Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Remove Steve Bannon

Please remove Steve Bannon from "Potential Candidates" and put him in a section called "minor candidates". It is rediculous to put a loser editor with no political or business experience with real candidates such as Mitt Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.172.42 (talk) 20:57, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

You could say the same thing about Trump at this time during the last cycle, and look at where we are. Bannon is all over the news. The chances of him, and everyone else being scared away from the primaries is extremely high. If, by some miracle, Trump goes, Pence will be president and the nomination's his by default. At this point in time, speculation is the name of the game. We've got a long 2.7 years....Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

No you really can't compare Trumps rise to prominence at all with Bannon's. Bannon SUPPORTS the current administration. He LIKES Trump. He has even said he will not run unless Trump does not finish his term. Frankly, the comparison towards Trump and Bannon you just made is extremely offensive. Bannon is basically a Neo-Nazi loser while Trump has actually achieved something with holding a multi-billion dollar fortune. No, I am not a Trump supporter, but your very clear bias exemplifies Wikipedia's problems.

The possibility of a Bannon Candidacy is remote, most can agree on that. He has been and continues to be a strong supporter of the Trump Presidency. He himself, according to Vanity Fair and Business Insider, has stated that he will not run for president so long as Trump runs for reelection, which he is (see FEC filing of Trump Presidential Campaign 2020). Most on this page can also agree that he is a member of the alt-right-he himself has labeled himself as such. The alt-right advocates for policies that would raise taxes for the wealthy, reduce free-trade and reduced American interventionalist policies. Whether these policies are good and bad is irrelevant, what is relevant is that they are not mainstream republican values. If he is to be considered a potential candidate, others such as David Duke and Richard Spencer, whom are also not mainstream need to be listed. For the reasons listed above, I have very rationally attempted to remove Steve Bannon from the list of Potential Candidates. His place has been justified, however, because he could "potentially" run. Well, if this is the case, we need to add every single Republican in Congress, every Republican Governor and every Republican actor to the list as well. Each one of those could "potentially run". That would be ridiculous, however. Instead, why don't we only include individuals that have not denied the idea, but have been floated as potential candidates by the media such as Romney? Steve Bannon will only run if Trump quits. In this article, we should use ceteris peribis (all current conditions staying the same), in other words, if the election is held this week, would person x consider running? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlobalPoliticalCulture (talk • contribs) 17:52, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Bannon is a former high-ranking cabinet official (former Chief Strategist), so to consider his former job as editor to be his most notable role is entirely misleading.SecretName101 (talk) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Other examples of incumbent being challenged

• In 1972 Nixon saw two Republican congresssmen launch (ultimately unimpactful) primary challenges to him
• In 1968, Eugene McCarthy challenged LBJ, ultimately pressuring LBJ to abandon his reelection effort
• In 1964, George Wallace challenged LBJ
• In 1952 Estes Kefauver challenged Truman in the New Hampshire primary, before Truman had announced he would not run for re-election
• In 1940, several other Democrats sought the nomination that Roosevelt won on his way to an unprecedented third term, perhaps most notably his vice-president, John Nance Garner.
• In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt challenged Taft for the Republican nomination (before launching a third-party campaign), as did Senator Robert La Follette
• In 1868, the incumbent Andrew Johnson was unsuccessful in his efforts to seek the Democratic nomination

SecretName101 (talk) 18:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Powell and Greitens

Powell was NOT "included in a poll": in a free response question, LESS THAN 1% of respondents volunteered his name! In what world does three random people called in a poll make him a plausible speculative candidate? Look at the poll! You are delusional if you think this means he should be included here. By no means is a SINGLE poll taking a kitchen sink, open question approach able to stand alone in the face of a lack of anything substantive whatsoever.

Greitens' sources are from a year ago! What ever happen to the six month rule? If those sources count for inclusion, how about these sources as not? This lack of critical thinking in including people who will clearly not be running, using only long outdated speculation, makes this article a pointless embarrassment. Reywas92^Talk 21:30, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Endorsed Trump

I removed: (endorsed Trump) form 3 "declined" candidates because the Assertions were undated, which is inherently confusing.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Criteria for speculative candidates

Under the heading "Speculative candidates", we have a comment that states some rules for inclusion, notably that at least two sources be provided discussing the potential candidate specifically, not as part of a list. I would suggest specifying that such sources should be less than 6 months old, the same criterion we have for listing interested candidates. Opinions? — JFG ^talk 08:03, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Endorse a six-month rule as per User:JFG, makes sense to me.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

A note what about is deemed relevant

I noticed that Malecron got rid of a bunch of stuff s/he deemed "irrelevant". Stuff like the Democratic House landslide of 2018 and the government shut-down. Like it or not, Trump is the president, and what he does matters when it comes to his re-election campaign. For example, the 1979 start of the Iranian hostage crisis was central to the Carter campaign in the 1980 primaries. The shutdown and the Democratic congress is going to impact everything he does from here on out, whether it's good or bad for him.

If listing people who have been fantasized about, but aren't running is relevant, so is mentioning that there might be debates among the challengers. Yeah, Pat Buchanan didn't debate David Duke in 1992, but this could well be different. Until the late fall, there's room for limited speculation here...and oh, yeah, the Michael Cohen hearings on February 7th are relevant too.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see what you gain by being so argumentative (e.g. your "Like it or not" comment). Those events that were removed aren't directly related to the primaries, so they don't belong here. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Iowa & South Carolina

Has the Iowa Republican caucus & South Carolina Republican primary been cancelled? GoodDay (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

• Not yet at least. There has been talk about it, but neither has been canceled as of yet. AWiseishGuy 19:34 January 18, 2019

Announcement Pending Section

Former Massachusetts Gov. Weld says he'll discuss presidential plans in NH on Feb. 15 This link looks like enough to push Bill Weld into announcement pending February 15 section. Democrats have had announcement pending all through January, but here is the first case of a Republican announcement pending of a primary challenge. 2601:244:80:3F60:7D31:788E:FA22:F478 (talk) 19:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

This sounds like a pending announcement to me. I've added it to the page. EditDude (talk) 14:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

I moved Weld to the "expressed interest" section, because it's not clear at all whether he will run as a Republican. Libertarian sounds more likely. — JFG ^talk 16:13, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Weld changed his party status recently, which makes it impossible for him to run as a Libertarian. Any potential campaign announcement by him will have to be made as a Republican contender. - EditDude (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Given this new information, we should make an announcements pending section for Weld again, no? SCC California (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Yea, I think so. I'll make the appropriate changes to the Libertarian page. - EditDude (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. SCC California (talk) 20:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Section for Other Declared Candidates

A section needs to be created on this page for declared candidates who don't meet the major candidates threshold but have wikipedia pages already. 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries has this section and this article should as well. Candidates who would merit inclusion in this category include Rocky De La Fuente, Jack Fellure, and Jonathon Sharkey. I would create it myself but I'm sure another editor could do it better and quicker. AWiseishGuy —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I believe these people used to be listed, either here or at the 2020 election page. You can find them in archives. — JFG ^talk 16:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree! I think you can create it just by copying and pasting the section from the Dems and replacing the pictures and info, but I'm not an expert. DaCashman (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

"Tennessee Star"

I want to point interested editors to this discussion of the source Tennessee Star, which is used in this article. The source was established in 2017 and generally seems to be a PAC-funded activist site masquerading as a local news source. If information sourced to it can be found elsewhere, more reliable sources should likely be substituted. If information from it cannot be found elsewhere, consider marking its claims as dubious. Thanks! —Collin^{t c} 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Needs Revising

Polls numbers are up, and Russian interference is not the major issue anymore. Unlikely to have a Republican challenger with any success — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:18E8:2:28B9:F000:0:0:7F4E (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

"First president to face major primary challenge"

Removed. This is false on both claims. First Weld is in NO WAY a major challenger. He supported Obama and Hillary and has zero support in the party. He just ran for vice president and got all of 2%. Second we have Pat Buchanan who ran against Bush in 1992 and got significant support starting with 37% in New Hampshire. The party cancelled the Iowa Caucus that year because it was thought he would win. Then we have 2012 where Obama faced major challengers. John Wolfe got 42% of the vote in Arkansas. Keith Rudd got 41% of the vote in West Virginia. Percentages Weld wouldn't get in his wildest dreams. Clinton got challenged by Syracuse mayor Jimmy Griffin and Lyndon Larouche in 1996. Larouche picking up delegates in both Virginia and Louisiana. 68.230.131.20 (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Corker

The quote from the source is If I thought (it was) pragmatic, an actual path to victory ... Today, it doesn’t feel that’s the case. I’m a very realistic person. That's not a denial by any means; quite Shermanesque. Mélencron (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

I'd rather not get into an edit war, so let's discuss Mark Cuban's status on this page. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@2A02:587:3A1C:8600:C9F7:D568:54B1:3B5 and Alexjjj: Wanted to loop you all in on a discussion of Mark Cuban's status in this article. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@2A02:587:3A1C:8600:C9F7:D568:54B1:3B5 and David O. Johnson: I've seen no indication from the last few weeks and months that Mark Cuban is considering running as a Republican in 2020. Everything I've seen is he'd only jump in as an independent. Alexjjj 22:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

You're right; the latest info (at least from March [1]) has him saying that exact same thing. There's no recent, hard evidence that Cuban will run a Republican. I'm going to go ahead and revert the latest edits. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Where is Trump's 18 June 2019 FEC filing?

I tried to find the source, but can't find it anywhere? Shouldn't it be on the FEC website? https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00580100/ --Con^spiration 14:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I see that the section meant the announcement at the rally, not the FEC filing. Nevermind! --Con^spiration 15:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

De La Fuente now has substantial media coverage

Rocky De La Fuente is now receiving significant media coverage surrounding his presidential campaign after suing the State of California regarding its new law requiring disclosure of tax returns for presidential candidates. Politico [[2]], the San Francisco Chronicle [[3]], and the LA Times [[4]] have all mentioned his campaign. He therefore seems to meet the criteria set forth on the page to be a declared major candidateXavierGreen (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

For now, I will reserve judgement. What I view "substantial" would be more than "one event", as in coverage over several months, not a news spike that only lasts a few days. I mean, just the other day, Esquire published another article on Weld,[5], and Yahoo! News just posted another one of him a few hours ago.[6]

• https://news.google.com/search?q=Bill%20Weld
• https://news.google.com/search?q=Rocky%20De%20La%20Fuente

If the only major coverage that De La Fuente gets is just this event of suing California's new law, than I would instead revert this. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The Washington Times had an article that mentioned and quoted him yesterday, [[7]], i suspect given the amount of money he's dumping into his campaign and the fact that him and Weld are the only ones challenging the President who've demonstrated the ability to campaign nationwide that he will continue to receive coverage.XavierGreen (talk) 20:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, that Washington Times article that you just linked seems to only mention De La Fuente in the contect of his recent lawsuit to challenge that new California law. It remains to be see if he get more media coverage than just these past few days. Unlike Weld, who seems to have had significant media coverage since he announced his candidacy. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks like another editor reverted the article.[8] Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Augustus Invictus

I'm not familiar with all the formatting and such of actually editing wikipedia - but it appears that Augustus Invictus, who has a wikipedia page, is running for president. https://invictusforpresident.com/ Would it be appropriate, then, to add him to the 'notable candidates without substantial coverage'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 (talk) 01:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Done. SCC California (talk) 02:54, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Mike Pence

Is it appropriate to add Mike Pence on Trump's column as his running mate? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

If we follow what was done with the 2012 Democratic Party presidential primaries article when Obama was running for his second term, and the 2004 Republican Party presidential primaries page when GWBush was up for re-election, then the answer is no. Technically, Vice Presidents do not run during the primaries, and are only officially added to the ticket at the party conventions. There is also the possibility of an incumbent having picked a different running mate for his re-election, but I do not think that has happened since Franklin D. Roosevelt during the 1944 election when Harry S. Truman replaced Henry A. Wallace. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

The last time it happened was 1976. Nelson Rockefeller agreed not to pursue the VP nomination for 1976, and Gerald Ford selected Bob Dole as his running mate instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:28, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Finances of Notable Candidates

Finances of all candidates listed on the page should be included in the financials section, there are a variety of candidates listed on this page who are listed as notable, but not major candidates. The FEC filings of these candidates should be mentioned in the Campaign finance section for NPOV purposes since their candidacies are mentioned on this page. Of the non-major candidates listed only Rocky De La Fuente has reported expenditures and fundraising, as such his financials should be listed in the Campaign Finance section along with any other notable candidate who's candidacy is mentioned on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

No other party's primary page (Democratic, Libertarian, or Green) includes campaign finance information on any candidate who failed to meet the qualifications to be deemed "major". As such, I currently see no reason why De La Fuente should be included in the table while the 100+ other non-major candidates currently running have been excluded. He has spent similar amounts of money on previous runs and was not included in 2016. If his campaign begins to attract major media attention, we can include him. For now, however, I just don't see anything that would warrant his inclusion. Only699WordsToGo (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The definitions of a "Major Candidate" for the Liberarian and Green Party primaries are not the same in effect as those for the Democratic and Republican primaries. Most of the Green and Libertarian candidates with the exception of perhaps John Macafee have less media exposure than Rocky De La Fuente. Furthermore, none of the other non-major notable candidates listed on the Democratic or Republican Primary pages have raised or spent any money to my knowledge, if they did they should be included as well for NPOV purposes.XavierGreen (talk) 14:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Debates

When will the primary debate schedule be released? And what are the requirements to make it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevenjo28 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The Republican National Committee have not yet indicated they are in the process of making any plans to hold any debates yet. If you look at the polls that have been compiled on Opinion polling for the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, Bill Weld has barely managed to make a significant dent in many of the national polls compared to Trump. Of course we have yet to see any polls conducted after Joe Walsh entered the race earlier this week. If nothing changes in the polls or unless they are convinced otherwise, what you may likely see the RNC do instead is what the Democratic National Committee did when Obama ran for re-election in 2012: "Incumbent president still highly popular with our base + none of the notable challengers appear to have a fighting chance according to the polls = no debates needed". Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

As indicated at Republican Party presidential debates and Democratic Party presidential debates, there has never been a primary season when the incumbent president debated any of his challengers for his party's nomination. Not even Gerald Ford, facing Ronald Reagan in 1976, or Jimmy Carter, facing Ted Kennedy in 1980, did so, and both Reagan and Kennedy were stronger challengers to the incumbents than any other candidates who have attempted to challenge an incumbent president for the nomination since them. However, I would be interested to see whether Weld and Walsh try to organize one or more debates against each other. (They could arrange to have Trump invited to join them, but with no expectation that he would agree to do so.) The question would then be whether the RNC would try to prevent such debates from being held; I don't know whether the RNC would try to do so, or what penalty they could impose if Weld and Walsh held a debate without their authorization. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:15, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The website Business Insider has announced what appears to be an online debate for September 24th which will feature Walsh and Weld while Sanford along with Trump have been invited but I do not believe it is GOP official. --

Riadse96 (talk) 3:57, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Bound Delegates, Popular Vote, and Contests won

Do we really need these headings in the table? There are not going to be anything but zeros there for several months. WittyRecluse (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Aren't delegates actually awarded at the convention? In that case, it'd be pretty close to a year. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Discussion that may interest you. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually, it may just be until Saturday. The Nevada State Committee is meeting on whether to declare Trump the winner by default, and South Carolina's SC is going to vote on whether to cancel the primary the same day. In other words, the actual voting is starting the day after tomorrow, not next year. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, David, and I thought you knew this, delegates are NOT awarded at the national convention, they GO to the national convention. That there are moves in a bunch of states to give Trump all the delegates by formally changing the rules, has been common knowledge for months now. There was a move, as you remember, to ditch the process and declare Trump the nominee by default last January. The Republican "race" is a sham that must go on because they want a TV show in September. That's fine, as the Democrats have done pretty much the same thing when they've got an incumbent. It was pretending that they had one in '16 that got them in trouble. This is different. The National Committee is already cooperating with Trump campaign as if he were already nominated. If Nevada and South Carolina give their delegates to Trump this weekend, then others will follow. yeah, Weld and that other guy may not get primary votes until February, but Trump will get states allotted to him and that should be recognized. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:03, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

By the way, in splitting the candidate table into two, you've changed how this information is transcluded on other pages. It would be better to stick to one table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. It makes it clearer. The race is formally fixed, the first votes are the day after tomorrow, and we don't do it now, we will have to do it Saturday evening. Much better to get it over with.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Until something officially happens, I think it's premature to have these headings. See WP:CRYSTAL. --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

South Carolina is considering converting its delegate selection from a primary to county conventions. Thus there would still be a process by which a candidate other than Trump could secure delegates in South Carolina.XavierGreen (talk) 17:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No, because these conventions will all be run by the Trump campaign. Same with Kansas and Arizona. So it's possible, that by Sunday morning, Trump will have officially won FOUR states. True, the votes to cancel primaries might lose, but they're going to be voted on TOMORROW, which means that the first REAL votes of the primary are less than 24 hours away. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#shouting Maybe you should read through this. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Please note that putting emphasis on certain words is not shouting. Please also note that the Chairperson of the Kansas GOP has publicly stated that Kansas' caucuses have been canceled and thus, Trump has already formally won a state. This is not WP: Crystal. This has happened.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:11, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I can find several articles stating that the Kansas caucuses have been canceled, such as these , but none of them say that the Kansas GOP formally gave Trump the win. The tweet they posted on the subject states that "Every time an elected incumbant Republican has run for re-election, except in 1912, the Kansas Republican Party state convention adopted a resolution instructing all delegates to vote for the elected incumbant" . Until I can see somewhere that this resolution has been adopted for the 2020 election, which I can, at this time, find no evidence of, I will not be convinced Trump has won the Kansas election. However, you do claim that the Kansas GOP Chairperson stated that Trump has formally won the state, so if you could provide the reference for that, then we can finally put this to rest and declare Trump the winner of the Kansas election at least. WittyRecluse (talk) 00:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 is making a big (unsubstantiated) jump from "cancelling of primaries" to "Trump won the state." No delegates have even been awarded. Kelly Arnold and Helen Van Etten of the Kansas GOP and Keith Schipper of the Nevada GOP have explicitly stated that delegates will be awarded later: [9]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Then why did they cancel the caucus? What part of "The Kansas GOP tweeted Friday that it will not organize a caucus “because President Trump is an elected incumbent from the Republican Party.” don't you understand?

...or how about his one: "With no legitimate primary challenger and President Trump's record of results, the decision was made to save South Carolina taxpayers over $1.2 million and forgo an unnecessary primary,” Drew McKissick, the chairman of the South Carolina GOP, said in a statement"

When they say they're doing something for a specific reason, believe them. Arglebargle79 (talk) 02:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Look, it's obviously a foregone conclusion that Trump will win. However, Trump doesn't have any delegates awarded. PERIOD. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Bound Delegates, Popular Vote, and Contests won, part two

Okay, folks, Kansas and South Carolina have canceled their presidential contests and given all their delegates to Trump. That's right. the presidential races in two states are OVER. Trump has WON. That's two down. We will know the results in Nevada later this evening and Arizona later this week. They could still vote to have competitive contests, which is why I didn't place them on the chart. Trump hasn't officially won there yet. We are 99% sure he will win, but that's technically prognostication. Kansas and SC are not. They are history.

The several states and territories have until October 30th to file their delegate selection plans. This means that a bunch of state committees are going to cancel their contests and award their delegates to Trump. It saves money and aids the cult. Obama did it in '12, remember. So if you have problems with transcluding, I apologize for the trouble, but the simple fact is, is that the delegate selection process has already begun. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The Kansas delegates aren't bound to Trump: "Its (Kansas) state committee planned to approve rules for an “internal party process” for selecting convention delegates." Neither are Nevada's for that matter: “The vote to opt out of the caucus has passed. We will vote to endorse and bind the delegates to the President at a later date” (both sourced from [10]). I'm not sure about South Carolina. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes they ARE. That's the entire reason that's what these "internal party processes" are being changed from, what? internal party processes? If an open process is canceled in favor of a closed one on behalf of a certain someone, then that someone has won the process. In other words, Trump has just won three states...which reminds me. Didn't you say that the delegates wouldn't be chosen for another year? Arglebargle79 (talk) 03:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You have no proof. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:16, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, we do. We have the statements of all those who those involved. Besides, when it comes to the selection of individual humans as delegates, Wikipedia has NEVER gone that far. There are 'caucuses' in all the primary states, such as New Hampshire, and those are after the primaries. These are divvied out as per the popular vote, and on a primary night, the identity of the humans going isn't precisely known. But we mark them as chosen anyway. Them's the rules, so it is here. The regular selection process in three states have been canceled in order to hand over all the delegates to Trump. This has been admitted by all but you. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The two people I quoted earlier are saying the exact opposite of what you're saying. No delegates have been bound to Trump. The selection process was postponed to a later date.

"Its (Kansas) state committee planned to approve rules for an “internal party process” for selecting convention delegates." Neither are Nevada's for that matter: “The vote to opt out of the caucus has passed. We will vote to endorse and bind the delegates to the President at a later date” (both sourced from [11]).

Where's your reference? David O. Johnson (talk) 14:21, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The same one you gave: We will vote to endorse and bind the delegates to the President at a later date” In other words. The Trump campaign has won the state. The membership of the delegation is always later. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

You missed this part at a later date; i.e. they aren't bound now. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

No I didn't. When there is only ONE candidate permitted on the ballot, he or she's already won. period. What you are saying is that an undemocratic process is a democratic one. IT's not. He's won, three states already and may very well win a fourth next week. it's official. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Currently there is no ballot. All the states have officially decided to do is remove the primary/caucus and replace it with an "internal party process" or some other unknown way to "bind the delegates". While it is obvious they want Trump to win as evidenced from the statements that they support him and are doing this to protect the President (the Nevada party even stated it was doing this to bind the delegates "to the President"), there has been no official decision on what the new selection method for delegates is going to be. While we can presume with a very well founded basis that in the end all the delegates in those states will go to Trump, until, first, the new delegate selection methods have been decided on, second, the process for the selection happens, and third, the selection chooses Trump, there has not been an official victory for Trump in those states. The RNC stated that the states would have to make up thier mind on the selection process by October 1, so we can expect to know the first bit by then. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

A primary and a caucus are "internal party processes" too. It's all about fixing it for Trump. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed about fixing it for Trump. This does not mean, however, it has already been fixed to Trump or awarded to Trump in any official manner. For it to officially be fixed for Trump or awarded to Trump, etc, the three steps outlined above must occur. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes it has. The caucuses/primaries in several states have been canceled. This means that, like those democratic Super-delegates, who were officially unpledged, were counted for Hillary Clinton in both 2008 and '16, even though in the former election, most changed their minds. Their endorsements were "provisional" but they were counted by the people here anyway. That's why they changed the rules for this time out. Sanders' people were furious. The Rules for the GOP this year. Those "three steps" have taken placd. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My checking account is going to have a sizeable, automatic deposit on September 25, my next payday. I know exactly what the amount is going to be. Nevertheless, it would be silly for me to demand the bank update my balance today to reflect that amount. You need to be patient and wait for the process to play out. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

My two cents: I agree with most others. Per WP:V and WP:SYN, we should not start doing this until The Green Papers or some other reliable source explicitly starts doing it first. Furthermore, the numbers of Republican delegates each state has are not completely final. Because bonus delegates are awarded to states bases on whether Republicans control state governorship and state legislatures, these values may change based on the outcome of the 2019 "off-year" elections. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Candidate order

while having the other major candidates in alphabetical order makes sense, i think being the curent president should hold precedence over this, meaning Trump should be either mentioned first, or get an individual section before the other major candidates. TheFIST (talk) 09:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

That wouldn't meet WP:NPOV. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Why? He's already been endorsed by the National Committee, and most state committees. He has already won three states (I know, as mentioned above, a number of people here still deny this), and will be given the nomination by default. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:43, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

okay, let's discuss the WP:NPOV situation here, okay? Good First let's have a quote from the article:

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

The Trump campaign controls the RNC's primary process. At least five states have either canceled or have officially stated that they plan to cancel their delegate selection process and hand it over to the Trump campaign. This means that any fair and proportionate depiction of the process requires the incumbent, who controls everything, to be on a different plane than the challengers, who have none of these formal advantages. As the cancellation of a bunch of primaries shows, the process is officially "fixed." Any fair description of the situation has to acknowledge that. To have Trump at the same level, or underneath one or more of the candidates in a chart is neither fair nor proportionate. (on a side note, I again apologize for screwing up the transclusion stuff, but I think it's necessary). Yes, Jimmy Carter was at 1% at this time in 1975, but there was no incumbent that year on the Democratic side. The RNC and the Trump campaign know about the 1976, '80 and 92 campaigns just as we do and are trying to prevent it. This is another reason to split up the candidate list. Rocky de la Fuente is raising enough money to be a major candidate but is not listed as one. He doesn't have a picture in the chart. I'm not sure if he should have. A fair description demands we do this. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:53, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

The Trump campaign does not control the RNC's primary process. They are likely to control it in 5 states out of 50, sure, but that's not even confirmed. The incumbent does not control everything, and until he is the only person running for the nomination, the other contenders should have a place in the same table as him. We have given enough representation to Trump in the page, as most of the accompanying text in the article is about him, which accurately reflects media coverage, he has the largest list of endorsements, which accurately reflects endorsements, and he has the most points in the timeline, which accurately reflects the amount of rallies for the Trump campaigns. I don't see a reason to single Trump out in the table. (Also please stop editing my comments in violation of WP:TPO, semantics aren't worth it.) WittyRecluse (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, while your previous edits on this page placing Trump first have claimed "proportionality" as your reasoning, putting Trump first in the Declared candidates section itself violates NPOV by promoting Trump over all the other candidates (even more so when your edits placed Trump in his own section as the incumbent). David O. Johnson (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I vaguely remember there is an actual guideline somewhere, but I cannot remember where it is at the moment, so I cannot link to it now. It said something like, "For all pending elections, candidates should be listed alphabetically, regardless if there is an incumbent seeking re-election." It is only after the election that the winner first can be listed first. If you look at most other pending election articles, they are most likely listing candidates alphabetically too regardless of incumbency. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

• Trump is already the first candidate mentioned in the article overall; he's the only candidate listed in the first infobox, he's the first candidate mentioned in the lead, and in the third paragraph of the lead, it says, "In February 2019, the Republican National Committee voted to provide undivided support to the incumbent president, Donald Trump." Nobody is going to be misled about the extent to which Trump is the dominant candidate in this nomination process. There's no reason to bypass alphabetical order in order to put him first in the otherwise-alphabetical Candidates table, too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

New Weld logo?

Weld appears to have a new logo. This seems to be the new official logo of the campaign, being used in all sorts of promotional material. Does anyone have access to a higher quality version of this logo? It's adequately simplistic. Or are we going to have to settle for a low-quality image like the Trump one we are currently using? --Only699WordsToGo (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment Inquiry

The impeachment inquiry has been added to the page. For the time being, I have removed all the text relating to the effect it would have on the campaign because I can't find a source for it, but more importantly I'd like to open discussion on how relevant the continuation of impeachment procedures are. The opening of impeachment procedures was not relevant enough to be added, so I don't see why this is relevant enough to be added. I wouldn't think there would be a significant effect on the campaign from a simple inquiry, I would prefer to wait until the outcome of the inquiry; if the House of Representatives decided to move forward and actually hold a hearing and charge Trump with crimes worthy of impeachment, etc, then I think that would meet the requirements for relevancy.

Thoughts? WittyRecluse (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Does it really need its own section? There is one sentence right now. 2001:48F8:3022:A8:C0F4:F3F7:B16B:DD97 (talk) 03:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Maybe if there is a tangible result from the inquiry: (e.g. Trump is impeached and removed from office). But right now, I don't think it's needed. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Please note that when I put this in there, there was a four-paragraph explanation. As this is a "one-man race" (Rocky and the other three notwithstanding), the impeachment inquiry IS the entire primary campaign. The paragraphs should be put back where they were. Think about it...a candidate ON TRIAL?!?!?!? A month before the voting!?!?!?!?!? That's not irrelevant to the campaign, that IS the campaign. The whole ball of wax. He is either so damaged that he resigns his office and withdraws, which will throw the entire primary into chaos, or he will triumph and it will return to being a one-man race. Projecting the fantasy that it's a four-man race between equals, is even more fantasy than usual.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:21, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

For the sake of argument, let's say this is in fact a "one-man race". In that case, this inquiry is still not going to have an important outcome on the primary campaign. If the inquiry evolves into something larger, like an actual statement of impeachment by the House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate, or even removal from office, then I agree that the primary will be shaken up. However, we are not nearly at that state of the impeachment process, so at the current point in time there is no garentee that the President will be on trial a month before voting. Until there is, or there is a garentee that something of that caliber of importance to the campaign will happen as a direct result of what is going on in the impeachment process, then I do not think that there is any reason to include information on it. The only exception I could agree on is perhaps a very short, un-opinionated blurb that documents what is currently happening in the impeachment process, which is located in the body of the page and not its own section and doesn't speculate on anything in the future, but I think even that is extraneous. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't speculate on anything in the future? The entire article is speculating on the future. The constitutional prosecution of the leading candidate is something that is happening NOW. It is relevant. It needs it's own section, albeit not a major one. Also, this needs an entire makeover. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to slow down a little bit here. Regarding the Arglebargle79 edit to the the page that "the impeachment proceedings will have no impact on the primary is WP: Crystal", the burden of proof to prove that an impeachment inquiry will have impact is on those who wish to insert the information on the page. To avoid a stupid edit war, I've left it up, but seeing as we have 3 users in favor of removal and 1 in favor of inclusion, I would either like to remove the information or hear further opinions. WittyRecluse (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I'll jump in and say I strongly agree with WittyRecluse that including an entire section on impeachment is premature at this point in time. If it ends up having a major impact on the GOP primary, we can always add it after the fact. The way that the section was initially written was riddled with WP: Crystal. I tried to clean it up, but I fear that it is inherently speculative. Perhaps a compromise would be to include events about impeachment on the timeline, but not to have an entire separate prose section before impeachment has actually concluded or taken place. Jacoby531 (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone please explain to me how a person can lose an election when there are no write-ins and he's the only one on the ballot?

...and he's still running? I don't want to get into another revert war over this, but Trump won Minnesota by default, an someone just deleted it because he could still somehow lose it to a competitor. How?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

No delegates have officially been awarded. Until they are officially designated as going to a candidate, they are not given over by default. The chances of a candidate losing a state are irrelevant. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Also just because there is no primary or caucus in a particular state does not mean that Trump will be awarded all of the delegates there, most of the states having no primary or caucus are having delegates chosen at either statewide or county conventions.XavierGreen (talk) 14:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, they are. There is only one candidate on the ballot in Minnesota, and under the law there, the candidate who wins a certain percentage of the vote gets to appoint the delegates. The ballot in that state is fixed, which means that it cannot be changed, even in the candidate withdraws. There is no way that any other candidate can get delegates under the law, thus, he's one and has that state's delegates pledged to him. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Inclusion of Trump as Informally Endorsed by the RNC in the Candidates Table

I've noticed theres been some edits going back and forth regarding the inclusion of Trump as "informally endorsed by the RNC" in the Candidates Table. I think it would be more productive to talk about it here than continue to edit back and forth. WittyRecluse (talk) 20:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

• Endorsements shouldn't go in the Candidates table, no matter how formal or informal they are. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

this is NOT the standard endorsement. This is announcing that he is the prechosen nominee and that the party is is putting it's thumb on the scale. A number of states have ceded the choosing of delegates to Trump campaign. To mention that he's already considered by the party to be the nominee and the process is merely pro forma is extremely important. Should he get impeached, that may change things in a way that might also render the process moot as well. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It is irrelevant how standard the endorsement is. Endorsements of any kind should go in the Endorsements section, where they belong. WittyRecluse (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC).

It's extremely relevant. As far as the RNC is concerned, Trump is already the nominee and they are acting as if that was so.Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Rocky, Impeachment, and a total makeover of the article

Okay, we need some consensus here: First off, we need change the list to include the primaries. "But wait" you say, "we already HAVE the primaries listed!" We're less than a hundred days out from Iowa and New Hampshire and the ballot places are already being allocated. The criterion for who is a "major candidate" has to change.

First of all, the "five polls, previous public office and lots of coverage" has to be thrown out and replaced with how many states any of these people are on the ballot on. Rocky, for instance, is on more ballots than Trump is. This is not going to last very long, obviously, but we're not really talking about Trump we're talking about Weld, Sanford, and that other guy. The party infrastructure is controlled by the Trump campaign and is actively trying to get all challengers off the ballot (hence the cancellation of primaries).

So this is what we do: We create a candidates' page and then transfer the charts we have there. then we make a new chart based on the 2008, '12, and '16 pages. This will go up through super-Tuesday. As this is a one-man race, by this time the primary will either be effectively over, or Trump will be gone and the primary will be in literal chaos. If it's the latter, then we'll figure out what to do then, but precedent says we should start getting the massive revisions done NOW so we don't have to do more work and arguing than is necessary later.

We need to get a consensus on this NOW. We need to get this page(s) ready for the next phase, which is coming up faster than many here think. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:19, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you mind toning it down a little? All this bellicose rhetoric: (e.g. "this is what we do" and "NOW") isn't helping your argument. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

What argument do you think is undermined? The fact that a candidate is being censored out (Rocky, who's on more primary ballots than Weld)? Or that Public impeachment hearings are a mere couple of weeks away?Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:04, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

So you believe that purely ballot access should determine majorness, yet you admit that De La Fuente has qualified for more ballot than Trump at this stage. So does this make Rocky a more major candidate than Trump? No of course not. By that token who's to say that Weld, Walsh and Sanford don't then qualify for more ballots than De La Fuente? Either we measure it in the present, making De La Fuente more major than Trump, or we try to predict the future, which is against wikipedia policy and makes the criteria worthless. Ballot access isn't a very good measure of majorness by itself, and by proposing to change the current criteria, which is much more even, to ballot access shows there is one purpose in mind - get De La Fuente as a major candidate. So no, I do not think changing the criteria for major candidates as made in this proposal is a good idea. It ignores the fact that Sanford, Weld and Walsh receive far more attention from media coverage, polls, and have held elected office, which suggest they are much more serious candidates than Rocky "9 senate primary campaigns at once" De La Fuente. In addition, in his 2017 NYC mayoral campaign, Rocky De La Fuente was found to have forged hundreds of signatures to get on the ballot by NYC's Board of Elections. This shows that ballot access is not a reliable indicator of majorness and especially that we shouldn't be accommodating changing the criteria for Rocky De La Fuente. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 23:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Things change. I"m not saying that Rocky's a major candidate, I"m saying that Weld, Walsh, and Sanford are NOT. Unless Trump is impeached or forced to resign, none of them have a snowball's chance in hell of getting nominated. The GOP national committee and the state committees have rigged the system and you know it. Things change. Ballot access is important, as in the primary, that's where the vote totals come from. I don't know how many states anyone besides Trump is going to get on (Trump will get on all of them), but Rocky is currently working primarily on getting past the onerous alternative qualification process. He got 67 thousand votes last time. Vote totals are what primaries are all about, and the more ballots Rocky's on, the more votes he will get. I'm not sure is Weld, Walsh, and Sanford are working that hard on the alternate petition route. They might be. However, New Hampshire will have a final list on the 8th, Arkansas will have it next week, and everything up to super Tuesday will be settled by the end of the year. It's a different phase.

If you look at the history of this article, you will notice that the first year was about getting Trump listed. For most of that time, there was a bit of an edit war about that. Jack Fallares, who hadn't been heard from since he sent his letter to the FEC, was the only candidate listed half the time. There was an edit war as to whether to include the lunatics running against Obama in '12, even when a number of them got as high as 40% of the vote! So yeah, the number of states on the ballot counts. Trump has already won the states which canceled their primaries/caucuses. A number here said you CAN'T mention that!!!!! Why not? The people who did it on the state committees said that was why they did it. So yeah.

We need to redo this page because the situation is changing. Prior to the end of last month, none of the challengers were on any ballot. IT's still, for the most part, a one-man race. Look at Harold Stassen and Eugene McCarthy, who had been elected to major political offices and had actually won presidential primaries. but by the time of their last presidential runs, they were pathetic jokes.

This article is about the results of the presidential primaries of 2020. There were no results until primaries were canceled. There are more results coming in now, as candidates get on ballots. There is no reason why to exclude Rocky if he gets more votes than either Walsh, Weld of Sanford. When the results come in, we need a proper chart. We should draft one now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Your next to last sentence is all you needed to say. "When the results come in, we need a proper chart." There is simply no urgency to do this now. Wait until the results come in. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Look up any media coverage of "Trump Challengers" - three names are consistently mentioned: Walsh, Weld and Sanford. These candidates do not fall into the same trappings as Stassen and McCarthy - all are covered by the media, all are featured in polls, and all are running for president for the first time. Hardly perennial candidates, and especially not perennial on the level of De La Fuente. Just because you think Weld, Walsh and Sanford have snowballs chance does not mean that they are now somehow minor candidates. Moulton for the Democrats had little to no chance, but he's not a minor candidate. And there's stil 89 days until Iowa - basically three months. And again, I'm yet to see an argument for making ballot access the sole qualifier for majorness. De La Fuente was on 9 senate primary ballots - was he the most major candidate for the senate in 2018, because all serious candidates were only on one. 67k was 0.22%, and again, Lyndon LaRouche got plenty of votes, but as a perennial candidate, was not taken seiously by the media or non-Larouchite primary voters. As I've already mentioned, it's easy to forge signatures, and easy to be removed from the ballot. You can't remove polls. You can't remove extensive media coverage. And I'm not sure what edit wars on other articles have to do with this one, considering that the status quo they settled on is the one we are applying here, and edit wars can be one user taking a direct stand and not listening to consensus. So please, listen. There is no need to change who is considered a major candidate. When the primaries get much closer, more will be done on the article. Until then, wait. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 00:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, Moulton is a minor candidate. The DNC barred him from the debates. Same with Messim. Are you accusing Rocky of fraud, BTW?...Things have changed. Results have already started to come in. Ballot places have begun to be allocated, and while the other stuff is definitely relevant, ballot access is too. If you're not on the ballot, you can't run. What if Rocky, having managed to get on the ballot in most states through super-Tuesday, is the only challenger to Trump on half of them? A check on a half a dozen SoS election sites show that Rocky is on most of them and the other three aren't. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, if Moulton isn't a major candidate, show me any news source that excludes him as a candidate. As I have said numerous times, Wikipedia editors should concede to news outlets about who is a major candidate and who is not. You're way off the ball with this. As to fraud, I didn't say he committed it this election, I simply said that it is not a good qualifier for majorness as it is easy to forge signatures (as De La Fuente's campaign has done in the past [12]). It's clear there's no consensus here for any of the changes you propose, and I'm still yet to see any argument for using ballot access as a reason to be considered major - I've presented examples and arguments against it time and time again. Lyndon LaRouche. Here's another - Beto O'Rourke. He's not on any ballots because he's out of the race. Should we remove him from the major candidates? Just as some minor evidence, as of posting, Rocky's last 10 tweets have 2 retweets between them. Joe Walsh's last has 196. It's just common sense here, I don't know how much plainer I can make it. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

There was another article about De La Fuente on Yahoo Finance today [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/one-gop-candidate-running-potus-160000232.html}XavierGreen (talk) 19:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's literally a press release by the De La Fuente campaign. It shouldn't be given that much weight. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

yahoo and AP in fact, fact-check these things. They have reputations to uphold.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It's a press release. It's a story that yahoo has been given access to via accesswire (a press release company). Yahoo wouldn't have spent any time fact-checking (mainly because it's a story from Accesswire). It's not coverage. It's basically "look how good Rocky is" from his campaign (notice the campaign contacts at the bottom, pretty big hint it's bias).NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That Angela Fisher name sounds familiar.... cough cough: [13]. It's also interesting that Arglebargle79 is using the exact same talking point as Angela Fisher regarding ballot access. BTW, I fixed the link: [14] David O. Johnson (talk) 05:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Who is Angela Fisher? BTW, Ballot access is important when talking about getting results. whatever you think about Rocky, people will vote for him, and votes are votes. Just because you don't like the guy doesn't mean that votes for him don't count and shouldn't be counted. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Nobody is discounting votes. There are literally no votes yet. Not a single delegate has been awarded. No candidate has lost a state and no candidate has won a state. All of that is going to occur next year. Even if you know what is going to happen next year, it has not happened yet. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That is not exactly the case. Trump has won Minnesota by default. He is the only candidate on the ballot. he has also won all those states that have had their primaries and caucuses canceled. That is why they were canceled in the first place. It doesn't matter how many votes Trump gets in the Minnesota primary, because he is guaranteed to get 100% of the vote and be awarded 100% of the delegates. That is not WP:Crystal, it's a fact. this stuff has already happened in a number of states. As to Rocky, he's on the ballot in all those states that have petitions so far. To hide this fact is in fact discounting votes. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Have a reference stating that delgates have been awarded?? David O. Johnson (talk) 17:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

From 270 to win:

"Some delegates allocated statewide and some by Congressional District. There is an 85% statewide Winner Take All threshold but that is extremely unlikely outside an uncontested primary."

As an uncontested primary, the winner-take-all rule applies. Thus, the delegates are pre-allocated. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

A note about the results chart

If any of you out there wish to make the results chart better, that's wonderful. I need all the help I can get, however...

We are currently in the early ballot filing stage. Minnesota and Alabama have already fixed their ballots for Super-Tuesday. Sanford and Walsh are NOT on the ballots there. In fact, as was stated numerous times before, the President is running unopposed in Land of 10,000 Lakes, this means that the other candidates should have a "—" as their vote total instead of "0". Having a "0" is a place marker for editors to replace with real vote totals when they finally arrive. Walsh and Sanford are not on the ballot in Alabama. Why doesn't matter, really, but the Secretary of State says that only Trump, Weld and Rocky are on the ballot. That's all that does.

As to Rocky. He's already on the ballot in five states. Removing him from the chart is dishonest as it's censoring facts. Yeah, Weld and maybe Sanford will probably get thousands of votes more than he does, but refusing to identify him is just disingenuous. We want to be as complete and accurate as possible.

Remember. Being excluded from the ballot, voluntarily or not, is an actual result. It is not WP:Crystal or mere opinion. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm getting quiet sick of this now. Consensus after consensus has determined that:

A. Rocky De La Fuente is not a major candidate, B. We do not give minor candidates specific coverage (See:Campaign financing), C. We did not need the results table at this stage.

This is getting really tiresome. Consensus was to not being the results table, as we were nowhere near enough to the Iowa caucuses. You argued that an extreme makeover was necessary now, as it would take time. What did you do? Went against consensus. The table took a day, max. Now, I don't think anyone here is going "oh okay, I guess we should delete that" because it'd just be too much effort. But the point is, you went against consensus. The last three chat sections have been started by you for virtually the same topic, where consensus has been reached among other users, and you have then gone against it. Similar behavior is exhibited at the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries page. Now I can appreciate that you are enthusiastic about these topics, and that you have put work into the tables, but can you also appreciate the frustration I and other users feel when you ignore the decisions we have made on this page? NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 00:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I am in complete agreement, NebuchadnezzarHammurabi. Maybe we should bring Arglebargle79 to ANI. They're just gunking up the actual editing with their pet issues. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

My "pet issue" here is that there are phases to the campaign and we're in a new one. There are actual results. How is that gunking up anything? My "pet issue" is keeping the thing up to date and accurate. What's wrong with that? The number of states that a semi-minor candidate is on the ballot is both relevent and informative to the reader. Four states (Michigan, Arkansas, Minnesota, and Alabama) have completed their ballot selection, New Hampshire will do so by the end of the week, and two dozen or so by the end of next month. This is information that the reader wants and needs. Which reminds me, as this is the Republican primary section, California decided to make its primary a mere "beauty contest" and setting up a state convention. The "consensus" is to pretend that this is a four-man race and that the three challengers actually have a chance. It's also the "consensus" that the impeachment proceedings and trial of the principle candidate for the nomination is completely irrelevant to the primary. it's not. Also, the number of states a person is a result.

What was good for the past year or so isn't good now. Things are rapidly changing. That chart you have disparaged as premature will change numerous times because new results will come in once or twice a week. Nobody besides me noticed that Minnesota and Michigan had announced their ballot lists. How does that gunk up the works? How does stating that an uncontested primary is something that the only candidate on the ballot can still lose?

From 2021 to October of 2023, the "consensus" as to conduct the 2024 pages are completely fine. They are necessary to keep the likes of Robby Wells and Jack Felleurs from being considered principles. You have to compare this page to the Democrat's 2012 primary page. There were very few contested primaries permitted, and of those, the obscure "not Obama" candidate, most notably John Wolfe, Jr, actually did extremely well and did better than any of Pat Buchanan's results in 1992. Wolfe and Jim Rogers didn't have their own pages even though the latter was the Democratic nominee for the US Senate a couple of years before. What was the "Not Obama" candidate then is the "not Trump" candidate now. Last time out, if you remember, we had a 2016 Democratic Party presidential candidates#Other candidates section where we had a consensus that candidates who are on the ballot in six states or more will be listed separately. So, putting Rocky up there on the chart has a precedent.

BTW. I know I am annoying. It's unfortunate, but sometimes necessary.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite frankly, given each of the statewide filings for Ballot Access that i've seen it looks like the only candidates attempting to file in each state are Trump, Weld and De La Fuente. Sanford and Walsh didn't bother to file in Alabama before the deadline [15], and neither have yet filed in New Hampshire (the deadline is November 15th). How can Sanford and Walsh be considered "major candidates" if they aren't even bothering to file in the primaries? As a practical matter, if De La Fuente is not a "major candidate" when actively contesting all or a majority of states, than how can Sanford and Walsh be considered major candidates when they aren't even bothering to file at all?XavierGreen (talk) 17:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: Sanford is scheduled to file in NH on the last day and Weld is filing on Tuesday. Walsh may have mailed it in. That said, I agree with you on all counts.Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think ballot access is important and deserves a table on the page because someone who is not on any ballots is not trying to win. However, that determination is not possible to make until someone is or is not mathematically eliminated from contention via number of ballots they appear on. So, we should use the current criteria without a section on results until we have enough information to make a determination on who can, in fact, win the nomination. At that point in time, anyone who mathematically cannot win the primary is not a major candidate and we can have a results table. I'm fine with a table of who is on the ballot, just not a results table this early. WittyRecluse (talk) 09:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Colorado

De La Fuente and Trump have filed in Colorado, the Ballot Access list should be updated. See here https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/presidentialPrimaryCandidates.htmlXavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

De La Fuente listed as a notable candidate at Ballotopedia

The elections website Ballotopedia, now includes Rocky De La Fuente among the major candidates it tracks for the 2020 presidential primary. See here [[16]]. Unlike wikipedia, Ballotopedia is not a wiki type encyclopedia that anyone can edit. I think that De La Fuente's ballot access and financial information should be stated on this page, especially given that he is outspending the other challengers and exceeding Walsh in terms of ballot access. It seems to me that there would be an NPOV issue if such information was not included on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @David Johnson removed him and a bunch of others who are on at least one ballot. One guy was on two. I put it back to the way it was.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:59, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If you exclude money Rocky donated to himself, he is the lowest of all candidates on the page. Additionally, he has very little media coverage, the only source I could find within 2 months was this article from San Diego [17]. The fact Ballotpedia has him as a major candidate is a sizable development, but I don't think that and a few press releases and one article every 3 months counts as significant press coverage. Additionally, he is in exactly 0 polls. The only real reason he's even considered a major candidate is because he is on a lot of ballots, and for all the ballots he is on, all he had to do was say he was a candidate, pay a fee, and sign up. Anyone with enough disposable income to pay the fee can do that, so I don't think there is a WP:NPOV issue unless something outside of De La Fuente's control (e.g. polling, media coverage, etc) shows that he is a major candidate. All the things that point toward De La Fuente being a major candidate are as follows: he filed with the FEC (which anyone can do), he donated a bunch of money to himself (which anyone can do), he registered in a few states (which anyone can do), and he paid to have some press releases put in a few papers (which anyone can do). To compare, Trump, Weld, and Walsh have had several articles published about them, have been included in tons of polls, and Walsh arguably hasn't but Trump and Weld have had large amount of money donated to them from people other than themselves, all of which are things that not anyone can have happen to them, which makes me think De La Fuente is not a major candidate and those other three are. Therefore, the exclusion of De La Fuente would not be a violation of WP:NPOV. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

We're talking about ballot access. Rocky is on more than six states, which was the consensus four years ago. This is a one-man race, after all, and Trump's formally won over half a dozen states. This isn't 1992 or 1980. This race is fixed. Unless the President is removed by the senate, in which case all bets are off, Walsh and Weld are as minor as Rocky.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Project Votesmart has a page on him as well [18]. There have been several articles that mention his candidacy lately, [19], [20], [21] [22] additionally Yahoo Finance continues to report on his press releases [23]. The fact that he is spending his own money is irrelevant, John Delaney is mostly self-financing his own campaign as is Tom Steyer. Trump himself largely financed his own campaign during the 2016 primaries. In regards to ballot access, in his prior campaigns, De La Fuente has routinely achieved ballot access via petition in many different states in his prior campaigns, and often (with frequent success) will file lawsuits to lower signature requirements or filing deadlines that his attorneys believe are unconstitutional or otherwise illegal. The fact that he has paid a fee to get on the ballot in several states is irrelevant, virtually all of the other candidates have been paying fees to get on the ballot in whatever states they can because is simply cheaper than paying people to go out and get signatures.XavierGreen (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I've got an idea! Let's demote Weld and Walsh!

A few months back, I tried to change the chart to the incumbent and challengers. Have Trump with a very large photo, and smallish pictures of Weld and Walsh. Get rid of their state flags, too. Then have Rocky in a similar chart. That way we could be accurate, timely and "encyclopedic."Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Now you're just outright trolling. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:16, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

No. It's a real proposal. I would prefer Something like the 2012 Democratic primary page I'm serious. The "five national polls and elected office" with an incumbent is BS. The rules were changed since 1980, the last time a challenger actually beat an incumbent. The Republicans were less fixed than the Democrats in 1992, but not in 2004. The rules were changed this time again.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It's the current consensus; saying it's "BS" isn't helping your argument. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

the current consensus is that anyone on the ballot in a minimum of six states gets on the main chart. That's what it was four and eight years ago. The consensus you are talking about was for a primary with no incumbent. in that situation, I support that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's vote: Shall the original consensus: "Any candidate who's on the ballot is six or more states is included as a candidate on the ballot access and results charts" be continued?

I vote yes.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This is the second section you have opened on this page for the one topic, which already had a section dedicated to it. Please keep it in that section. In addition, I find it quite tiresome to have to refute the same points time and time again. Almost every issue on this page (apart from the paid editors for De La Fuente) involves you taking a contrary stance to the rest of the users on this page, implementing it either before consulting the talk page or after the talk page has reached a consensus of no, and then getting annoyed when edits are reverted.

In addition, and I can't believe I have to type this out again, De La Fuente is not a major candidate. People who do not feature in polls, who have zero political experience, virtually no media and social media coverage. Individuals who meet ~2 of these criteria are generally considered "major" candidates. De La Fuente meets none. He is simply on the ballot. De La Fuente demonstrated he is not a serious candidate in 2018, where he ran in NINE senate primary ballots. This is not the behavior of a major candidate. In addition, De La Fuente has known paid editors across Wikipedia. We have already come into contact with them on this page. Seeing as there are so many issues related to De La Fuente where you have taken the minority/pro-Rocky position, I am at least a little wary of the issues that may come with allowing the criteria to give undue weight to De La Fuente.

I would ask you to cease the very juvenile behavior on this page. I've already asked before, and do not want to have to do so again. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I've mentioned this before; maybe we should take Arglebargle79 to ANI? There's a clear pattern of disruptive behavior. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would support such an action. This is getting out of hand. Jacoby531 (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I would also support such an action. This has completely taken over the talk page and stops anything positive from being done. WittyRecluse (talk) 20:41, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Notifying other users to let them chime in on potential ANI for Arglebargle79: EditDude, Spiffy sperry, Alexjjj, KingOpti101, XavierGreen,Devonian Wombat and Rhian2040. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I support this, he has been combative and haughty well beyond the point of reasonable dispute. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I have to admit I've never actually done an ANI before. Is someone here more experienced who can get the ball rolling on the ANI? David O. Johnson (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than ANI, the issue of De La Fuente's candidacy should be handled via RFQ. Given that both Ballotopedia and ProjectVoteSmart are tracking De La Fuente as a candidate in the same category as Weld and Walsh, it smacks of an NPOV issue that De La Fuente is not listed equally with Weld and Walsh here.XavierGreen (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I can understand arguing for the inclusion of De La Fuente based on the ballotpedia inclusion, however, I would strong argue against it being a NPOV issue, as the NYtimes [24], Washington Post [25], Guardian [26], and ABC [27] all fail to mention De La Fuente's campaign, but mention both Walsh, Weld and all but the WaPo mention Sanford. Now, these are all major reputable sites Wikipedia cites consistently, so unless you have an argument to make that all these sites have a bias against De La Fuente and therefor cannot be considered reputable, or that their reporting is false, then it becomes a merit issue as opposed to a NPOV issue. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 06:11, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I support this, however I am rather unfamiliar with the process myself. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

I also support this as this fringe issue has taken up way too much of the talk page. Unfortunately, I'm also very unfamiliar with how WP:ANI's work, so I can't help there. - EditDude (talk) 21:20, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

There is no disruptive behavior. Trump has been the predesignated Presumptive nominee of the party and has been recognized as such by both National and State committees for over a year. According to CBS, 37 states have made legislative or other significant rule changes to their primary processes, like changing the minimum threshold eligibility for delegates to 15%, or adding a winner-take-all trigger of 50% to the Super-Tuesday and other march primaries, before going just 'winner-take-all' afterward. Them's the rules. The latest polls show the President getting 90% support from Republicans. The South Carolina state committee stated in an official press release, that a former governor of that state was not a legitimate candidate. In a letter to the Michigan Secretary of State, the Chairman of the State committee stated that Trump was the "only legitimate candidate." But you all know this. The official stand of the party has to mean something. Unless he is removed by the Senate this winter, we cannot say otherwise. Being removed by the Senate is a very remote possibility, although impeachment by the House is not. Also, being on multiple state ballots is very important. New Hampshire doesn't count, as any moron using their real name and a thousand dollar check can get on. So does Oklahoma (although it's five grand). But most states have very onerous rules against minor candidates. Thousands of signatures from each and every county. Overcoming such barriers in multiple states shows determination and pluck. Yes, Rocky is a sideshow that's not going to get any delegates, I never said otherwise, but so are Weld and Walsh. This years' entire primary is non-notable. The officials and the activists don't want the primary to happen at all, but there are down-ballot candidates in competitive races. If you look at the articles about the last four primaries featuring incumbents, you will notice that they are all about, not the winner, who as president, gets 80 to 99% of the vote, but the otherwise non-notable shlubs who by pluck and determination get on the ballot in a bunch of states and somehow managed to get a more than negligible percentage in a state or two. It is not disruptive to insist on facts and they are these: 1) The primary is non-competitive, and 2) being on the ballot in multiple states counts. That's all that I'm asking.

As to the "disuptive" subject of this thread, This is what I suggest we do here:

Candidate	Born	Most recent position	State	Announced	Withdrew	Candidacy	Ref
Lincoln Chafee	March 26, 1953 (age 63) Providence, Rhode Island	74th Governor of Rhode Island (2011–15)	Rhode Island	June 3, 2015	October 23, 2015
Jim Webb	February 9, 1946 (age 70) Saint Joseph, Missouri	U.S. Senator from Virginia (2007–13)	Virginia	July 7, 2015	October 20, 2015	(Campaign • Website)
Lawrence Lessig	June 3, 1961 (age 55) Rapid City, South Dakota	Professor at Harvard Law School (2009–16)	Massachusetts	September 9, 2015	November 2, 2015	(Campaign •

Notice that it is significantly smaller than the one we have here. this will reflect the official position of the Republican party as to who is legitimate and still show them as "major." So splitting the chart between a large one for Trump and one like this for the other two (or three), then it would be reflective of the current reality...on a side note. Lessing is on the chart because his pathetic yet heroic quest to be placed on the debate stage resulted in getting invited to one forum that was canceled. So he really didn't qualify as a major candidate. Robby Wells participated in one Forum at the Georgia Democratic convention a few months back, this doesn't make him a major candidate. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

This was done for candidates who had withdrawn before the primaries begun. That is not remotely comparable to under-sizing legitimate major challengers who are still in the race. Walsh, Weld and Sanford are, and I re-iterate this for the nth time, not, in your words, "non-notable shlubs". Weld is a former governor of Massachusetts. The next is a former House rep and prominent conservative talk show host. The third is a former governor of South Carolina. All three get/got media coverage. All three featured in polls where no one else has. Again, it is not the formal/official stance that the RNC has endorsed Trump. It is an informal/unofficial stance, and until it becomes formal/official it should not be the policy of Wikipedia to rule definitively that "yes, we should make Trump's wikibox bigger than Weld's and Walsh's". Regardless, there is already plenty of information on the page that allows for a reasonable reader to deduce that Trump is the informal nominee such as the subsection 2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Cancellation_of_state_caucuses_or_primaries. As to your side note on Lessig, your point is revisionist nonsense. Lessig was placed as a major candidate due to him being featured in a number of polls whilst he had declared his intention to run. In addition, he was a Harvard Law Professor, which is a more notable career than coaching 22 football games for a relatively low profile university. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 06:46, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

De La Fuente's Table

Why does Rocky De La Fuente get a table all to himself? I thought only major candidates got tables, and that consensus was that De La Fuente not one. In the same vein, why does he have his own column in the ballot access table? WittyRecluse (talk) 16:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I changed the Candidates section back to the way it was a few days ago. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:21, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Quite frankly, for NPOV purposes he should be included in the ballot access table. He already has greater ballot access than Walsh, and therefore will almost assuredly get a higher vote total than Walsh overall in the primaries.XavierGreen (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

If you looked at the 2016 Democratic candidates page, That's how he was listed. Ballot access changes things. It was decided back then that candidates that were on at least six states would get a listing like that. @david may have forgotten this, but I have not. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:07, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why a minor candidate should be included in the ballot access table. Being a minor candidate means that candidate won't affect the election, so they shouldn't be in the table. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Then we should get rid of Weld and Walsh as well. Walsh was elected to Congress once and therefore got a bunch of coverage because of that. He didn't bother applying to get on the ballot in Alabama and Arkansas. Rocky expended much more effort. The "winner take most" delegate allocation rules state that no one can get any delegates unless they get 15% of the vote and the winner gets less than 50%. So none of the challenges are going to get any delegates. We need Rocky on the ballot access table, (which, BTW, is only here because people were freaking out about my putting the number of states filed on the candidates' chart) because it's going to be converted into a results chart when the time comes. In fact, it WAS the results chart.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Weld and Walsh aren't minor candidates. But you already know that. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:10, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

No I don't. All I know is that President Trump has been informally endorsed by the RNC, and is considered by them as the unofficial nominee. I also know that Trump has already won a bunch of states and y'all won't formally acknowledge that.Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, we haven't formally acknowledged that because, as you put it, "President Trump has been informally endorsed by the RNC, and is considered by them as the unofficial nominee." Notice any formal endorsement there? Wikipedia isn't a gossip/speculation site, please stop treating it as such. Until such a time as results are confirmed, it is not our place to do so. This position has been stated and re-stated many times. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Arglebargle79 take a look here: Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

It is certainly easy to assume that De La Fuente "won't affect the election"; however I will note that in at least two past elections, he received enough votes that he may have affected the outcome (i.e., he got more votes than the gap between first and second, so if his votes had gone to the 2nd place finisher instead, the result would be different.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Bound delegates

Only Hawaii's delegates have been officially bound to Trump [28]; adding six other states and delegates from those states here: 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Declared major candidates is misleading. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:01, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colorado candidates

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

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

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

Augustus Sol Invictus

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

• Invictus has been arrested and is charged with kidnapping and domestic violence against his wife. He is currently being held in jail without bond. [29]
• His campaign website [30] now says only, "Invictus MMXX is currently offline. Thank you for your interest in the Invictus MMXX campaign. The campaign is currently offline."
• His Twitter account [31] has protected its tweets and no longer shows them to the general public.

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

De La Fuente edit war

I removed a mention of Rocky De La Fuente in this revision [32], but the IP address 190.6.91.194 undid my revision here:[33]. I looked at their edit history [34] and they've only edited info related to De La Fuente. It seems a little fishy. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

De La Fuente inclusion

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

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

De La Fuente is not a major candidate. As above with the media coverage, De La Fuente has not recieved anything close to substantial media coverage about his campaign, with the only articles being about his California suing of Trump about tax returns (which has gone away), press releases about the campaign (see ([[35]]) ) and an article from the Austin American-Statesman about non-major candidates, such as Bepis Cola ([[36]]). In addition, one of those making the edits is Angelafisher, who is mentioned by the ([[37]]) as something like his director of communications. The edits are purely promotional, by his campaign. In addition, his campaign contributions are almost entirely loans from himself, with only ~$6000 in individual contributions.For comparison, that's ~1/13 of Ojeda's total fundraising in double the time. Unless editors can demonstrate De La Fuente's campaign is well-known and considered serious by (a decent number of) media outlets, he is by definition a minor candidate. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 02:57, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

i.e.

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

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

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

Here's the edit where the criteria was removed by KingOpti101: [38] David O. Johnson (talk) 03:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

De La Fuente's campaign has been receiving an increase in media coverage lately. The Associated Press, Yahoo Finance, San Diego Union Tribute and others have had articles on his campaign since the last time this was discussed. See: [[39]], [[40]], [[41]]. His campaign is certaintly notable, given the lawsuits and the amount of money he is spending. I believe that at the very least his financials should be listed at the bottom of the page along with the other candidates, since major media outlets have reported on them.XavierGreen (talk) 15:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Steyer meets the 5 poll criterion, which qualifies him as a major candidate. Additionally, your claim that Steyer is not frequently mentioned in the media is false, here are 3 articles from the last 3 weeks that are mostly about Tom Steyer: [42], [43], [44], all from major news sources. I found these from just a quick Google search. De La Fuente, as mentioned above by XavierGreen, barely has spotty local coverage. If Steyer spends a considerable amount of his own money on his campaign, then that perhaps is a controversial aspect of his campaign, but by the poll criterion certainly and arguably the media criterion, although that is subjective, Steyer still is a major candidate, campaign finance issues notwithstanding. All of your arguments centered around De La Fuente's inclusion make note of things like the amount of money he has spent and primary ballot access, which are not important markers of a campaign unless the campaign has proven to be major in other aspects. Your concern is with the fact that De La Fuente has not held prior public office, has not been included in major polling, and has not received substantial media coverage, and thus fails to meet the qualifications for major candidacy. WittyRecluse (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

As NebuchadnezzarHammurabi noted earlier on the talk page [45], Angelalfisher (who made this promotional edit [46] and undid my reversion of it), certainly appears to be tied to the Rocky 2020 campaign: [47]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Including minor candidates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mississippi problem

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

De La Fuente and Tennessee

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