann (talk) 23:45, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2015

Please move Rick Santorum from the section titled "Publicly expressed an intention to to run" to the section "Publicly expressed interest". Despite what the Wasington Post said, he hasn't made plans to run yet. See this article:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/26/rick-santorum-presidential-run_n_6377802.html 2600:1003:B12E:52D6:F5CC:97E0:63FB:5FCC (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done for now: Despite what the Wasington Post said... Isn't very convincing. Those sources weigh about evenly I believe, so it isn't enough to change what is there yet. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 17:36, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree with this decision. The Huffington Post article clearly quotes Santorum as saying he hasn't made a decision on running in 2016, and he plainly states the Washington Post got it wrong when it reported that he is already planning to run. In my opinion, it is irresponsible for wikipedia to say someone has "expressed intention" when the person in question clearly says that's not the case. As I see it, when reliable sources are are conflicting or contradictary on matters like these, it would be best to err on the side of caution. In this case, that would mean refraining from upgrading someone's status, so to speak, as a candidate until there is a definitive statement or indication "straight from the house's mouth" and unconflicting reliable reports that clearly support the change.--2600:1003:B11D:20A1:2DA3:9CB5:69C4:6C03 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

UPDATED:  Done Subsequent sources - like this, for example confirm he is still "considering", not yet planning, a run.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I still am having a tough understanding what exactly is the difference between EXPRESSING INTEREST and EXPRESSING INTENTION. I don't think there is a legit way differentiate the two. It's arguable whether or not anyone under Interest was also expressing intention. I really think we have way too many vary factors as to whether or not a candidate is running. Declined, Possible candidates, ones who have said they are interested and/or intend is fine as one group, and exploratory committees. A separation intention group is overkill. It will become an issue of opinion whether or not an article is an Interest or an Intention. It was my understanding opinions are not part of Wikipedia unless they are sourced. Diamond Dave (talk) 17:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

See this thread for explanation and rationale for _Publicly expressed intention to run_.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:41, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee

http://time.com/3652893/mike-huckabee-ends-fox-show-to-explore-presidential-run/ From Publicly expressed interest to Publicly expressed an intention to run?83.80.208.22 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think so. The article needs to say he is leaving Fox News to run, not to think about running.ObieGrad (talk) 15:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, the article says he left Fox to "explore" a run. So far, he's only expressed interest, not definite plans.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Wondering if we shouldn't list possible candidates on this page.

I keep finding inconsistency between this page and each of the Republican, Democratic, and Independent candidate pages. Also kind of tedious to edit two different pages to keep them consistent. Also, difficult since both pages are using different listing formats (one has a text list and the others are photo galleries). I think we should amend the candidate sections for each party to be just links to the other pages and not list them on this page at all. This will avoid having to edit two pages and also not worry about keeping them consistent. Also, since not very many official candidates have come out other than with exploratory committees, PACs, and perennial candidates, it seems to soon to allude this are official candidates. Fine to mention them on their own party pages, but to have them here on the official page seems too soon. Any objections or discussion? Diamond Dave (talk) 09:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I tend to think it's a good thing to have the potential candidates listed on this page as an "overview". I suspect more readers consult this page more often than they do the separate candidate-by-party pages. It's convenient to have the general listings on hand without having to link to 2 or 3 other pages. The inconsistencies can be, and usually are, fixed. As an editor, I don't find it particularly difficult to edit the 2 pages and keep them consistent, and I'm seeing complaints from other editors (I will say I'm glad we're no longer listing the candidates on the primaries articles, editing 3 pages was a bit much!). Also, I don't think there is any allusion of potential candidates being official candidates, as it is clearly stated they are "potential" and being speculated about in the media. That's my take on it, no problem with continuing to list the potential candidates here.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

For whatever it may be worth, as a reader of wikipedia , I like having the overview list available at my fingertips so to speak. As mentioned in the comment above, I like the convenience of not having click on two or three other pages to see all the lists of possible candidates. I'd be in favor of maintaining status quo.--Cagey Slim (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we at least make them consistently gallery lists as opposed to text lists? Diamond Dave (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Add Mitt Romney to "expressed interest"

Please move Romney to "publicly expressed interest" per these sources: http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/09/politics/romney-tells-donors-considering-2016-bid/index.html? http://www.politico.com/story/2015/01/mitt-romney-considers-2016-presidential-campaign-114132.html

Thanks Mhoppmann (talk) 22:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I did that per WP:Bold and Romney Tells Donors He Is Considering 2016 White House Bid http://www.wsj.com/articles/romney-tells-donors-he-is-considering-2016-white-house-bid-1420839312 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonJack (talk • contribs) 23:56, 9 January 2015‎ (UTC)