Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

"Decision by"[edit]

Several possible candidates have said that they will make a decision by sometime, such as the end of February or the end of March, while not giving a specific announcement date. Would people be willing to have something like this? I have removed the references (except new ones) for brevity.

  • Decision expected by February 28[1]
  • Decision expected by March[2]
  • Decision expected by April[3]
  • Decision expected by March 31[4]
  • Decision expected by February 28[5]

SCC California (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


  1. ^ Peoples, Steve (8 February 2019). "Bloomberg to announce 2020 decision by end of month". Bradenton Herald. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  2. ^ St. George, Joe (22 January 2019). "Former Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper heads to Iowa this weekend". FOX31 Denver. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  3. ^ Wilson, Reid (3 December 2018). "Inslee takes steps toward presidential run". The Hill. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  4. ^ Waller, Hailey (3 February 2019). "Terry McAuliffe Says He'll Decide on White House Run by March 31". Bloomberg. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  5. ^ Fouhy, Beth. "Beto O'Rourke leans into 2020, promises decision by end of February" (5 February 2019). NBC News. Retrieved 9 February 2019.
  • No – Way too much detail. We move people when they do announce something, not when they answer a journalist asking "when can we expect to hear from you again?" — JFG talk 22:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Include. I think it's valuable information that Wikipedia readers will come here looking for. I've come to this page a couple of times looking for it myself. I would however, suggest a more compact format, maybe keeping it all on the single line, or just having a date in a small colored box to the right of each line if applicable.--Pharos (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Note: @JFG, I am not suggesting to move them, but just to add when we would know by. @Pharos, I am happy to condense it to one line. SCC California (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Modification: Would you all be fine with something like this?
Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City 2002–2013 (Decision expected by February 28)
I think that this is important information to show for the candidates for whom this is the most data we have. SCC California (talk) 17:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This looks like a good format to me.--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Done. SCC California (talk) 17:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems extremely WP:CRYSTAL – and not to mention the fact that these dates aren't necessarily firm, given repeated speculation about when Biden will announce, for example; it seems inevitable that anonymous sources quoted in the media may at times contradict each other. Mélencron (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Mélencron - thanks for the input. I disagree that it is WP:CRYSTAL because we are not using anonymous sources (that wouldn't be RS) but the candidates' own statements of when they will announce by (and with the word "expected"). Unlike some other candidates, Biden doesn't have a clear answer of when he will announce, so there is no date for him. Excluding this information because of less than 100% certainty seems to me akin to excluding a Senate candidate's policy positions because they might end up voting against them after being inaugurated. SCC California (talk) 02:04, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
No – I agree with JFG and Mélencron - this is an entirely unnecessary level of detail and also wp:crystal (reporting on things that aren't definitely happening) and wp:or (deciding who's given a "clear answer" and who hasn't). These are not filing deadlines, just arbitrary dates plucked out of the air that candidates can, and do, ignore. We shouldn't insert these as if they carry the same weight as an announcement date or date of a withdrawal when often it's just the candidate saying "I hope I'll let you know by the end of the month". And what happens when a "deadline" comes and goes? You mentioned Joe Biden and said that he hasn't given a clear answer as to when he'll decide by – except he has. He said by the end of January. That's come and gone, so should we list him as "Overdue"?
Giving vague answers and setting arbitrary decision deadlines is what politicians do to keep themselves in the news and Wikipedia shouldn't list these dates. Take John Hickenlooper. He's gone from saying I'll decide this summer (2018), to I'm running, oh wait no I've not decided yet, to I'll decide by January 8, to I'll be another few weeks, to I'll decide in February or March, to I'll decide in March. This level of news coverage and detail belongs in a newspaper, which reports the day-to-day minutiae of campaigns, not Wikipedia - see wp:notnews. By all means touch on this in the candidate's presidential campaign article, if and when one is created, but it shouldn't be listed here. Dcfc1988 (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm for including "decision by" info. I come here for it. Some people keep their word about such announcements, and if someone waffles, that's also useful info. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:1436:1DA9:72DE:A66D (talk) 05:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Colors of the 2020 Democratic nominees should be as followed[edit]

  • Bernie Sanders - Red (used historically for left wing movements)
  • Elizabeth Warren - Purple (used historically as a mix of different ideologies, or new protest movements that are critical of all previously-existing parties)
  • Kamala Harris - Blue (used historically for center-right)

As for the rest:

I based these off the state flags of the states they are from:

  • Cory Booker - Gold
  • Pete Buttigieg - Yellow
  • John Delaney - Burgundy
  • Kirsten Gillibrand - Green
  • Amy Klobuchar - Orange

No reasons for these choices:

  • Julian Castro - Brown
  • Tulsi Gabbard - Black

Let me know what you think. AHC300 (talk) 21:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I think we should wait on assigning colors until later in the summer when we know exactly who's running, so we can assign the "main" colors to candidates judged most likely to win states. Also, I'm not sure we should use red or blue, given their connotations in American politics. In 2016 we used green and gold, and in 2008 we used purple and gold. It would be sensible for Sanders to be green, in order to be consistent with the 2016 article.Jacoby531 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Jacoby531
Agree, Bernie should definitely be green for consistency. Potentially gold could be Biden or Harris, if they are the highest performing candidates with an ideology closer to Clinton's, but that's not as big a deal as keeping Bernie consistent. Edit: Maybe Biden purple as Obama's VP, and Harris gold. --eduardog3000 (talk) 05:21, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we should be coloring anyone based on their perceived closeness to Obama, or any otherwise subjective criteria – with the exception of Sanders, I think that the colors should probably be assigned randomly among a set of hex codes (for which were exists sufficient contrast to distinguish between on a map). Mélencron (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
No. This is what WP:OR is supposed to try to keep out. We don't need a map now (and won't for months), let's not assign colors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:33, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Jacoby and Power~enwiki. Some of these candidates may wind up dropping out before the first primaries or caucuses so they won't need to be assigned a color at all. Nor, for that matter, does any candidate who doesn't win a primary/caucus need a color to be assigned. And it's important that the colors assigned to the candidates who do win primaries/caucuses be clearly distinguishable from each other. If Cory Booker and Pete Buttigieg wound up being the two most successful candidates, we wouldn't want readers to have to try to distinguish the gold states from the yellow states on a map because those two colors are relatively similar. Whoever assigns the colors should refer to MOS:COLOR and the tools linked there to help ascertain which colors will be clearly distinguishable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Absolutely not. OR at its worst. Jonathunder (talk) 02:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
Disagree with Bernie. He should be Green for consistency with 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. --eduardog3000 (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I also agree with the above comments that this is both too early, not neutral, and that the colors used should be consistent with 2016 (and previous primaries), preferably such that the exact same hex codes of past candidates are not reused (except in the case that they are the same candidate, as with Sanders). Mélencron (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose using colors at this time. Waaay to soon for this, and the WP:OR concerns raised by Power~enwiki are valid. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I think Bernie Sanders should be green,using the color of 2016,but this is too early still.Alhanuty (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Hard Oppose. Ideology is extremely subjective, especially in the primary. I think your labels show how difficult that is. Elizabeth Warren has been much more consistently left-wing than Bernie Sanders over the years. Bernie voted against sanctions on Russia, has an anti-immigrant record, has been inconsistent at best on guns, and his best friends in the Senate were all Republicans. The only thing that would place Warren to the right of Bernie would be their stated ideologies, which are often less than genuine. Kamala herself, while to the right of these two, is way to the left of anything "center-right" (I'm thinking Tories and PP specifically). She's not even to the centre-right OF this primary - she's to the left of Biden, Hickenlooper, McAuliffe, Tim Ryan, Bloomberg, Gillibrand, Castro, Delaney, and Klobuchar. Meanwhile Kamala is out there talking about marijuana legalization and Medicare-for-All, and signed a clean campaign pledge. With how much misinformation is out there, and how much arguing there is, doing something this subjective is not wise in my opinion. DaCashman (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

New "inclusion criteria"[edit]

Yang and Williamson are now included together with other office-holding candidates. Wpeneditor (talk) 02:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We should say that anyone who is important enough that their presidential campaign is considered notable enough for an article is considered a major candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a better consideration than whether the individual is merely notable – though all individuals whose campaigns are notable enough are also necessarily notable individuals. I'll reiterate, again, that I don't believe the other "minor candidates" listed aside from Yang and Williamson should be included, as the press coverage for those two are disproportionate compared to any of the other minor candidates – since while the prior two are actively campaigning in Iowa and New Hampshire, the others aren't. A clear cutoff for what makes a campaign "notable" still needs to be defined, however (maybe just mentions in a majority of an agreed-upon list of sources/candidate lists from reliable sources, e.g. NYT/Politico/etc.)? I also don't advocate for changing the distinction between major/minor candidates at this point in time (officeholders/national polls). Mélencron (talk) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Disagree, being notable enough for Wikipedia is enough to be included in a "these people are running too" section. If it weren't for Yang I don't think the minor section would be questioned as being for anything other than "these notable people are running less than serious campaigns". However, we could just put them in a list instead of a table. We could maybe have three tiers (major and minor with tables, notable with just a list), but arguably even some officeholders would belong in the middle tier. --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, but prefer over Melecron's proposal of removing minors other than Yang and Williamson: With there likely to be around 20 candidates even a few of those who have held office will have relatively small campaigns that push the idea of a "major" campaign. The poll criteria makes sure that candidates like Yang who are even lesser know than a random House Rep or Mayor have run enough of a campaign to be seriously considered. I don't doubt Yang will eventually meet that criteria, but his single section article that mainly focuses on a single issue doesn't really make for a major campaign at the moment. However, as I said above, being included in a debate should be enough to be considered major. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Whether there are 2 or 5 or 20 major candidates is something that isn't under Wikipedia's control. We certainly shouldn't try to pick the top 5 candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm not saying there should be a limit. I'm saying since the field is already rather large, we don't need to be expanding the criteria. Like I said, Yang will probably end up on the list anyway, and that's fine as long as it's under the existing criteria. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose: With a field of 11 major candidates already and given that this number is only going to grow in the coming months, the criteria of what it takes to be a major candidate should be stricter not looser. As the number of such candidates is increasing, candidates like Yang and Williamson are becoming more and more minor to the democratic primaries as a whole. TheSubmarine (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@TheSubmarine: this criteria is stricter – it removes Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells entirely, as their campaigns fail to meet WP:GNG. Mélencron (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
That's your proposal, power~enwiki's proposal is to lift Yang (and now Williamson) into the "major" table while leaving the minors in place. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm fine with the substance of the initial proposal but would rather go further in raising the bar by removing the major/minor distinction and applying the proposed criteria to all potential candidates. Mélencron (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Source Yang Williamson
New York Times Yes Yes
Washington Post Yes Yes
Los Angeles Times Yes Yes
Chicago Tribune Yes Yes
CNN Yes Yes
Politico No No
Axios Yes Yes
The Guardian Yes Yes
NPR Yes Yes
Vox Yes Yes

Here's an overview table of some such candidate lists. (To emphasize my point regarding Yang and Williamson, none of the other candidates that are listed in this article as "minor candidates" are mentioned in any of the sources above – because they're obviously not serious and don't have staffers in Iowa/New Hampshire or visits there, unlike Yang/Williamson. A completely different level of seriousness, which is why I'd advocate for the rest of the "minor" candidates to be removed.) Mélencron (talk) 18:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is an extremely WP:CHERRYPICKed list. These lists are of "candidates", not "major candidates", And probably the majority of RS candidate lists exclude Yang and Williamson, and some even include people like Wells.--Pharos (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
If you think it's cherry-picked, then I challenge you to come up with your own list and come to a different conclusion, because it's not, and I just chose what are considered to be major media outlets in the U.S. (if they published such an updating list, which some didn't). Also, I don't see your point regarding "major candidates" – these lists obviously exclude the 200 or so fringe candidates who have filed with the FEC, and includes mostly just notable officeholders. Mélencron (talk) 13:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Side note: I've now created an article on Williamson's campaign here. Mélencron (talk) 00:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

New idea: This may be too difficult, but what if we listed all notable candidates in one table with the default sort based on a polling average? This would remove the need for an inherently arbitrary line between "major" and "other" candidates and would have the added benefit of putting, for example, Bernie Sanders above Pete Buttigieg in the table. It would require a fair bit of maintenance, but there are many editors who actively edit this page so that shouldn't be a huge issue. Hopefully including everyone but ordering them based on polls conducted by outside sources would also remove most of the original research concerns. Thoughts? SCC California (talk) 20:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Anything but alphabetical order is not objective, and the inclusion of candidates in primary polls is itself an entirely subjective decision up to pollsters themselves to make. Mélencron (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
True, but complete objectivity is impossible (you even advocated for removing certain candidates). Alphabetical order is, of course, objective, but as soon as you make separate categories, that goes away. Leaving the subjectivity to a range of outside pollsters, each with their own methods of selection, would hopefully roughly average it out. SCC California (talk) 20:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
All other U.S. election primary candidate lists on Wikipedia – in particular, on downballot articles for Senate, gubernatorial, House, and statewide elections – are listed alphabetically, and I see no reason not to maintain that order here, as it's the most objective of all possible criteria (other than random order perhaps with an agreed-upon seed such that the order is reproducible). I don't see how this is a solution to anything – the order isn't at issue here, it's the inclusion of candidates, and most pollsters aren't even including some potential "major" candidates listed on this page (namely Abrams, Bennet, Moulton, Ryan, and Swalwell). Mélencron (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
What's the definition of "substantial coverage of their campaign"? It just seems vague to me; setting a more fleshed-out definition for it would help, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @TheXuitts:, @TheSubmarine:, @President1640:, please participate in this discussion instead of going back and forth. --eduardog3000 (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Support, applying criteria to all candidates, as the notability of individual campaigns can be reasonably ascertained under WP:GNG – this goes for all candidates already considered "major candidates" under the existing criteria, in addition to the campaigns of two candidates (Yang and Williamson; see the table above) which have received a substantial level of press coverage (i.e., enough for articles on their individual campaigns to be deemed notable). At the same time, this criteria would reduce the WP:UNDUE weight given to four individuals (Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells) who have filed with the FEC as candidates but have not received any substantial amount of press coverage – certainly not enough to meet WP:GNG – and are not actively campaigning for the Democratic nomination. Mélencron (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
To clarify, you support having one large table for which the criteria is "officeholder or campaign wikipedia page", and then no other tables? That's not quite what the original proposal was, and I oppose this idea even more than the original. There's no harm in listing those minor candidates in a separate table, as they themselves are notable enough. --eduardog3000 (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I disagree as my own view is that WP:UNDUE applies regardless of the major/minor distinction; I can barely find any articles, and none with more than a passing mention, on Arth's candidacy, for instance, which is an unacceptably low degree of coverage to warrant a mention regardless of the notability of the individual. Mélencron (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • 'Support, Andrew Yang and Marianna Williamson are acting like serious candidates. Yang is even getting very close to getting in the debate, I don't know about Williamson but she has gained endorsements from former Representatives and the former Lt. Gov. Candidate in South Carolina in 2018. Yang and Williamson desvred to be inculded in the serious candidate section espically if Ojeda was considered a serious candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by President1640 (talkcontribs) 02:49, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
The reason Ojeda was considered a major candidate was that he held statewide office. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Ojeda did not hold state-wide office (like Governor or Secretary of State), he was a member of the West Virginia State Senate. His national profile was due to winning the primary election for WV-03 last year. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:37, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Regardless of what any of us personally think about Yang and Williamson, it's fairly obvious that most sources are including them in the category with Harris, Sanders, and the other obviously "major" candidates rather than the category of Nwadike and Wells. I vote to support a policy that gets them listed there. Jhn31 (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support moving Yang and Williamson from the minor table to the major table. And the next step after that should be getting rid of vague nonsense like "substantial coverage". If you don't want to treat the candidates equally, criteria should be based on who has campaigned in New Hampshire and Iowa as suggested above. Connor Behan (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
But it isn't "vague nonsense" such as substantial coverage - it's 5 polls, or holding public office; objective measures - these are indicators on whether the candidate will have a serious shot at showcasing their platform to the majority of the Democratic base - via the debates. IF they get into the debates, or make the criteria that has been set, then they will be moved. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The criteria was changed recently; it's currently:

"In addition to having announced that they are running for president in 2020 or having formed exploratory committees for the 2020 presidential election, the candidates in this section have held major public office or have substantial coverage of their campaign. " David O. Johnson (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

When/why was it changed? Last I saw (after Inslee announced) the criteria was the same, and no consensus was reached to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talkcontribs) 00:52, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Here: [1] and here [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
The change was a part of power~enwiki's proposal that also put Yang in the major section, so I'll change it back to the old criteria while this is still being decided. --eduardog3000 (talk) 03:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The polling rule seems totally fair to me. If they're truly notable and a "major" candidate, then pollsters would include them in their polls. Currently Yang has 2/5, Williamson is at 0/5. If he continues to raise his national profile, I'm confident Yang at least will be a "major" candidate soon enough. Williamson has a slimmer chance, though. Thinking back to 2016: I can't really compare either of these two to, say, Ben Carson (he was actually very briefly the front-runner of that race) or even Carly Fiorina. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 12:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. This proposal is far too broad and would allow the inclusion of non-serious candidates. SunCrow (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Depends. If they qualify for the debates,then why not include them,then they are serious candidates,but i do get the concerns about this move,but they will be the only two,and anyone who qualifies for the debates should be included.Alhanuty (talk) 16:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Wait: I agree with Alhanuty. Wait to see if Yang and Williamson qualify for debates. If they do, then they are clearly major candidates, but if they do not then they aren't. It seems like the most reasonable solution since there is so much disagreement regarding their inclusion. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 16:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I preferred the original criteria of either holding/having held public office or being included in at least five major polls. Andrew Yang has been in six according to FiveThirtyEight, but Williamson only two. She's not being treated as a serious candidate as far as I can tell. I think the only reason she's included on websites like Axios is because she announced in the midst of other major announcements like Gillibrand and Booker. That, doubled with her being a pseudo-celebrity in some circles, caused the misunderstanding that she was as major as Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and the like. None of this has to do with my personal opinion. I just think we should go back to the original ruleset, keep Yang, and take out Williamson.RajanAwasthi127 (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)RajanAwasthi127
I don't necessarily disagree with you personally, but I don't think it's really appropriate to make our own speculative reasons why 80% of national media sources (according to the chart above) are listing Williamson as "major." As long as they do, Wikipedia should too. 80% (or 90% in the case of Yang) is enough to be in the category of Buttigieg and Delaney (100%) instead of the category of Arth and Wells (0%). Jhn31 (talk) 23:51, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Weak support. It's pretty clear that most reliable sources regard Yang & Williamson as major candidates for the nomination. That being said, most criterion changes to include them (such as "[receiving] substantial coverage") are a bit too vague to realistically apply, unless we can all come to a collective agreement on a change that'd be appropriate (maybe reducing the threshold from five polls to three?) Otherwise, I feel like the best thing to do is wait until the DNC announces who's in the first two debates and who isn't; although more likely then not, there's still a chance that Yang or Williamson won't make the cut. - EditDude (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Pinging @Jhn31:: Please participate in this discussion instead of making changes that a consensus has not been reached on. If and when a consensus is reached, then Yang and Williamson can be reflected as major candidates in the article. TheSubmarine (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
I have participated in this discussion, and I will do so again. As long as a clear majority (in this case 80% or 90%) of major national media trackers consider Yang, Williamson, Buttigieg, or whoever else to be "major," Wikipedia should too and not list them in the category with people like Arth that are literally 0%. In addition to the chart shown above, there's been very little argument on this thread that Yang, Williamson, or Buttigieg should not be included, so there's really no justifiable reason beyond editors' personal beliefs about their long odds to include them as "major." Jhn31 (talk) 00:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jhn31:: I understand your argument, but just because you believe that they deserve to be considered major candidates does not mean that the article should reflect that. Please wait for this discussion to reach a consensus before making these changes. TheSubmarine (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
There is strong support for their inclusion on this Talk page. I'm hardly the only one or the first to try to make sure the article represents the opinion of the editors here AND the opinion of national media organizations. At this point, you're the one trying to make the article conform to your personal opinions, not us. Jhn31 (talk) 01:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support. I've come around on this; the media is including them in their coverage of major candidates, so we should, too. And after 2016, limiting major candidates to elected officials seems...risky. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support It'd be good to come to a final agreement on this instead of rehashing the subject every once in a while.David O. Johnson (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support inclusion of Yang and Williamson– because reliable sources treat them in the same way as the other "major" candidates. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 11:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose, If they were major candidates, they would be included in at least 5 polls. --I am here to contribute (talk) 13:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Support moving Yang and Williamson to major, the rest of the minor candidates are outright jokes, Yang and Williamson are not at the same level as them. If John Delaney and Jay Inslee are major candidates then Yang and Williamson certainly are. TheXuitts (talk) 4 March 2019
Support - Williamson and Yang have not held major office but neither has Buttigieg, who is considered a major candidate. They are rather well known in comparison to the current list of minor candidates. MrInfernoCow(talk) 20:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. This is not a viable criterion. Major sources do not treat Yang and Williamson as similar to the officeholders running, for example FiveThirtyEight, which keeps a running tally, explicitly excludes them. The five-polls criteria has worked quite well, and we have reached the point where we can drop the officeholder criteria for people like Buttgieg if they do not meet it. It should be noted that "serious candidate" is not the same thing at all as "major candidate". We should move to the Democratic debates criteria or a slightly more lenient version of it sometime soon.--Pharos (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pharos:: That's just literally not true. Most sources DO list Yang and Williamson as major, judging by almost all of the citations above the major candidates section. That's what should determine what Wikipedia does, not the arbitrary "five polls" standard that "works" because you assert it does. Jhn31 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Most sources do not list them as "major candidates", they list them (when they list them at all) as "candidates". What publications are using the words "major candidate" to describe Yang and Williamson?--Pharos (talk) 08:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Uncertain - I'd be all for moving Yang into the major candidates category, but not Williamson. This may be due to some confirmation bias (due to preferring Yang as a candidate) but I see much more grass-roots support and media coverage of him, as opposed to Williamson, who only really got covered when she announced. I do not believe Williamson to be a "major" candidate, and seeing as I cannot find an objective and enforceable criteria to discern the two, I'm uncertain. To kill two birds with one stone, I'm also opposed to combining major and minor candidates. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Strong oppose. These sources don't indicate that they are "major"; they're merely lists that happen to include them. Major candidates should be defined by specific, dedicated coverage about them in particular, or sources unambiguously calling them a major candidate or words to that effect. There's insufficient support for Yang and Williamson in that regard. Beyond that, it is clear from the frequency with which new users move or remove them that including them there is WP:ASTONISHing, which we should strive to avoid - we shouldn't get tied down in trying to form a mathematical model. Would most typical readers consider them major candidates? No, plainly not. Therefore they should not be listed there. --Aquillion (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Aquillion: "Would most typical readers consider them major candidates?" Yes, they would, at least as much as they consider Buttigieg, Delaney, or even Gabbard to be "major" candidates. Those 3, plus Williamson and Yang, are likely to all 5 be listed as candidates in any media list that a "typical reader" would read online. Jhn31 (talk) 01:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support adding Williamson and Yang, per source coverage as outlined above. Remove all other "minor candidates" entirely unless they obtain equivalent coverage. Wikipedia must follow sources, not lead them. — JFG talk 18:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Williamson and Yang have their own campaign articles and have been seen as major candidates by the NYT, WP, CNN, and NPR (per chart by Mélencron). I mean if Richard Ojeda (I literally didn't know who he was until a week after he threw himself into the ring) was considered major (a state senator) then Williamson and Yang should be seen as major. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:00, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
The criteria has been changed back to five polls by User:Pharos here: [3].David O. Johnson (talk) 21:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment Support for moving Yang and Williamson is at 11, oppose is at 6, while noncommittal posts saying "wait until they formally qualify for the debates" or supporting only moving Yang into the major candidates table but not Williamson are at 3. Pretty clear we're getting close to a consensus here. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment Yang and Williamson might make it into the debates based on both of them meeting the donation threshold [4], making this discussion moot. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment My vote is for moving Yang/Williamson out but add anyone who qualifies for the debates via donation threshold back to the table.Froo (talk) 15:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment I believe that any candidate that meets the debate qualifications for any reason, and isn't already on the major candidate list, should automatically be added to it.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Comment It may be time for some reconsideration, given that Politico and the Daily Beast had articles today discussing Yang's candidacy and how he's picking up more donations than some candidates whose "major" status is not in doubt. Jhn31 (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support inclusion of Yang - He's already being included in the polls and met the party's criteria to be on the same stage as the other candidates in the televised debates. If that's not good enough to list him next to them, then our current rules are deeply flawed. Andrew Yang is currently polling at 1 percent, but John Hickenlooper, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Julian Castro are all listed as major candidates, and none of them poll better than Andrew Yang according to the latest Morning Consult poll. According to the latest Emerson poll, Castro polls at 0 percent, behind Andrew Yang's 1 percent. According to a Harvard-Harris poll, Klobuchar, Hickenlooper, Gabbard, Gillibrand, and Castro were all at 0 percent. He's also getting more donations than "major" candidates. Full disclosure, I have no intentions of voting for Yang, but Yang is as major of a candidate as Klobuchar and arguably more major than Castro. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 00:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Notice for editors[edit]

I'm sorry that I didn't look at the discretionary sanctions before reverting an edit that was undone by Power~enwiki. But my reason is that I only made 2 notices, the 3rd one was moved by me. Also, I made 2 notices because people could edit in one section but not the other. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jacobsencarl89: Please don't move Andrew Yang (as you did here) before the consensus is reached. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wei4Green: It appears that you are the one moving Yang/Williamson and going against the consensus. Jhn31 (talk) 00:49, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jhn31: We have not reached any form of consensus yet. What do you mean? Williamson and Yang inititally are in the Notable individuals who declared candidacy and exploratory committees section. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jhn31: I didn't move them, it was TheSubmarine who made this this edit to move Williamson and Yang back to minor candfidates. I was only trying to keep the section's original status by adding notice comments and fix what Jacobsencarl89 had done here. Please view the history more carefully before judging me. Thanks for your contributions. —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 01:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Wei4Green: I apologize for not correctly interpreting the mess of a history tab this article currently has, and definitely did not mean to judge anyone or come across that way. As to your other point, I disagree that there isn't a consensus. The vast majority of editors on this Talk page in the last few days (not months ago, but in the last week or so as it's become apparent that Yang will make the debates and as we've realized that virtually all media sources are considering Yang and Williamson as major) are on board as counting as at least Yang as major, and a majority (though maybe not a vast one) agree on Williamson too. Jhn31 (talk) 01:31, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jhn31: I just looked, there is about even distribution between Support and Oppose, even over the last few days. WhoIsWillo (talk) 15:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
@WhoIsWillo: Starting with @Mélencron:'s chart posted on March 3, which was enough to change my mind about their inclusion and presumably others too, I count 13 editors (not necessarily edits, but distinct editors themselves) in favor of including Yang, with 6 against. A couple of editors suggest just Yang and not Williamson. Granted, people aren't always very clear in their opinions, and I didn't also count all the editors/reverters who haven't posted here, but since that chart, it's more than a 2:1 ratio in favor counting at least Yang as major. Jhn31 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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.

Cuomo[edit] I'm not sure if this qualifies him as a "candidate who has publicly expressed interest" but I guess we could discuss. Thanks Benwitt, 3 March 2019 12:07 (UTC)


Why are candidate portraits being changed all the time? What is the criteria of a candidate's portrait photo? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

For example, File:Pete_Buttigieg_in_February_2019.jpg whose author is by marcn, a Flickr user. Is that acceptable? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 19:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
It being from Flickr itself doesn't make it unacceptable, but I agree that there seems to be no reason to replace an official portrait with this. SCC California (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You need to see the official portrait's deletion discussion to understand why the image was changed. --Walk Like an Egyptian (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Minor candidates[edit]

I propose that we do away with the minor candidates section entirely, since it's arbitrary to pick out these 4 candidates out of hundreds and give them the full photo, flag, website link, etc. Instead, I propose to replace it with this sentence at the bottom of the major candidate list.

As of March 2019, 180 additional individuals have filed with the Federal Election Commission to run for president in the Democratic Party primary, including Michael E. Arth, Harry Braun, Ken Nwadike Jr., and Robby Wells.

This way, we still acknowledge the other candidates running, but we don't give them undue weight (since their campaigns are not notable), and we do not arbitrarily list 4 above all the rest. We can add more names to the list if there's a compelling reason to. After the primaries, we might list anyone who appeared on a ballot in any state. Jhn31 (talk) 02:37, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the minor candidates section is useful. It creates a space for candidates in between "totally legitimate" candidates and "totally looney" candidates. Take for example Ken Nwadike. He has a following and an interesting role outside of politics. But at the same time, he isn't given the same level of credibility that the other candidates have. It can also raise awareness for certain candidates, helping them to break into the conversation - I bet you Andrew Yang and Marianne Williamson have been helped by this decision, in a real way. DaCashman (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

(P.S. without it, I would've never found the absolute joy that is Jeff Boss, so I need it).

It's not Wikipedia's role to "raise awareness" of any candidates. If a lot of prominent media sources (such as New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, Politico, Axios, Guardian, NPR, Vox, etc. - it doesn't necessarily have to be all of them, but a bunch of them) start listing Nwadike as a major candidate, Wikipedia should add him, regardless of what the editors personally think about him, but until then, he's overrepresented on this page given his campaign's complete lack of coverage. Jhn31 (talk) 03:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I personally think it's absurd and not grounded in reality to include anyone and anyone who happens to have an article on Wikipedia who's filed with the FEC in this article in general – none of them have received any level of substantial press coverage in the slightest and to even include them at all is in my view a ridiculous level of undue weight and shows how absolutely unserious this project can be at times.
Take Robby Wells, for instance. When it comes to speculative candidates, the standard on this article is to include only those candidates who have been mentioned as a speculative candidate within at least two articles in the last three months. What articles have there been on Wells within the last three months? A Google News search turns up a total of exactly 6 "articles". Of these, two are columns from an online-only newspaper called the "Barrow Journal" owned by a chain that manages several online papers, one is a press release, one is an op-ed in the York News-Times, a local newspaper with a circulation of ~4,000, one is on a site called the "South Florida Caribbean News" about a "University Panel Series" hosted by the Caribbean American Cultural Arts Foundation, and then there's this article from what's left of Time Magazine, which only gives him an ephemeral mention in the final paragraph.
(This is why I'm in favor of applying the threshold proposed by Power~enwiki above to all candidates in the article, by the way.) Mélencron (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Jhn31's proposal. I definitely agree that the minor candidates are currently being given undue weight.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 06:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but re-create the '2020 Democratic Presidential candidates' article, featuring minor candidates. This would bring it into line with the "2016 Democratic" article set. I see no reason why that article should not be re-created at this time, we are now up to 14? candidates, and as such, we have entered proper 2020 election season. This article will be re-created sooner or later, why not solve our 4 "definitely minor" candidates out of the article to de-clutter it slightly. This does raise the question of Yang and Williamson. On that, I'm not sure. I guess we'll go with consensus. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it's time to create the 2020 Democratic presidential candidates article. We can then move the minor candidates to that page for the time being. Until that article is created though, I support the OP proposal as presented.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support, but re-create the '2020 Democratic Presidential candidates' article, featuring minor candidates.

I've been saying this for months. Let's do it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose until they are featured somewhere else, NebuchadnezzarHammurabi's solution for that is good. --eduardog3000 (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment as noted, there are hundreds of candidates filed with the FEC. Some are fairly obvious trolls or gadflies (a fake filing - I won't single out any gadflies), others are private individuals who can't be identified. While being an identified individual with a campaign website should be all that is required to be included somewhere on Wikipedia, I have no objection to re-creating the "candidates" page at this time, and moving those people who have filed paperwork but are not conducting an active campaign there. The "photo gallery"-style listing format is kind of silly in general, but particularly for this section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with this proposed solution, maybe just including a {{main}} over the main candidates table, which can still remain here (or be transcluded from the separate article). Mélencron (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Transcluding the main candidates table from 2020 Democratic Presidential candidates seems like the best thing to do. --eduardog3000 (talk) 23:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a photo gallery listing for minor candidates (on whatever page they are listed) is excessive and possibly a violation of WP:WEIGHT.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The minor candidate section should be erased. It’s not Wikipedia’s responsibility to be a news outlet. Otherwise, let’s include all 180 other minor candidates. TexasMan34 (talk) 06:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Erase – Indeed there are ~200 candidacies not worth mentioning, and Wikipedia should not give any of them a platform, just because they happen to have a WP page for other reasons. — JFG talk 18:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Erase not reason they're included and have a trouble seeing their notability in the 2020 article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Erase, as per the reasons detailed by power~enwiki and which I've detailed earlier in this section. I'm also not convinced there's a justification for a separate article for a list of candidates alone on the basis that it's not clear whether the volume of content would justify such a split. Mélencron (talk) 19:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Remove the table showing Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells, but still mention their candidacies in a paragraph of the text. The photo gallery is WP:UNDUE weight, but their candidacies should still be briefly noted. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
  • There seems to be overwhelming support for this, so I have removed the table with photos, but still mentioned their names. We should discuss whether these are the appropriate 4 to mention (Arth, Braun, Nwadike, and Wells), or if there should be more. (Or fewer). Jhn31 (talk) 02:02, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Erase I've strictly been a listener to the discussion regarding the "major/minor" candidate organizational issue, although I may add that I agree it's more appropriate re: WP:UNDUE to exclude the "minor" candidate table altogether. "Major" candidate status should be assigned independently of Wikipedia user-created guidelines (perhaps based off, collectively, polling inclusion, mainstream media coverage/analysis, debate inclusion, etc. -- these pieces should be analyzed holistically, and there appears to be broad enough proof for including Yang and Williamson as "major"); other candidates not considered "major" by independent sources, although are WP:BIO notable, should only be mentioned in a sentence thereafter. MrVenaCava (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

As there seems to be a consensus on recreating the candidates' page, I have done so. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no such consensus, and I have restored the redirect. — JFG talk 08:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
So, should we put the minor candidates chart back up as it was part of the consensus for getting rid of the one here?Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a sizable consensus in this thread to remove the remaining minor candidates, after Williamson and Yang have been promoted to the main table. — JFG talk 12:12, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Another vote[edit]

Does anyone here NOT want to recreate the candidates’ page? With 15 “major” candidates listed and a near certainty of another five or six in the next three weeks, and with a bunch of people saying we should reverse the small consensus of last December. A negative vote is FOR recreating the article.

Yes, I oppose the recreating of the article.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:14, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hidden text[edit]

Per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Hidden_text#Inappropriate_uses_for_hidden_text, hidden text discouraging particular edits is generally not allowed; one inappropriate use for hidden text is telling others not to perform certain edits to a page, unless there is an existing guideline or policy against that edit Even more gentle encouragement (telling people to look on talk first) is disallowed unless there's a clear local consensus: When it is a mere local consensus that a certain edit should not be performed, the hidden text should be worded more softly to suggest to the editor to consult the talk page (or archive page if appropriate) for the current consensus prior to making the edit. Since consensus can change, it is inappropriate to use hidden text to try to prohibit making a certain edit merely because it would conflict with an existing consensus. Mere lack of consensus is insufficient to allow any form of hidden text discouraging an exit. I removed the most egregious examples, but all the hidden-text instructions on this page need to be examined and reworded, since it seems like people have been adding them to try and structure the page without a clear consensus backing them up. I can understand the desire to end disputes stemming from recurring edits by new users, but this is not the way to do it - a consensus on this talk page cannot establish long-term binding structures for the article the way these hidden texts imply. It can merely establish, at best, a "check on talk first" note, and even that requires that the hidden text be cautiously worded and merely encourages people to check talk first. Beyond that, if new, uninvolved editors constantly make the same edit to the page, it's probably a sign that there's a problem with the page, not that we need hidden text to try and scare them off. --Aquillion (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

In the Endorsements section under Tulsi Gabbard there is a comment to not add David Duke, as he has explicitly stated he didn't endorse her.[1] But due to inaccurate reporting by some news sources[2][3][4] people have added and will add the supposed endorsement. As this isn't really an issue of consensus or the way the page is set up, rather one of misinformed users making factually incorrect edits, I don't see any other way to prevent this than a comment. --eduardog3000 (talk) 02:30, 6 March 2019 (UTC)


@Aquillion: Sorry, I was the one who added the hidden text "<!-- ***Please refrain from moving Marianne Williamson and Andrew Yang until a consensus is reached. See [[Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#New "inclusion criteria"]] for relevant discussion. -->". I did not know this guideline exists. I just want to inform the editors to look at the talk page discussion before moving Williamson and Yang back and forth. This edit war is happening too frequently.Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 03:35, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Qualification for the first debate (polling threshold)[edit]

I am a bit confused by this new section, and I am hoping that somebody can help me out. Why are all of the numbers out of 3 when there are only two qualifying polls. Also, would it be possible to include a similar table below with the fundraising threshold? SCC California (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Candidates need to get at least 1% in 3 polls from a specific set of qualifying pollsters, as defined by the DNC, in order to enter the debate. Only 2 such polls have been conducted so far since the start of the year. As for the second request, that's not possible as only campaigns/ActBlue/NGP VAN have access to that data; while FEC data is public, filings are only quarterly and as such won't necessarily be up-to-date by the debates. Mélencron (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you @Mélencron. I will try updating the page to make this more clear. SCC California (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I would also add that if a candidate qualifies for the debate, they should be added to the "major candidates" list. It appears Andrew Yang is likely going to make the grassroots donor threshold per this article Froo (talk) 15:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that any candidate that meets the debate qualifications, and isn't already on the major candidate list, should automatically be added to it.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with both of you, but there are already enough other sections of this talk page to discuss qualifications for the major candidates section. Why don't you discuss this there; this discussion is specifically about the second table here. SCC California (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

SCC California, your point is well taken.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:27, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Who to include in debate qualification table

My opinion is that only declared major candidates (as defined at the time) or declared candidates included in at least one qualifying poll (regardless of what they got) should be included. That would mean that it would look (with the current two qualifying polls) as it does now: All of the candidates in the table have been included in at least one of the two polls, but Marianne Williamson has not, and she is not currently considered a major candidate (do not discuss whether that should be the case here; instead do it here). If there was a major candidate who, for some reason, wasn't included in any qualifying polls, eg. if Michael Bennet declares or if we make Williamson a major candidate, I think that they should be in the table with the second row being "N/A." SCC California (talk) 16:32, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

@ANájeraWolcott I see that you added Marianne Williamson back into the table. I have undone your edit for now, but if you disagree with my recommendation above, please share your idea here. Thanks. SCC California (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
If someone genuinely improves on an idea of mine I have no right to complain about it. thanks for the tableArglebargle79 (talk) 21:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)


I've removed this section from the article as a WP:OR concern, but am replicating it here. I expect the Democratic Party or one of the major US newspapers will be reporting debate participation soon enough. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:27, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Qualification for the first debate (polling threshold)

The following candidates have at least 1% of support in the number of qualifying polls indicated below. Candidates must reach this level of support in three qualifying polls to meet the polling threshold. The overall number of qualifying polls in which candidates have been included in is listed in parentheses.

de Blasio
1 (2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 1 (2) 2 (4) 3 (3) 1 (2) 1 (4) 2 (4) 3* (4) 4 (4) 2 (4) 1 (3) 4 (4) 0 (2) 4 (4) 4 (4) 0 (1) 4 (4) 0 (2) 2 (3) 4 3 [1][2][3][4]

* includes non-Biden scenario (<1% with)


  1. ^ Murray, Patrick (February 4, 2019). "National: Dems Prefer Electability in 2020" (PDF). Monmouth University. Retrieved March 6, 2019.
  2. ^ McKinley, Sean P.; Azem, Zachary S.; Smith, Andrew E. (February 28, 2019). "Sanders & Biden Lead Democratic Field; Trump Holds Large Lead Over Kasich and Weld Among Republicans". University of New Hampshire. Retrieved March 6, 2019.
  3. ^ "CNN/Des Moines Register/Mediacom Iowa Poll" (PDF). CNN. March 9, 2019. Retrieved March 9, 2019.
  4. ^ Murray, Patrick (March 11, 2019). "National: Little Change in Dem 2020 Outlook" (PDF). Monmouth University. Retrieved March 11, 2019.
The DNC has since stated that it won't confirm whether candidates have qualified until close to the debate itself. Mélencron (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

This poll also complies with the DNC list of accepted polls as it is CNN with the Des moines Register polling Iowa can anyone who knows how to edit tables please add this on

thank u

Proposal: Transclude endorsements[edit]

The candidates' endorsement lists here don't match with the ones on their respectful campaign articles. (e.g. 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Endorsements v. Andrew Yang 2020 presidential campaign#Endorsements). Should we transclude the lists to here or to from their campaign article pages? —Wei4Green | 唯绿远大 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think the lists should be maintained here given that this page seems to get more traffic, but you could probably argue for the candidate's pages as well. - EditDude (talk) 05:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
That's not what the suggestion is – it doesn't have any visible effect/affect on traffic, the boxes would still be here but just maintained on candidate articles instead. Mélencron (talk) 12:27, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
I know that. I suggested these lists should be maintained here because this article gets more traffic, and thus they would receive more consistent updates then if they were in campaign pages. I didn't suggest that they influenced traffic directly. - EditDude (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

From my point of view, the question is where we want the talk page discussions to happen. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

New Monmouth Poll[edit]

Most recent Monmouth poll [5] - there is a long statement there. Per fair use, I am replicating a section of it here:

Note from poll director Patrick Murray on Monmouth’s approach to the 2020 Democratic field:

“The recently announced DNC debate rules have once again put a sharp focus on public polling’s role in the presidential nomination process. In 2015, the RNC used polling to determine which candidates would make it into the ‘primetime’ debate and which would be relegated to the undercard. This time, the Democrats are using polls to determine who can make it into the debates at all, with such a low threshold that it really comes down to whether a pollster simply chooses to include a candidate’s name.

“Monmouth’s experience polling the Republican nomination contest in the last cycle demonstrated we could poll a large field with reasonable accuracy. We maxed out at 17 names in that contest. Our initial poll of the 2020 race in January included 19 declared and potential candidates for the Democratic nomination. After the DNC announcement, we expanded that to 23 names.

“In the 2016 GOP contest, polling was used to separate the field into two tiers of viability. The problem then was that the margin of error inherent in polling could end up relegating a candidate to the lower-tier debate. The Democrats have attempted to overcome that problem by doing away with the tiered debate structure in favor of random assignment. Any candidate who gets at least one percent in three separate polls will qualify for the debates as long as there are no more than 20 candidates.

“Four years ago, pollsters were concerned that the determination of whether a candidate could take the main stage conferred too much precision on poll results. In 2019, we are faced with a different problem. The main thing standing between a candidate registering one percent and zero percent in any particular poll is each pollster’s decision of whom to include. This places an undue editorial burden on public polling outfits.

“With this responsibility in mind, Monmouth will attempt to be as inclusive as possible in its polling of the Democratic field in these early stages of the campaign. In general, we will include any declared candidate who has held federal or statewide office. We will also include those who have shown fundraising ability, such as Andrew Yang, as well as those who may have the potential to register support in early states based on other metrics. For example, Marianne Williamson is included in the current poll because she has paid staff in Iowa and raised over a million dollars in a prior House run. These are necessarily judgment calls, but we would rather err on the side of inclusion given the DNC debate criteria.

“For the record, declared candidates Booker, Harris, Klobuchar, Sanders, and Warren have all cleared the one percent threshold in Monmouth’s polls this year. Julián Castro, Tulsi Gabbard, Kirsten Gillibrand, John Hickenlooper, and Yang have all reached one percent. Those who have yet to score one percent after rounding in Monmouth’s polls are Pete Buttigieg, John Delaney, Jay Inslee, and Williamson.”

First off, I think the debates on the talk page regarding who major candidates are is basically over. All of the candidates listed here should be included on the page. Based on my own knowledge, I believe the list to be complete, but if there's a source of similar quality - please let me know. The Des Moines Register/Selzer poll over the weekend had similar candidates and a similar result.

I'd like to propose a moratorium on discussion of what to do with Richard Ojeda - I haven't even checked if he's in the article right now, but I'd like to wait until at least one other candidates drop out before anyone tries to change it. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:55, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Final Comment[edit]

I am retiring from this article until the Iowa caucuses are complete. It's not you, it's me. As a resident of the state of Iowa, I can't keep track of what information on the race has already been covered by the national media, and what information has not. There's also a non-zero chance the media might quote me: there are a lot of presidential candidates in town and very few voters at events. I will make a longer statement on my blog about this potential COI later this month. power~enwiki (π, ν) 14:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

power~enwiki, blog? COI? What'cha mean? –MJLTalk 04:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Blog is at User:power~enwiki/Blog. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd say COI=conflict of interest. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:D5AA:54D9:C5D3:C8F (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Beto O’Rourke[edit]

Beto O’Rourke - Do we consider him as an official candidate now? I put him in on this page, but my edit was reverted. I have found many reliable third-party sources reporting that he has officially announced his campaign today. You can search on Google to see for yourself. Mrbeastmodeallday (talk) 04:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, of course.[6]- MrX 🖋 12:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Born column[edit]

The table should not include the born column. It's arbitrary information suitable for a biography, but not for a listing of primary candidates. I'm not aware of any sources that list the primary candidates in this way.- MrX 🖋 16:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Disagree: Age and place of birth have proven to be relevant details in presidential elections. eduardog3000 (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean they have "proven to be relevant details" in presidential elections? Candidates are only required to be 35 years old. The birth date is merely trivia. Experience and positions are relevant.- MrX 🖋 19:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Candidates are called too old or too young and those points affect how people vote, meaning they are relevant details. Generational politics also has an effect. Birth state is about as relevant as home state because if they are different they are usually treated like a secondary home state. We could set a max width on the column and/or wrap its contents in {{small}} if you feel its size gives undue weight. There is plenty of space otherwise for the more important Experience column and in fact Castro and Williamson's entries make the cells for other candidates look rather oversized (not that that needs to be changed). --eduardog3000 (talk) 19:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Candidates are only required to be 35 years old no previous Experience or positions necessary. SCAH (talk) 20:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Legal requirement are one thing; encyclopedic interest is another. Birth date and place of candidates have always been part of the basic details in candidate lists for Wikipedia's coverage of major elections around the world. Not sure why this particular field should be an exception. — JFG talk 15:54, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth[edit]

Michael E. Arth has the makings of a major candidate with a unique background. He has a growing, media profile, but barring him from this Wikipedia listing will suppress further coverage. Wikipedia is not a kingmaker but it shouldn't block legitimate candidates either. We need more candidates from outside the usual sphere who are qualified, but not career politicians. He ran a major campaign in 2010 and it appears he would have had a strong showing if the Florida Democratic Party had not blocked his gubernatorial bid through corruption even more egregious than what the DNC did with Bernie Sanders. That's why he switched to Independent for the rest of the race. There's a documentary about it on YouTube called Gov'nor: A man on a bicycle, with no money, takes on the fat cats, dirty politics, and his wife, to run for governor of Florida. There are other documentaries by or about him also that might threaten the status quo. Very instructive.(Calimar300 (talk) 17:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)).

However serious his campaign may be, he is not being treated as being in the same level of other candidates, even those outside of politics like Yang and Williamson. It would be improper to give him undue weight by including him in the table. I support the current decision to list him as a notable individual running for president, separate and apart from the main list of candidates. --Vrivasfl (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support User:Calimar300's proposal. As someone living outside the United States, perhaps I can lend some perspective. Arth is clearly a grade above the other minor candidates, especially if you look at his personal and campaign websites, as well as what has been written about him, and what he has himself written. He's unusual in being so forthcoming and knowledgeable on the issues. Not like most politicians. As Amy Klobuchar said yesterday, "I think that competition is good in our party." Let us get more opinions on Arth and develop a consensus about whether we should raise the caliber of the debate by bringing Arth in the majors. Please do not delete him until we arrive at a consensus.Delhi3 (talk) 08:04, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Arth hardly has a growing media profile. He appears on (to my knowledge) zero major news sites' candidate galleries. His twitter following is at 746, compared to Yang, who has ~150k, and Williamson, with over 2M. Arth has 75 results when searching his name and entering the news tab. Yang, the (debatedly) least well known candidate, has 63,900 results. The guy seems like he has interesting ideas, but it's not wikipedia's job to give the guy name recognition. Wikipedia is a scientific, not a normative site, and to put Arth with the major candidates would be a normative decision. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 09:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Who? Literally has zero name recognition and has not been profiled as a 2020 candidate by any key news outlets. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:46, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Support Compare Arth's campaign website at to the websites of two other "major candidates" listed in this article, Wayne Messam and Pete Buttigieg. Both Messam and Buttigieg are small town mayors with no substantive national policy positions. Prior to their listing here as presidential candidates, they had even less name recognition than Arth. For those two reasons alone, Arth would be a major candidate. It's not Wikipedia's job to give Arth name recognition, but it has done exactly that with Messam and Buttigieg. Any objective look at Arth's issues, his deep analysis of public policy, what he has done in rebuilding a drug slum, his work with the homeless, and his grass roots campaign as a Florida gubernatorial candidate (that was also the subject of a feature-length documentary) would say he should at least be allowed a seat at the table. Every criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is to some extent normative. In the case of Messam and Buttigieg, it was that anyone who has held elected office, no matter how insignificant, is automatically a major candidate. The public cannot decide about someone unless they know about him, and Wikipedia is often the first source people turn to for an introduction to the candidates. If Arth was listed here as a major candidate, within a few weeks he would almost certainly be the subject of major media and polls. Democracy requires an informed public, not just a public shaped by key news outlets.Politicon535 (talk) 11:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, no significant press coverage, only English-language news article in the past three months is from Sputnik. Mélencron (talk) 12:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: His major press coverage is nearly non-existent. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Arth literally isn't covered in any candidates lists in the press.
Source Arth Yang Williamson
New York Times No Yes Yes
Washington Post Yes Yes
Los Angeles Times Yes Yes
Chicago Tribune Yes Yes
CNN Yes Yes
Politico No No
Axios Yes Yes
The Guardian Yes Yes
NPR Yes Yes
Vox Yes Yes

Table adapted from a previous discussion, originally created by Mélencron.

Wpeneditor (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Oppose – Michael Arth is only promoting himself; he has not been assessed as a credible candidate by any RS. — JFG talk 15:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, there's a near-total lack of any sources covering him. However, I would like to include Messam in the above table:
Source Arth Messam Yang Williamson
New York Times No No Yes Yes
Washington Post No Yes Yes
Los Angeles Times No Yes Yes
Chicago Tribune No Yes Yes
CNN Yes Yes Yes
Politico No No No
Axios Yes Yes Yes
The Guardian No Yes Yes
NPR No Yes Yes
Vox No Yes Yes

PaperKooper (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

That's pretty disingenuous. Messam has held elected office, so he fits the current criteria of a major candidate, regardless of media coverage.David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
I did not mean to suggest that Messam should not be included, only to note that he has not reached the same level of media coverage as Buttigieg, Yang, or Williamson. I meant this to show that Arth does not come close to demonstrating the same level of media coverage as any of the current major candidates. PaperKooper (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the media coverage surrounding Arth is not comparable to that of Yang or Williamson. Also, I am not aware of a major poll that includes him. If he starts getting major coverage or comes close to qualifying for the debates, then we can revisit this, but at the moment it would be wrong to count him as a major candidate.Jacoby531 (talk) 16:21, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the lack of media coverage above. However in the case of Messam having held office is enough; the criteria is "have held public office, been included in a minimum of five independent national polls or have otherwise received substantial coverage". And he does have at least some coverage. --eduardog3000 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose Arth meets none of the current prerequisites for inclusion on the "major" list.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose regretfully. Though I supported the inclusion of Yang and Williamson, both of which have received notable coverage despite lacking experience holding public office, the same cannot be said about Arth. Though this entire talk page is evidence that the original criteria (holding public office or being included in x number of polls) was flawed and a consensus existed to change it, I cannot see a consensus for a criteria that includes someone with effectively zero third party WP:RS coverage. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 10:46, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Oppose as of right now, not featured in any major election coverage, or included as a major candidate by any of the above sources. Additionally not included in any polls, so he does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion. Until he is either included in the polls or covered by major reliable sources, putting him in with the other major candidates would be giving him undue weight. Tillerh11 (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Bernie Endorsements[edit]

@USAPATRIOT123:, there is already a separate page for Bernie Sanders's campaign endorsements. Maintaining two separate lists is not a good idea, a link (or potentially transcluding) is sufficient. --eduardog3000 (talk) 18:18, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

We should probably transclude endorsements from individual campaign articles (if they exist), otherwise maintenance will be a problem.- MrX 🖋 19:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

1RR Question[edit]

I don't want to run afoul of 1RR, but I undid an anonymous edit that removed a properly sourced endorsement, only for it to be undone by another anonymous editor (or perhaps the same with a new IP). If I understand right, my undo should be kept unless it's discussed on this talk page. Am I free to resistate my undo without worrying about 1RR? eduardog3000 (talk) 18:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The content in question seems to be whether or not Richard Spencer's "Yang Gang" tweet counts as an endorsement, which would be a reasonable discussion to have on this talk page. Per WP:BRD if the anonymous IP editors are uninterested in having that discussion, for them to repeatedly revert any further would be edit warring. If edit warring by IP users becomes an issue, we could seek temporary low-level protection for the page. Brendon the Wizard ✉️ 10:51, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am the first IP (that edit was from work, now I am at home), that removed the entry for Spencer. I have no idea who reverted the revert, that wasn't me. On the topic: It is not about properly sourcing (as eduardog puts it), it is about the level of work counted as endorsement and secondly the ability to use (fake?) endorsements to smear candidates. Let me explain. The hurdle to put out a tweet is extremely low, it costs basically nothing. If I comb through twitter and other social media, I probably find thousands of 'endorsements' to the candidates. So we should really think about who to include. Even more, putting a tweet that potentially is seen positive onto someone who gains popularity - say because he is a candidate running for POTUS - that creates the possibility other people notice this tweet and therefore the user. So such an 'endorsement'-tweet is a pretty low level way to gain some followers of my own (hence self-promotion). So maybe something a little more should be required to list it as noticable endorsement. Also, as a side note, I always thought an edorsement as something exclusively, so an endorser only supports one candidate. Positive tweets are easily possible for multiple candidates, and I miss the magic word endorsement. So maybe I am wrong here, and exclusivity and a clear statement of endorsement is not needed to declare it as such. Anyways, going on my second point is, that such "endorsements" are also used to smear candidates. This strongly reminds me of the situation with Tulsi Gabbard and her "endorsement" from David Duke. Even Stephen Colbert used that as talking point, althought Tulsi Gabbard never asked for the support of the likes of Duke and don't at all indicates an alignment in policy. Same with Yang here. Nothing says me he supports the ideas of Spencer or aligns in policy. Still such declarations are used - as can be seen by the example of Colbert - as a smear against the candidate. If this Spencer-tweet qualifies to be listed in the Wikipedia, it basically asks 4chan-people to look for murderers, rapists, nazis, white suprematists make a positive remark about one of the candidates and add that here. This can't be healthy. I would say, there should be defined some qualifying traits for en "endorsement" to be listed in Wikipedia. -- (talk) 18:05, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
This falls under the category of what I like to call tactical endorsements, whereby an endorsement is given to a candidate for reasons other than actual support. Such endorsements have no business being here. If the endorsement in question becomes notable, it should be covered on the biographical article for a candidate, not this article about the primaries. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
It's not up to Wikipedia to judge the reasons for an endorsement and editorialize based on that. If you check his Twitter past the cited tweet, it's clear he supports Yang. The only requirements to include an endorsement are that the endorsement is clear enough (I believe it is, so far tweeting a hashtag like #Yang2020 or #YangGang alone has been enough, but he also said he's "in the Yang Gang", that's clearly an endorsement, this tweet is also pretty clear) and that the endorser is notable enough, which Spencer is. In the case of Duke, he never actually endorsed Gabbard in the first place, and then explicitly stated he didn't. --eduardog3000 (talk) 21:17, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn't judging anything. It's reliable sources that do the judging, and I think it is pretty clear from coverage that nobody gives a shit who this absolute asshole claims to endorse. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:39, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The Spencer endorsement should be left out. It is simply not noteworthy. Also, a tweet is a primary source, and not sufficient for an "endorsement" of a BLP subject. Use third party sourcing.- MrX 🖋 12:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, there are a lot of endorsements cited only to tweets in this article. I stopped counting when I got to 100 of them. (This is not a comment on the Spencer endorsement specifically, just on the idea of whether endorsements can be cited to tweets.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Yikes! Someone should have read WP:NOT.- MrX 🖋 17:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
ETA: This comment was not directed toward Metropolitan90. My comment is directed toward editors who relied on primary sources (tweets) for endorsements of candidates for the highest political office in the apparent disregard of WP:BLPPRIMARY.- MrX 🖋 22:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@MrX: There is a previous discussion about endorsements here. As User:IOnlyKnowFiveWords said, "Previous endorsement lists have been pretty wide-ranging and have included primary sources and hashtags, don't see the point in excluding people from a list of people for the sake of brevity.". Spencer's endorsement is just as notable as a lot of other endorsements on the list. There has already been discussions on whether to delete Hillary Clinton's political and non-political and Donald Trump's 2016 endorsements pages, with primary Twitter sources being a main issue. The result of those discussions was to keep the articles, List of Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign non-political endorsements survives with over 1000 twitter sources cited. --eduardog3000 (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
@Eduardog3000: I'm sure you understand that that discussion has no binding effect. Anyone on the planet can tweet anything. Unless one or more independent, reliable sources take notice, it doesn't belong on the encyclopedia for reasons that I assume are obvious. If not, see WP:DUEWEIGHT. Mistakes made on Hillary Clinton should not be repeated here.- MrX 🖋 23:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree with MrX here and it is the main reason for removing that listing. The hurdle for a tweet is really low and as I pointed out with such a tweet for someone popular (like presidential candidate) you can gain attention for yourself. So I am opposed to all endorsements based only on tweet, in Spencers case I see it additionally as harmful. In my opinion an endorsement to be worthy of listing should:
  • contain more effort than a mere tweet (speaking or performing at a rally for the candidate for instance) or
  • be from a major political figure (office holder) or
  • be recognized by the candidate himself or herself
This all would secure that not everyone can align himself with a campaign with minimal effort. Keep in mind, if just a tweet qualify as endorsement, 4chan could comb Twitter and Facebook and add random or even harmful person to the list of endorsers. Is this something Wikipedia wants? Especially as shown by Stephen Colbert and his mentioning of David Dukes support for Tulsi Gabbard this can be used political. -- 2003:CA:EF07:7E00:6C9E:F030:43CE:6196 (talk) 10:18, 18 March 2019 (UTC)