Talk:2016 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 David1982m (talk | contribs) at 20:48, 16 June 2015 (→‎Scott Walker announcement). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


American Freedom Party

The American Freedom Party has announced its two candidates for President and Vice President- Kenn Gividen (President) and Bob Whitaker (Vice President.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22kEFcMey08

http://kenn2016.com/

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/kenn-gividen-bob-whitaker-to-run-for-president-vice-president-for-the-american-freedom-party/

Kenn Gividen is from Indiana, and won the Libertarian Party's nomination for Governor of Indiana in 2004- winning 32,000 votes in the general. He is also the editor of DailyKenn.com, on online news presence with a focus on conservative, libertarian, and paleo-conservative perspectives. Kenn writes extensively on black-on-white violent crime.

Bob Whitaker is from South Carolina, and is (according to the independent political report piece) a American white nationalist, writer and political activist. He has been a college professor, international aviation negotiator, Capitol Hill staffer, Reagan Administration appointee, and writer for the Voice of America. He has written numerous articles and three books in his own name. He is perhaps best known for being the creator of The Mantra, a strategy to fight white genocide. Robert resides now in Columbia, South Carolina. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 13:15, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Gividen does not have Wikipedia article and therefore does not meet the notability requirements for this article.ObieGrad (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I know he doesn't have one, but the AFP does. And he is- officially- the AFP's candidate for president. Does that constitute at least a statement that he and his VP pick are officially running as the AFP's nominees? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So should we put the name of the person or at least Party under the Third Party Declared Canfidates? Political Bawss 10:02 EST 15 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Boss (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is what was done for the 2012 Third Party candidates-

Nominee

Merlin Miller
Independent filmmaker from Tennessee

(Website)

Miller won the nomination of the American Third Position Party on January 12, 2012. Retired professor Virginia Abernethy was selected as his running mate.[1]
It also listed the states they had access in and how many electoral votes they could obtain. I think this is the best option for 2016 as well. For the 2016 AFP candidates- it would look like this:

Nominee

Kenn Gividen
Libertarian nominee for Governor of Indiana 2004 from Indiana

(Website)

Gividen won the nomination of the American Third Position Party in May of 2016. Retired professor Bob Whitaker from South Carolina was selected as his running mate.
The above references would, of course, be used. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the 2012 independent page not all candidates had a Wikipedia article linked to them. If this is what we've done in the past could we post the AFP candidate in the independent page without the Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B169:8AC3:0:E:9EE1:9601 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "American Third Position Nomines its First National Ticket". Ballot Access News. Richard Winger. January 17, 2012. Retrieved February 10, 2012.

Trump to make "major announcement" June 16

Resolved. Per final comment (and source linked) in this thread.--JayJasper (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sounds like Donald Trump is going to announce his candidacy on june 16, although the sources don't confirm that. We ought be keeping any eye on this, though:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/243350-trump-stokes-2016-talk-schedules-major-announcement, http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016-donald-trump-running-president-1942820

--Eli755 (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough to have him moved to Announcement pending section, as it's unclear whether the forthcoming announcement is actually about his potential candidacy (although it sure seems to be the case), but thanks for the heads-up. Stay tuned, folks....--NextUSprez (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
At first, I absolutely agreed. I thought it would be like his 2012 "big announcement which was pretty stupid. However, most media have agreed it is a Presidential run, he's talked openly about making the announcement in June and it's at the Trump Tower. I think it calls for inclusion. PrairieKid (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think we need a third party source that outright states that they expect this to be an announcement, seems sources right now are insinuating it might be that but then hedge their bets. This does seem to be a very close call.ObieGrad (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with ObieGrad. A bit too much insinuation and "hedging of bets" for me to be comfortable with including it in the "announcements pending" section. Still looking for a reliable source that plainly states the announcement is having to do with his decision on whether to run or not.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards PrarieKid's take on this. I think there's enough indications that the announcement will have something to do with his running - or not - for president. Especially the part about going to New Hampshire the next day, a major hint there. Although ObieGrad has a good point that it's "a very close call", I think including Trump on the announcement would be justified (barely, but still).--Eli755 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The new ref provided for this states this is a 2016 announcement so that settles the issue in my mind. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-sets-date-2016-announcementObieGrad (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Alphabetical Order

Is Hillary's last name "Rodham" or "Clinton?" If it's Rodham, O'Malley goes before her alphabetically in the pictures and list of candidates. If it's Clinton, O'Malley goes after. It's kind of confusing what she's going by especially with the whole name issue that has been going on over at the Hillary Rodham Clinton page. - Skm989898 11:22, 30 May 2015

Clinton is her last name. Rodham is her maiden name. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Wilson

Resolved. Wilson now has a standalone article that easily passed an Afd discussion.--JayJasper (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Willie Wilson has received significant press coverage from reliable sources concerning his bid for president. A Google news search for "Willie Wilson" "president" yields far more results (1320 hits) than Jeff Boss and Robby Wells, at 142 hits and 61 hits respectively. While Boss and Wells may have other things that they are notable for which cause them to warrant a Wikipedia article, this article is about the 2016 presidential election and those things do not make them viable candidates. In fact they likely detract from these candidates viability. The fact that Wilson has received significant coverage in reliable sources does make him worthy of inclusion in the "other candidates" subsection.--Tdl1060 (talk) 02:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until there is a consensus before we change the previous consensus. As for coverage, Wilson has more than Wells or Boss simply because he announced today. I see two scenarios from here: (1) Wilson will fade into obscurity in the next week or so and will have the same amount of coverage as Boss or Wells; or (2) Wilson will continue to garner significant media coverage to the extent that he would deserve his own Wikipedia page. Either way, I say we keep the system as it is and exclude Willie Wilson. --Vrivasfl (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. We've long had the requirement that candidates have stand-alone pages in order to be listed. I don't think we should give up that rule for a candidate like Wilson, especially since the only argument for his inclusion is that he brings up a lot of results on Google. If he continues to receive coverage, we can start an article for him. I doubt that will happen but we can't include him until then. PrairieKid (talk) 03:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this "requirement"? There is no Wikipedia policy on the matter and the only previous discussion in the talk page was related to prospective candidates. --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was a part of the initial discussions in 2008 that developed this requirement. The requirement is meant to avoid discussions like this. If "Willie Wilson" receives significant coverage then create a wikipedia page for him and add him to the list. If he doesn't get significant coverage and cannot even meet Wikipedia's liberal notability requirements then he should not be listed on this page. Regardless, "Willie Wilson" is a fairly common name so I'm not surprised by the number of g-hits it receives. I doubt many (or any for that matter) of those hits have anything to do with someone by that name running for president.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The figures that I quoted were for a news search for "Willie Wilson" "president" and having looked through several pages all of the news articles referred to the same Willie Wilson, though a few of the later were articles related to his mayoral run.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then create an article for him: Willie Wilson (businessman).--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to start a revert war but there certainly does not seem to be consensus to add him. I am of the opinion that the Wikipedia article requirement is appropriate. Although I'd oppose the change, if we are going to change the policy it needs to be changed before adding Wilson. A rule including Wilson will be harder to create than I think may be apparent to everyone. Is there a number of sources that must discuss a candidate before they get in the article? Can any RS discuss them or only "major" ones? There are over 300 Form 2 filers and I bet a good number of them are mentioned in at least some sources. I think the better solution is to have a new article on Willie Wilson to make him qualify.ObieGrad (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And to be clear, I do not think redirects (as someone created above) should apply.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please put Wilson back in the article. He has his own page now --- Willie Wilson (businessman). Thank you.--Saam100 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, I'm going to nominate it for deletion though. I don't think he is WP:NOTABLE. Sorry. I still don't think he should be included. PrairieKid (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You can see the deletion discussion here. PrairieKid (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bloomberg a Potential Candidate?

According to this article published today Michael Bloomberg is mulling over running for President as a Democrat.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3109598/Could-Hillary-opposition-no-hoper-Lincoln-Chafee-enters-2016-race-Michael-Bloomberg.html> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drkbolsen (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 June 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

Here's more on Bloomberg as potential democrat candidate for president:

http://theweek.com/speedreads/558500/could-michael-bloomberg-challenge-hillary-clinton-president

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/06/michael-bloomberg-2016-president-rumors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saam100 (talk • contribs) 21:06, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is it good? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that Bloomberg previously declined. He needs to step back his decline before he can be listed as a speculated candidate.ObieGrad (talk) 17:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rosanne Barr endorses Berie Sanders

Rosanne Barr has been added to the list of endorsers for Bernie Sanders. See Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, 2016#Endorsements (under "Celebrities"). Should this be taken as a withdrawal of her candidacy for the Peace and Freedom Party in 2016? If so, she needs to be removed from this page. Or should we wait until more sources become available with more details? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saam100 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for more sources to see if she withdraws from the race officially. She can endorse Sanders and run at the same time. Winner 42 Talk to me! 22:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peter King, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich

Peter King, Jim Gilmore and Bob Ehrlich are in the section Publicly expressed interest. But the sources are old, time for remove?83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Current consensus is that there must be at least one source where the candidate states their interest in the past three months. They all meet this requirement.ObieGrad (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peter king PAC? http://www.americanleadershipnow.org/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Jim Gilmore PAC? http://growthpac.us/83.80.208.22 (talk) 10:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Candidate Gallery

Do we have a standard for third party candidates to get listed in a gallery? Must they be listed in five major polls?ObieGrad (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, yes, that standard (along with the "held a major office" rule) should apply to all candidates at this point. Another standard, that's been applied in the past, for inclusion in the gallery is that a candidate must have ballot status in enough states to have at least a mathematical possibility of receiving the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Obviously, it's too early to apply that standard. But in time, the Green and Libertarian nominees (both parties already have enough ballot access to mathematically get the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to win), and likely the Constitution Party nominee, will be included in a gallery as they have been on the past several election pages.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:57, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

Many of the endorsements for candidates seem to be of the "I like this guy" variety. For example, de Blasio states that he's "a big fan" of Bernie Sanders, but does not say "Sanders would be a great POTUS" or anything like that. I think that the more narrow, blunt "we should elect this guy" kind of endorsement is the one we should go with. What do you guys think? Mhoppmann (talk) 19:59, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I am not sure what the policy on that is but I would certainly say that "I like this guy" should not count as an endorsement. Jadeslair (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There should be an explicit endorsement of the person as a candidate, not just general praise for them.--2600:1003:B122:962E:0:B:74FD:EE01 (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with all the above. General praise does not an endorsement make.--Earlgrey T (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with comments above. An endorsement should be a specific expression of support for one's candidacy, not merely a vague "I like this person" kind of a statement.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walker announcement

Scheduled for July 13. http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-06-15/scott-walker-to-announce-presidential-bid-july-13-sentinel From "sources close to Walker" so tentative right now but likely within reason. Consider adding to GOP announcements impending section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.36 (talk) 01:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcc7292 (talk • contribs) [reply]

I'd like to see something a little less tentative than "sources close to" before moving him to the announcements impending section. Anyone else have thoughts on this?--Jcc7292 (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree w/ Jcc7292. The given source is too tentative, especially given that an official spoksperson for Walker "would neither confirm or deny a specific date" for his announcement.--JayJasper (talk) 19:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ only because Walker actually has a date and not mention John Kasich has hinted after June 30th, unlike Chris Christie who shows no sign of announcing at all. Walker and Kasich should not be sharing space with Christie as they do show signs of announcing when Christie shows no signs at all.--Diamond Dave (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"three insiders said the Republican governor and his campaign staff are targeting July 13 as the date for Walker to make the big announcement. There has been some discussion of having it later in that week, but most have settled on July 13, a Monday. AshLee Strong, a spokeswoman for the governor, would neither confirm or deny a specific date." Sounds too tentative for me, nothing definitive from Walker himself and and an official spokesperson neither confirming or denying the date. IMO, we need need something more affirmative than "targeting" a date from an official source.--JayJasper (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then can the Announcement section be modified to include anyone who has indicated they are moving forward from exploring? Only because as I mentioned, both Kasich (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/05/27/kasich-may-announce-for-president-after-june-30th/) and Walker have indicate they do intend to move forward, I will concede no specific dates, but they do intend to move forward. Chris Christie again has made no definite plans as of yet. It shows a distinct difference between them and Christie that should be expressed in someway. --Diamond Dave (talk) 20:48, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump

Trump is in83.80.208.22 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

Here a list of all the candidates http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2dt.shtml83.80.208.22 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that is already linked in the External Links section at the bottom of the article.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=667251607"