Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Remove Hillary Clinton (again)

A discussion broke out at the United States presidential election, 2020 talk page which was said should be moved here. With her aides saying she's mulling another run (oh boy), Clinton has not publicly announced interest. Here NYT said she'd like to be president, but expressed no interest in running in 2020. Her aides saying she will run is more speculative than her expressing interest, so wouldn't it make sense to move her to speculative rather than publicly expressed interest? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree speculative is a better fit for Clinton at this stage.--Pharos (talk) 06:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Her recent quotes are ambiguous enough to list her as "interested". Some other folks out there have made even more vague statements ("We'll see what happens" – Bob Casey Jr.). — JFG ^talk 10:15, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

She actually said she doesn't want to run. She was moved two steps, from 'declined' to 'interested', which seems like an overreaction. I think it would have been better to move one step, to 'speculative'.--Pharos (talk) 20:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, thanks for moving her there. — JFG ^talk 02:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I saw someone removed Hillary Clinton from the page entirely for some reason. I went to re-add her, and noticed our language is actually "have publicly denied interest in running", and that's definitely true for her, so I actually put her in 'declined' for now. Is there any way she doesn't actually fit our definition of 'declined'?--Pharos (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that will do nicely for now, until her next public appearance gets interpreted in various ways again. — JFG ^talk 20:10, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Major revisions, etc.

I moved most of the candidate list to the "candidates" article. the reason I did this is that, quite frankly, it's time. Also, much like the Republicans in 2016, there are a huge number of these folks, if it's anything like last time, the actual number of these schlubs is going to be in the thirties. That's why it's time for a split. Have the huge list of everyone and his sister in one article, and a truncated (but still huuuuuuuuuuuge) one here. We can then have room for when the cattle calls and formal debates are held. I'll create that article (unless someone beats me to it—which might be nice) for that sometime between now and January. Exactly how we should do this should be discussed below. Meanwhile don't revert, it'll only be reverted again followed by...you get the idea. Also, the final version will look nothing like it does now. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:27, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Such a move seems pretty arbitrary and premature; saying "it's time" isn't helpful when the Iowa caucuses (for example) don't start for at least another year. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

No, the Iowa caucuses don't END for at least another year. The simple fact is, is that the debates and cattle call forums are going to start in a matter of months. California and a few other states have decided to put forward their primaries to just after the first four (Iowa, NH, Nevada and SC) and with early voting, they're going to start in February. Unlike '16, where it was rigged for Hillary, the debates and such are going to be early and often. That's why I just created a polling article. We need to get ready.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

At least make sure the more serious campaigns are represented here too. Andrew Yang's 2020 campaign is gaining a lot of steam in the grassroots and should be here over say... Oscar De La Hoya. haha SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

More press coverage of Andrew Yang as a major candidate: [1] I'm inclined to re-add him as a "major candidate" and change "5 polls" to "5 major media profiles". power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Yang seems worth adding back in to me. luke (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Power~enwiki: The Atlantic piece is definitely not a major media profile, though it is a mention of him as a serious candidate in a major publication. Which do you mean?--Pharos (talk) 20:10, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I mean that if you find coverage of Michael Arth or Ken Nwadike of that sort, I'll support including them here as well. (if the "minor candidates" group gets put back it's not really a big deal; soon enough measures like fundraising and ballot access will be available). [2] is one major media profile; I know of more. There's no conceivable way that listing 5 references for every entry is a good idea, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

The NYT piece is definitely a "major profile" in the traditional sense of a major piece in a major publication. I couldn't find any others that would fit that definition journalistically, just fairly short blog and local pieces. If there are 4 others, I don't see them, though I agree he's a step above the others currently listed as minor candidates. I also agree Yang would probably make it on a fundraising criteria eventually.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Why have the "minor" candidates been removed from this page, when they're still on the general election article at 2020 United States presidential election#Democratic Party? Surely this article should have more detailed info than that one, not less.--Pharos (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

• I think the article is going in the wrong direction, in terms of setting the major candidate standard too low. Currently the "major candidate" section says, "The candidates in this section have held public office, have been included in a minimum of five independent national polls, or have been the subject of a major media profile". When did "one major media profile" ever get a consensus as a criterion to be a major candidate? And how do we define which media count as "major"? As far as I'm concerned, neither John Delaney, nor Richard Ojeda, nor Andrew Yang is a major candidate yet, since they haven't met the 5-poll criterion yet (although Delaney has been in 3 polls so far). If I weren't a Wikipedian, I would have probably not even be aware that Ojeda or Yang are even running for president. I would prefer to impose only the 5-poll criterion and thus demote Delaney, Ojeda, and Yang from major candidate status. If Ojeda or Yang gets listed in any independent national poll, much less gets invited to any Democratic Party-sanctioned debate, I will be quite surprised. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I still think we should remove the distinction between Major and Minor candidates. It would prevent situations like this in the future. WizardKing 16:57, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• On the contrary. When some actual major candidates get into the race, we're going to be more interested in distinguishing between those major candidates and the candidates who aren't listed in polls or invited to debates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• Removing all of the "minor" candidates to a secondary page when there are practically no "major" candidates yet has exacerbated the problem, as we arbitrarily decide whether someone is either a major candidate or banished from the page entirely.--Pharos (talk) 05:44, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• In light of the ongoing discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates where most of the comments have been to "merge", maybe we should be proactive and bring the minor candidates back for now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:23, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'd rather wait the 18 hours for that discussion to formally be closed than to do anything myself. The issues regarding Yang will disappear once that merge is done. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:37, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion for 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates fork

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates--Pharos (talk) 22:04, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Closed as consensus to merge back. — JFG ^talk 20:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft Movements

Hi all,

I have been following this topic for quite some time now, and one particular subject is that of "draft movements" for certain candidates. Would it be possible to include a section, or at least a paragraph listing these? Highlighting these grassroots movements is a fascinating topic, and I believe could further expand this page.

I am new to editing Wikipedia and hoped to post here instead of moving forward with it myself. Thank you.

For example: Draft Beto 2020, Ready For Schultz, Organizing For Bernie. Mainbasher (talk) 05:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not convinced, as none of these movements are notable in themselves yet, i.e. they do not have an independent Wikipedia article like Draft Eisenhower movement, and the news sources that are in-depth enough do not exist.--Pharos (talk) 04:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Individuals who have publicly expressed interest

Somebody had added to the heading for Individuals who have publicly expressed interest the sentence shown here in italics: "Individuals in this section have expressed an interest in running for president within the last six months. This has been reported in the mainstream media and they've been included in at least two major polls." I removed that sentence because (a) there was no consensus here (nor even a proposal on this talk page) to require 2 polls for a person to be listed as publicly expressing interest, and (b) the criterion was not being applied, as could be seen from the fact that Michael Bennet, Pete Buttigieg, Bob Casey Jr., Oscar De La Hoya, and others were on the list although they have been included in no major polls. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, this would disqualify way too many people on the existing list.--Pharos (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

If anybody wants to suggest a change of inclusion criteria, they should first lay out their case and get consensus on the talk page. Reverting was the right thing to do. — JFG ^talk 04:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Yang

What 5 polls was Yang included in to justify having him in the same table as the politicians..? Prcc27 (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• He hasn't been listed in any that I know of (see Opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2020 presidential primaries). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

• I agree. While he is a little more prominent than some of the other "minor" candidates, he is not nearly enough so to WP:IAR this, and we should keep to the letter of the criteria (whatever criteria we choose). The only type of person to IAR would be someone totally unexpected who would obviously gather a lot of support, like Michelle Obama.--Pharos (talk) 17:51, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I think WP:IAR should totally apply here. He started a fairly significant organization. He is a credible candidate, at least as much as Ojeda. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Agreed in this instance. He is being treated like a credible candidate (at least on the level of Delaney/Ojeda) and has recieved coverage by CNBC Multiple Times, The New York Times, The Hill, amongst the other major candidates, The Washington Times, Business Insider and Slate, amongst others. I think it's time to WP:IAR Yang, especially considering the current standings on Ojeda, and Yang's prominence amongst the proper minor candidates, who, out of all, I have only been seen mentioned as a political candidate in one news source, Lancaster Online, a local newspaper making a point about how many people are running (which also included Yang. I think Yang should be in the major candidates section - maybe as the WP:IAR, or maybe changing the criteria to include something about "covered by 5 major news sources" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk • contribs) 03:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed Yang from the list of major candidates. I see no source indicating that Yang has held office or been included in five independent national polls. Please do not revert without justification. SunCrow (talk) 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Pete Buttigieg Official Portrait.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Oscar De La Hoya

How can you say hes running as a democrat? He never said which political party he is running for, He just said he might run for president if the numbers are right, He never said he would run as a Democrat, He could run for a Independent, if he said hes running as a democrat, please give me the link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1AEF:DF00:BCAA:8145:DF5C:2126 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

He did say if he ran it would be as a Democrat, it's in several newspapers, for example The Washington Post].--Pharos (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Criterion of "have held public office" for "major candidate" and smaller constituencies

We might consider changing this criteria, especially if more state legislators or similar declare. One option would be to limit it to federal or statewide office or mayors of cities of a certain size. Richard Ojeda has about 100k constituents and John Delaney about 750k constituents, so there is a big difference, and it's quite conceivable that candidates with smaller constituencies might declare too.--Pharos (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• Once legitimate major candidates start getting into the race -- or maybe even now -- we should just impose the 5-poll criterion, and forget about the "held public office" criterion. I realize that in the Trump era, there can be routes to the White House other than the usual governor/senator/VP qualifications, but first a candidate has to get into the conversation to be considered along with the candidates who do have such qualifications. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:05, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the poll criteria should officially take effect as the lone source for major candidates on July 1, 2019; by that point, polling will undoubtedly have become much more common, and we'll have a decent number of candidates in five polls or more (plus a decent chunk of announced candidates). Until then, I think putting a limit to the candidates would be appropriate; featured in at least five polls, is/was mayor of a city that had at least 75,000 residents at any point during his/her tenure (other possible criteria to add on as well- the largest city in the state and/or the state capital), member of the United States Congress (be it current or former), member of the US Cabinet or a cabinet-level office, and Governor of a state. In terms of the billionaires and millionaires running, it's highly unlikely they won't be featured in polls if they gain traction. And minor candidates would keep their current criteria (though a note should be made if the candidate has been included in any national poll). Under this, Ojeda, Williamson, and Yang would all be minor candidates, while Delaney would be the sole major candidate. This is until someone else announces, which will likely come within the next few months. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 04:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the criterion of "mayor of a city that had at least 75,000 residents at any point during his/her tenure", I wouldn't want to create a situation where it looks like the criteria are being adjusted to ensure that certain candidates are getting preferences to be included or demerits to be excluded. (Only three U.S. Presidents have ever served as mayors, and all three of them went on to serve as state governors before becoming President.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good point. The mayor one I'd be fine with not including. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Another criteria we should seriously consider for mid-late 2019's major candidates is whether they get invited to any party-sponsored debates or forums. That's a sign of recognition by the party itself, and definitely signals how seriously they're taken. This rule may or may not get superseded if the criterion for getting into debates relies on polls, but if any minor candidate ever gets invited to one they should immediately be moved up to major regardless of how much presence they have. As it is now, though, the major candidate criteria should stay as it is in my opinion. If it becomes clear that the party or the media don't consider certain candidates significant, then we move them once we enforce the polls-debate criterion in July 2019. - EditDude (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

In the 2016 campaigns, the determination for getting into debates, in both parties, was primarily based on poll performance. (See [3] and [4], as well as [5]; there may have been some manipulation of the rules along the way, to keep Lawrence Lessig out of the Democratic debates or to get Carly Fiorina into the main Republican debate rather than the secondary debate, but nonetheless the determinations were tied to poll results.) I don't think there will be any significant risk of a candidate being invited into a party-sponsored debate without having been included in the polls. In fact, of the 22 candidates who were invited to a debate of either major party in 2015-16, 21 of them had been included in at least 5 polls before they even officially declared their candidacy -- and the 22nd, Jim Gilmore, had been included in 4 polls, and his 5th poll concluded on the day he declared his candidacy. I think it's more likely that a candidate might be included in 5 polls yet for some reason be excluded from their party's debates, as happened to Lessig. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

MoveOn straw poll

Not a scientific poll, but still possibly useful information: [6]. It demonstrates the difficulties in polling a field of 30 candidates. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:08, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Right; this is only a name recognition contest at this stage. — JFG ^talk 20:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Note that this is a member survey of subscribers to MoveOn, not an actual poll. Still it's interesting that O'Rourke is top despite being a mere Representative; and after him, highlighting the more marginal candidates, come Williamson, Ojeda, and then Delaney.--Pharos (talk) 03:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

An official list of candidates

The following is from DEMLIST, an official Newsletter of the Democratic party:

Although the numbers of candidates haven't shifted, the major players have. All are included in our update.

Long list of potential candidates

Potential 2020 Democratic Presidential Contenders Contenders (Potential) Background State (Home) The Rundown Joe Biden Former US Vice President (Obama) Delaware The former Vice President, 76, scores high in national polls, and garnered rave reviews during his national book tour, Promise Me, Dad about the loss of his son Beau to brain cancer. He was active in fundraising for candidates through his American Possibilities PAC but observers question whether he will take the plunge. Michael Bloomberg Founder & CEO of Bloomberg L.P., a global financial services, mass media, and software company New York The former New York Mayor, businessman and philanthropist, 76, teased the public with potential independent presidential runs in 2008, 2012 and, prior to his endorsement of Hillary Clinton, in 2016. He poured $80 million into electing Democratic candidates in 2018, and has an estimated networth of $51.7 billion. Most recent book: Climate of Hope: How Cities, Businesses, and Citizens Can Save the Planet (2017) Cory Booker US Senator (elected 2013) New Jersey Booker's meteoric rise from a mayor of Newark, NJ (2006-2013) to US Senator and national figure puts him on everyone's list. The 49 year-old toured key candidate and primary states through 2018. His book: United: Thoughts on Finding Common Ground and Advancing the Common Good (2016) Sherrod Brown US Senator (elected 2006) Ohio Brown, 66, was on the shortlist for Clinton's 2016 running mate. Ohio, which Trump won in 2016, is a critical battleground state and Brown safely won reelection in November. His progressive, populist politics and strong labor support paint an appealing picture. Julián Castro Former Housing and Urban Development Secretary under Obama Texas Castro, 44, was on Hillary Clinton's VP shortlist. The former San Antonio mayor first drew national attention as the first Hispanic to deliver the keynote at a Democratic Convention (2012). He launched the Opportunity First PAC this year, has been hitting key presidential primary states, and is expected to announce a decision soon. His book: An Unlikely Journey: Waking Up from My American Dream (2018) John Delaney Congressman (elected 2012) Maryland The three-term Congressman from Maryland, and author of The Right Answer, officially declared his presidential candidacy in July of 2017. The 55 year-old millionaire and entrepreneur has since visited all 99 counties in Ohio and shows no sign of slowing down. Kirsten Gillibrand US Senator (elected 2010) New York The 52 year-old, who succeeded Hillary Clinton in the Senate, is a leading voice on women's rights and has a PAC, Off The Sidelines, which recruits and supports women candidates for office. Her public tangling with Trump has raised her profile, and her ability to go toe-to-toe against the terrible tweeter. She starts her book tour for Bold and Brave: Ten Heroes Who Won Women the Right to Vote" next year. Kamala Harris US Senator (elected in 2016) California The freshman Senator, 54, is a visible member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and a vocal Trump opponent. Harris, who actively raised funds for candidates during the midterms, is considered a top contender. The first US Senator of Jamaican and Indian descent, Harris' book, The Truths We Hold: An American Journey, will be released in January. California's early March primary is a major plus for anyone running from the state. Eric Holder Former US Attorney General (Obama) New York The former US Attorney General, who now leads the important National Democratic Redistricting Committee, has touted his resume as a non-politician during his own swing through early primary states. His book, Pursuing Justice is due out in 2020. Amy Klobuchar US Senator (elected 2006) Minnesota Klobuchar, 58, was reelected last month by a 24 point spread in the heart of the Midwest which will be crucial to a 2020 victory. The pragmatic and popular Senator has been a frequent visitor to Iowa, and is more centrist than many of the other contenders. Her 2015 memoir: The Senator Next Door: A Memoir from the Heartland. Terry McAuliffe Governor (elected 2013) Virginia A popular former Governor of Virginia, McAuliffe, 60, a former DNC and Presidential Campaign Chair, and successful businessman, is known as an inexhaustible political and fundraising force. He dedicated his midterm efforts to electing Democratic governors under the auspices of the National Democratic Redistricing Committee, headed by Obama and Holder. A new PAC, "Tenaciously Moving for American Change in 2020" (playing on McAuliffe's "TMac" nickname) was formed in October to encourage him to run. Beto O'Rourke Congressman (elected 2012) Texas O'Rourke became a phenomenon with his unsuccessful bid to unseat Republican Senator Ted Cruz, losing by just three points and, in the process, raising $70 million. The charismatic 46 year-old infused much-needed young blood into the national political scene, prompting a call for him to run for higher office. He tops the most recent poll among progressives. Bernie Sanders US Senator (elected 2006) Vermont With the launch last week of "Organizing for Bernie" by senior staffers from his 2016 run presidential run, Sanders appears closer to a 2020 bid. Officially an Independent, the 76 year-old veteran Senator has continued to lead from the left through his Our Revolution movement, but many fear would split progressive support fellow New Englander Elizabeth Warren. His last book, Where We Go from Here: Two Years in the Resistance came out this year. Howard Schultz Starbucks Founder & Former CEO Washington State Schultz's retirement in June as Chair of Starbucks, and the build up of a PR team that includes Trump critic and former John McCain advisor Steve Schmidt, has increased speculation he will run. His book From the Ground Up: A Journey to Reimagine the Promise of America" is due out in February. As a non-politician with an estimated network of $2.6 billion he could prove to be a formidable contender. Elizabeth Warren US Senator (elected 2012) Massachusetts Warren, 68, is at the top of many presidential picks list and a darling of the national progressive community. A proven fighter and Trump foe, she was fundraising on behalf of candidates nationwide, and has been reaching out in early presidential primary states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. Most significantly she is openly building a campaign infrastructure, with 50+ people on her payroll and hunting for a HQ in Boston. Other names in play include US Senators Jeff Merkley (OR), Chris Murphy (CT), Amy Klobuchar (MN), Governors John Hickenlooper (CO), Steve Bullock (MT), Jay Inslee (WA) and Martin O'Malley (MD), Congresspersons Tulsi Gabbard (HI-2), Seth Mouton (MA-6), Joe Kennedy III (MA-4), Tim Ryan (OH-13) and Eric Swalwell (CA-15). Also included are Mayors Eric Garcetti (Los Angeles) and Peter Buttigieg (South Bend), former Mayor Mitch Landrieu (New Orleans) and attorney Michael Avenatti. Former 2004 Presidential candidate John Kerry has also been mentioned, but unlikely to throw his hat in the ring. Those who have taken themselves out of the running include New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, former VP Candidate and US Senator Tim Kaine, former Massachusetts Deval Patrick, businessman and philanthropist Tom Steyer, actor Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson, and media mogul Oprah Winfrey. Latest Standings An early straw poll of members of the liberal group, MoveOn, shows the fight for the progressive vote is still wide open. Among the 30 candidates cited in the poll, Beto O'Rourke (15.6%) narrowly edges out Joe Biden (14.95%), followed by Bernie Sanders (13.15%), Kamala Harris (10.02%), Elizabeth Warren (6.42%), Sherrod Brown (2.92%), Amy Klobuchar (2.75%), Michael Bloomberg (2.71%) and Cory Booker (2.63%). 17.89% were undecided or preferred someone else.

Maybe we could use it...Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have collapsed the full text that you copied from the newsletter. Do you have a publicly-accessible URL for this? It does not seem to add any information not already covered in the article, but we could certainly cite it as a snapshot of Dem Party thinking as of today. — JFG ^talk 18:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. The website is: [7] Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:01, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

The 5 poll threshold

Since some here, including me, have been talking about imposing a 5-poll threshold for a candidate who has declared to be considered a "major" candidate, I've put together a list of which (potential) candidates have met that minimum, and for other actual or potential candidates, how many national polls they have been included in so far.

Included in at least 5 polls: Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, Beto O'Rourke, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Oprah Winfrey.

4 polls: Michael Avenatti, Steve Bullock, John Delaney.

3 polls: Julian Castro, Eric Garcetti, Tom Steyer.

2 polls: John Kerry, Mitch Landrieu, Howard Schultz, Mark Zuckerberg.

1 poll: Mark Cuban, Al Franken, John Hickenlooper, Jay Inslee, Jason Kander, Chris Murphy, Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama.

Notes: This covers all national Democratic primary polls listed at Opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries through the CNN/SSRS poll taken Dec. 6-9, 2018. A couple of polls, for some reason, included "category" choices, such as "A governor, like Terry McAuliffe of Virginia, Steve Bullock of Montana or John Hickenlooper of Colorado" or "A cultural figure like Tom Hanks or Dwayne 'the Rock' Johnson", as choices. I didn't count the people listed in categories like that toward the poll totals. And like an astrology column, this is presented for entertainment value only. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I think the "5 poll threshold" is fatally flawed, but don't have a better suggestion yet. At some point in 2019 we will hopefully be able to piggy-back off of the debate thresholds, or come up with a threshold based on FEC fundraising data and campaign staff/events. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you mean that the "5 poll threshold" is too restrictive (keeps too many candidates out), or too loose (lets too many candidates in), or possibly some of both? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Both. While it's a 30-person field we will certainly drop people as a result. Once we get some winnowing, the Jim Gilmore-like candidates will still be considered major, even when they have no chance, no real campaign, and are not even listed on ballots. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The WSJ [8] says Two major candidates have already entered the race. Rep. John Delaney (D., Md.) has been running for more than a year and already visited every Iowa county. Julián Castro, a former housing secretary, formed a presidential exploratory committee last week and is expected to formally announce his candidacy next month., ignoring Ojeda. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:17, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The DNC has anounced what THEIR criteria will be will be anounced next month. Let's bring back the candidates page and list all the other candidates on THAT one,(plus the noncandidates who have been mentioned) and have only the top ones here.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

These examples definitely show that you should only have a one poll threshold. DaCashman (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm updating my prior list. This is through the Morning Consult poll of Jan. 4-6, 2019.

Included in at least 5 polls: Joe Biden, Michael Bloomberg, Cory Booker, Sherrod Brown, Steve Bullock, Julian Castro, Hillary Clinton, Andrew Cuomo, John Delaney, Eric Garcetti, Kirsten Gillibrand, Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, John Kerry, Amy Klobuchar, Terry McAuliffe, Beto O'Rourke, Deval Patrick, Bernie Sanders, Howard Schultz, Elizabeth Warren, Oprah Winfrey.

4 polls: Michael Avenatti, John Hickenlooper, Tom Steyer.

3 polls: Mark Zuckerberg.

2 polls: Jay Inslee, Mitch Landrieu, Gavin Newsom, Michelle Obama.

1 poll: Mark Cuban, Bill de Blasio, Al Franken, Jason Kander, Tim Kaine, Joe Kennedy III, Chris Murphy, Eric Swalwell.

Notably not polled yet, although I expect that to change: Tulsi Gabbard. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:11, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Let's split off the "candidates section" and leave it truncated here

As I wasn't informed that the Democratic Candidates, 2020" article" was destroyed and redirected here, I wish to formally discuss why that was and why I wasn't informed about it. There is no actual reason mentioned on the discussion as to why, except that there is (or rather WAS) a short list here while the whole humongous 175 person list (including around 50 who have said that they weren't running) was in the other article and has now been returned to muck up this one here. NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!

Had I been informed of this travesty, I would have given the following arguments:

• It's not too early. There are at least 30 "Qualified" candidates with PACs running around and this particular article should be limited only to THEM, with the other article having the entire list of NEVER-Candidates or SPECULATIVE candidates or what have you to the other article.
• This one needs ROOM, NOW. There are going to be debates and forums. The tentative Schedule was released by the DNC yesterday. Half a dozen major hopefuls have already announced that they will make a decision of their candidacy NEXT MONTH. That means that the timeline, before IT's split off, will start getting longer an longer and will wind up being unmanageable on this page by the end of March. This is not WP:Crystal, because that's what happened last time, and I presume, the time before.
• There is going to be lots and lots of changes in the next month or two and we need to get ready. We don't need wasted bandwith.

Unless you guys can give me a really good reason to keep all that muck HERE, I want to bring back the article because it's necessary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

First, there was a week-long discussion. Second, it is WP:CRYSTAL, because we can't put "most of these people will likely announce next month" in the article now, we need to wait until next month when they actually announce. Third, the photos of "people not running" are kind of ridiculous, but they'll be equally ridiculous on any other page. The other candidates really all do need to be mentioned here. Finally, the page isn't too long; it's only 90KB now and can get to about 200KB before a split is really necessary. The debates/forums in 6 months don't require space now. Removing some of the silly galleries will decrease total page bandwidth. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, I did most of the early editing on that article and I was not informed of the discussion. I then read it and there was no real discussion. So let's start it from scratch, okay?

Good. The pictures of the non-candidates are people who have been mentioned in the media and were forced by the chatter to say that they weren't running. Therefore they don't belong HERE, and they're superfluous and waste space. I have blanked that section. But they would be part of the Candidates page because a candidates page would be inclusive of everybody, but this is not, nor should it be. Last cycle, I was overruled about having candidates listed on this page who in fact had received tens of thousands of votes in several primaries. However, the were on the candidates page. The same with the speculative possibilities. While most of them have PACs of some sort, none of them have said that they're interested and really aren't running for everything. Why have THEM here if they're not candidates? That superfluous section also takes up bandwidth and looks silly. So let's get rid of that to...but wait, there's a possibility that two or three of these people will actually run. So we can put this gallery in the separate candidates page for the time being. It's an excellent place for an inclusive list of everyone who is running, has thought about running or has been thought about as running. Why don't we have one of those? We did, but someone for some reason decided that...I'm appealing the decision...Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC) AS I cannot find the "reverse a merge" page anywhere, I guess I'll have to review and refute the discussion here: (BTW, I apologize for the rant, but I hate injustice)

This is entirely a duplicate of the candidate sections in 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. It serves no purpose and is confusing to maintain. Only the section about "declined" candidates is separate content, and that was considered not notable enough to keep at the main article. Useless WP:CFORK. — JFG talk 19:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Wrong, this is not entirely a duplicate of anything. It's close, but there will, and IS more information here than in the Primaries article.

This was followed by practically no discussion:

   Merge it back at least for the next six months, there is too much overlap.--Pharos (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2018 (UTC) Why? The Speculative and "declined" galleries would only be found on the candidtes page and the rest wouldn't be in galleries, but a chart.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
   I vote for a Merge as well. The candidate section is also listed here: 2020 United States presidential election#Democratic Party. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:11, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but only a tiny fraction of them. We need an easily accessible and inclusive article as part of a series of articles that exist already and are listed in the sidebar found on the right upper corner of the articles.Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
   Merge for now. We can later discuss on talk page whether the article needs to be restored or re-written. Orientls (talk) 05:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC) Let's do it NOW!!!!! It's important. Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
   Merge for the time being at least. I agree with all the comments above.Bob from the Beltway (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
   Merge. The page holds info that would be better suited as part of 2020 United States presidential election. WillPeppers (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
   Merge per above. No information in the article that cannot be listed at the Democratic primary page. Tillerh11 (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2018 (UTC) Yeah, but it doesn't look good, especially since we need space for the timeline sectionArglebargle79 (talk) 01:23, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, I apologize for being a bit of a pest here, but I wasn't informed of something I should have been, and we NEED that article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

For the record, here's a link to the discussion on merging the Democratic 2020 candidates article: [9]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Right now Williamson is listed in the exploratory committee section. If (or perhaps when) she formally announces, will she be listed with the minor candidates? If there isn't already consensus on this I would argue that she should be in the minor candidates' section, given that she has not held public office and has received minimal media coverage.Jacoby531 (talk) 06:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)Jacoby531

The major candidates section requires that the candidate "have held public office or have been included in a minimum of five independent national polls," which I'm pretty sure doesn't qualify for. The minor candidates section requires that they be notable as defined by Wikipedia:Notability, so basically if they have a Wikipedia page. So unless she gets included in 5 polls or is appointed representative or something, then she'll get put in the minor section. --pluma♫ ♯ 02:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Hickenlooper (& Bennet too)

Not sure if anyone noticed this yet, but John Hickenlooper isn't listed as formally exploring a candidacy, despite there being several sources saying that he's staffing up for one and even directly involving himself in interviews. Below I'll link the AP report as well as the CBS article I originally read this in. I think he's worth adding to those formally exploring with these developments.

AP Report

CBS Article

Hate to be the Big Colorado Pedant, but Bennet is also listed in the Speculative category despite publicly expressing interest (or at the very least deliberation) only a few weeks ago: Bennet Interest

I think both these fellas should be re-categorised, but I'mmma leave that up to the big guns.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by HDarby (talk • contribs) 09:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

a word about "Leadership PACs"

A leadership PAC is a legalized slush fund or a permanent campaign committee. It can be used to keep staff paid and airline tickets bought for whatever the person is thinking of running for. Leadership PACS allow presidential wannabees to do all sorts of fundraising and organizing without actually having to say exactly what it's for.

Most of the people on the "interested" list have one of these things and they're staffing up and raising lots of money as we speak. It's all about plausible deniability. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Oop, She's Runnin'

This should be added to the timeline and calls for a change in our declared major candidates:

Liz Warren's Running!

Make sure y'all confirm this and that it's not just the NYT jumping on the exploratory as an "announcement," but I can't totally say I'm surprised/I'll be surprised if she has officially entered the running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HDarby (talk • contribs) 12:45, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

• The article says, "In an email to supporters on Monday — 13 months before votes will be cast in Iowa — Ms. Warren said she was forming an exploratory committee, which allows her to raise money and fill staff positions before a formal start of her presidential bid." So that puts her in the exploratory category, not the declared candidate category, for the time being. When she officially declares, we can move her to the declared major candidate category. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Martin O'Malley declines

Prefers Beto. Official announcement at https://twitter.com/MartinOMalley/status/1080834113760886784 for linkage into the declined section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Exploring and Announcement Impending

In 2016, when a candidate began formally exploring, a note was made on what they using to explore. The following were used: -PAC (specifically stated by the candidate that it's purpose is for a Presidential campaign) -Exploratory committee -Testing the Waters Account -527 Organization Currently, Warren, Williamson, and Castro have exploratory committees while Inslee has a testing the waters account (via ). What're the thoughts on including a note on what they're using? Here's what it could look like in the galleries for 2020 candidates:

• 
  Former Secretary
  Julian Castro
  from Texas
  Formed an exploratory committee
• 
  Governor
  Jay Inslee of Washington
  Formed a "Testing the Waters Account"
• 
  U.S. Senator
  Elizabeth Warren
  from Massachusetts
  Formed an exploratory committee
• 
  Marianne Williamson
  from California
  Formed an exploratory committee

Also- in 2016 when a candidate's announcement was impending, we put them in a different section (titled simply Announcement Impending). This would only feature candidates who'd publicly announced when they'll make their decision or who received a massive amount of media about the date they'll officially announce their intentions. Since Castro is the only one who's said anything about a date, this is what his would look like:

• 
  Former Secretary
  Julian Castro
  from Texas
  Announcement expected on or by January 12

References

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 06:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

• Since we have a list of candidates in that section immediately above the photo gallery, if the information you want to put in regarding testing the waters accounts and so forth goes anywhere, it should go in the list, not the photo gallery captions. We should keep the photo gallery captions simpler. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Marianne Williamson has never held public office, although she ran for Congress in 2014. Assuming that she confirms that she is running for President in her announcement on January 28, will she be considered a major or minor candidate? Political Geek (talk) 23:23, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The WP:CRYSTAL answer is that she will be a major candidate; both the Des Moines Register and the Washington Post are treating her as if she will be one. I expect that the polling criteria will be met at some point, though it isn't now. Without a massive amount of press coverage, I expect initial consensus here will be to list her as a minor candidate. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Elimination of declared minor candidates

I feel that the list of declared minor candidates is not necessary, and the candidates do not have a path to the nomination. I know that traditionally these types of candidates are listed, but I feel that this list clutters up the article. I was thinking that possibly we could have a separate page of all minor candidates instead. Thoughts? Political Geek (talk) 22:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Notable minor candidates are listed on every page for every election since the beginning of representative democracy (where the data is available). I think it's a bit awkward currently that the minor candidates are above the major almost-declared candidates like Warren, but this is a prominence issue that we can probably adjust if desired.--Pharos (talk) 22:32, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Mark Cuban

should be moved from Declined to the Publicly expressed interest section. Cuban The links supporting declined are from March 2017 or earlier.Simon12 (talk) 03:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I moved him to the right section. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This citation, however, says that Mark Cuban wouldn't run as a Democrat, so shouldn't he be removed from this page (or placed back in the declined to be candidates section) and be put into the Republican Party's publicly expressed interest section? SCC California (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

I missed the note in the link that he wouldn't run as a Democrat. I see he's been deleted completely. Not sure about that, but agree he shouldn't be in expressed interest section.Simon12 (talk) 22:35, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Should we move Kamala Harris into the impending declaration category,due to the fact that she stated that she will make an announcement by MLK Day.Alhanuty (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

A reporter for Politico has disputed this: Harris will not be announcing her candidacy at an Oakland rally on MLK weekend, per a person close to her. A formal announcement date is not settled, they said. [10] . power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

What about this one.Alhanuty (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2019 (UTC) https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/424674-kamala-harris-to-enter-presidential-race-on-or-around-mlk-day-report?fbclid=IwAR19HsxgjE_5vYNRwABSftPDrKrSOi-erN8l9zwfNwAAJ88ev-ZiU-_UxM4

It says she will "probably" make an announcment "on or around MLK Day". Which isn't enough for Announcement Pending, IMO. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay,then. :) Alhanuty (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Can this be changed in the text to read "January 19-21, 2019"? MLK Day is on 1/21, not 1/19. Given that she has not given a date certain but only MLK Day weekend (or day), it makes better sense to have a range. Just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard

Gabbard has only said that she will be making an announcement and has not formally announced yet, so she shouldn't be listed on "Declared major candidates" until she makes a formal announcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie950 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Problem is you can only put it under "scheduled an announcement" if there's a specific date. And she hasn't announced an exploratory committee. But it would be misleading to put her in just "publicly expressed interest." Let's just let the week go by with that blemish, IMO. DaCashman (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I would second DaCashman with the caveat that we should put a note saying that she has not formally announced her candidacy. I will go ahead and do that but it can be reverted if there is disagreement. SCC California (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

She scheduled her announcement for an indefinite date, so I think we should move her to the announcement column. We don't have to know the date to put her in that column. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Despite this, I feel that her 2020 campaign website makes it extremely clear that she is currently running and would recommend she be brought back into the declared major candidates section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RajanAwasthi127 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that we should consider January 11, 2019 to have been the date the campaign was announced, not January 17. That is more accurately the date of her official launch. Look at Hillary Clinton 2016 presidential campaign, we consider the April 12 video announcement to have been the date she announced her campaign not the June 13, 2015 campaign launch rally.
Also, from what I understand, the FEC will generally consider you a declared candidate the moment you publicly say words like "I am running for president", "I am a candidate for president", "I am announcing that I am running for president", "I am declaring that I will be running for president", "I have decided to run for president", etc. Per a recent NBC article,

Once someone says the magic words, "I'm running for president," the person almost instantly becomes a candidate in the eyes of the Federal Election Commission, which means they then have to file paperwork with the agency and start accounting for every dollar raised and spent, all of which has to be publicly disclosed.

She has already publicly said the words "I have decided to run". SecretName101 (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Eric Holder

I don't see anything recent about Holder running, but he is having an event in Iowa next month, so there's a decent chance there are more recent rumors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda campaign logo

Richard Ojeda has a campaign logo (seen here); can someone upload that here and put it into his candidacy's section? Sorry, I don't yet know how to d that. SCC California (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Nevermind, it had already been uploaded. SCC California (talk) 03:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

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

• Joseph Sanberg 2019.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Michael E. Arth

Michael E. Arth is not eligible for the presidency since he wasn't born in the USA. Thus he shouldn't simply be grouped with the other self-declared candidates. Kennelly (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Do we know if he is a natural born citizen? He could be like Ted Cruz where he's a US citizen by birth even though he was born outside of the country. From his Wikipedia page, it's not clear if either of his parents were US citizens. Does anyone happen to know? Jacoby531 —Preceding undated comment added 18:58, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

• Arth's autobiography says that both his parents were U.S. citizens, thus making him a natural born citizen despite being born in England. I've added a mention of this to his article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:24, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Yang

Personally, I think he should be considered a major candidate in light of his business experience. More of a major candidate than Ojeda. Thoughts? --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to copy-paste what I said about Yang from above, as I feel it encapsulates my argument for Yang's inclusion well: He is being treated like a credible candidate (at least on the level of Delaney/Ojeda) and has recieved coverage by CNBC Multiple Times, The New York Times, The Hill, amongst the other major candidates, The Washington Times, Business Insider and Slate, amongst others. I think it's time to WP:IAR Yang, especially considering the current standings on Ojeda, and Yang's prominence amongst the proper minor candidates, who, out of all, I have only been seen mentioned as a political candidate in one news source, Lancaster Online, a local newspaper making a point about how many people are running (which also included Yang. I think Yang should be in the major candidates section - maybe as the WP:IAR, or maybe changing the criteria to include something about "covered by 5 major news sources" or something like that. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• This is absurd, you can't IAR a presidential campaign. Yang (like Williamson) will only be listed as major candidate if he is either in five national polls or we agree to change the criteria.--Pharos (talk) 04:26, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• You may think that the criterion should be changed, but it hasn't yet, so don't just define it yourself and change the page to fit that. This is a prominent page, and people could just make up whatever rules they want to ensure that their favorite candidates get included in the major candidates section. I agree that the current criterion doesn't work perfectly, and maybe Andrew Yang should be included, but please don't make these changes based on your own preference only; instead, please wait for a consensus to be reached. For the record, I would be glad to "vote" for adding being covered by some number (maybe more than five) of major news sources (or five major polls or having held public office) as long as there is a reasonable definition of "major news source." SCC California (talk) 04:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• I didn't edit to put him in the major candidates section, that was AndInFirstPlace, I just laid out reasoning to treat him as a major candidate, or at least on the level of Ojeda, as he has been treated as such by major news networks. If he isn't in 5 polls, than the criteria is flawed. He's not a perennial, he has a detailed platform laid out, a decent following, and as such, i think it's disingenuous to put him on the level of Wells, Braun etc. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 04:40, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• You make a better argument for the exclusion of Ojeda than for the inclusion of Yang. Yang is similar to Williamson, and both should only be included if they start getting included in national polls or if we develop a new objective criteria. As I said above, IAR should only be reserved for someone like Michelle Obama, an unexpected entrant who would obviously become a major candidate immediately.--Pharos (talk) 01:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

• I don't want us to manipulate the rules to bring candidates in or move them out of the "major candidates" category, and it sounds like that is being suggested here. Using "covered by 5 major news sources" as a criterion would be too subjective, in that (a) we probably won't be able to agree on what news sources count as "major", and (b) we probably won't be able to agree on what constitutes being "covered". The New York Times profile of Yang would count as being "covered" by any reasonable standard, but The Hill article cited above devotes only 2 sentences to Yang, and I wouldn't count that as being truly "covered". I agree that if we weren't using our existing criteria, Andrew Yang should be considered pretty much on the same level as Richard Ojeda -- but I think that would be the level of minor candidates who have no chance, haven't been polled, aren't going to be polled, and aren't going to be included in the Democratic Party debates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:17, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like we’re generally in favor! --130.132.173.125 (talk) 07:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Oppose. We can't just arbitrarily move the goal posts so they fit a certain candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

We damn well can move the goal posts. This is an encyclopedia article, not a contest to get 5 public polls. If reliable sources generally consider him a major candidate (and it's definitely close), we should list him. If there seems to be general support but a few objections based on the rules, I'll call an RFC to get rid of those rules. No set of rules will work for a three-year period here, and it's ridiculous to expect them to. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

• If you are looking at the sources that consider Yang a major candidate, you should also consider the sources that list lots of actual and potential candidates but don't mention Yang at all as indicators that he might not be a major candidate. See, for example, Rolling Stone (ranks 28 contenders, no mention of Yang); FiveThirtyEight (discusses 17 Democratic contenders, no mention of Yang); New York (mentions 19 contenders, no mention of Yang). In addition, the DNC is supposed to announce by the end of this month the criteria by which candidates are supposed to be invited to the presidential debates. To the extent that those criteria are objective (hopefully they will be, but I can imagine that they might not be), we may be able to use those criteria as our determiners for whether a candidate is major or not. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
• I'm not an American, but the 5 poll criterion seems reasonable to me. I agree with Metropolitan90 that "covered by 5 major news sources" seems too arbitrary considering the difficulty defining what "coverage" and what "major news source" means. (Yes we do consider coverage for WP:Notability but even there it can be difficult at times and more to the point, our standards are a lot more relaxed.) We should consider IAR where appropriate, but this doesn't seem to arise here. Remember this is also only a timing issue, it's inconceivable that someone could be a genuinely major candidate and not meet the poll requirement after a while. And as significant as wikipedia is, I also find it inconceivable that someone would go on to win the nomination, if only they had been included in this article. Nil Einne (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • By the end of April, we can probably use Q1 fundraising numbers as a criteria (and media outlets certainly will). It would be good to note somehow that Yang is running a bona fide campaign, as opposed to some of the people listed in the "minor candidates" section. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:07, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed Yang from the list of major candidates. I see no source indicating that Yang has held office or been included in five independent national polls. Please do not revert without justification. SunCrow (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's been reverted again. Andrew Yang is not a major candidate as he does not meet the office or poll criteria. This applies to everyone, no matter the person. Until Yang is included in five national polls or somehow holds office, he is not a major candidate. Please do not revert. wxtransit talk 18:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• Official Portrait of Governor Jay Inslee.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Gillibrand to announce exploratory committee tonight

on the Late Show. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/kirsten-gillibrand-to-announce-presidential-exploratory-committee/ FYI, for her to be added to the exploratory section once this occurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.246.254.12 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Yang should be under Declared major candidates

This is either canvassing or socking. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:04, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

he’s held public office, he worked under obama, he should be considered a primary candidate Metalreflectslime (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Strong agree --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I'm considering becoming an admin to help make this possible. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 01:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC) That's not what admins do here. Jonathunder (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2019 (UTC) That's not correct. :) --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Being an admin has hardly anything to do with content disputes like this. What you are looking for is consensus in favor of establishing that Yang is a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I don't think that "ambassador for global entrepreneurship" is what most people have in mind when they talk about a "public office". That position isn't an elected position; it's not a Senate-confirmed position; I don't even think it's a paid position. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:46, 16 January 2019 (UTC) "Ambassador for global entrepreneurship," while notable, is an award and not a position, so I don't think it counts as having held public office. I wouldn't be surprised if he gets included in 5 public polls though. --pluma♫ ♯ 03:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC) https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/president/?election_year=2020&cycle=2020&election_full=true&party=DEM He is ranked 2nd here. Metalreflectslime (talk) 03:37, 16 January 2019 (UTC) I think User:Metalreflectslime is making an excellent point here, being ranked 2nd place in terms of the amount of campaign contributors suggests that Yang is very suitable to be included in declared major candidates list.SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Except that #1 is a longshot congressman (a "major" candidate but very far from a frontrunner) and #3 isn't even notable enough to have a Wikipedia article.--Pharos (talk) 04:22, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Well according to Tom Perez the head of the DNC, the criteria to make it on the debate stage is; "In addition to meeting the filing and constitutional requirements to run for President of the United States, candidates will qualify for the first two debates by meeting criteria that include both polling and other objective measures that reflect a candidate’s support, such as grassroots fundraising." This shows that both Delaney and Yang probably deserve to be on the declared major candidates because they've raised the most at the moment. As for other objective measures Yang has been on major podcasts like Sam Harris, Freakonomics and is growing his base of followers all the time on social media (33K on Twitter).SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 07:30, 16 January 2019 (UTC) Um, are people seriously suggesting someone with only 33K followers on Twitter is already a major candidate? I also see from the subject's article "In December 2018, Andrew Yang was included in the first polling by CNN of caucus voters in Iowa. 5% of respondents viewed him favorably, 12% viewed him unfavorably and 83% were not sure who he was" (emphasis added). As for the fundraising thing it actually seems reasonable although the quote above doesn't actually say how it will be measured. Relative position could be one factor, but how many? Anyway more significantly, all this seems to say is that the DNC are developing criteria which will work close to the primary but don't work at the moment. I haven't checked myself but it's noted above that the 3rd person doesn't even have a wikipedia article. Also I mentioned "relative position" for a reason. If the DNC were to choose a threshold, it seems unlikely to me "less than $600,000" would cut it considering presidential campaigns in the US seem to cost hundreds of millions. Again, this likely reflects the fact it's too early for relative positions to be a clearly useful measure measure. Noting also the first person in the list has raised nearly 10x. (Yes early money isn't everything, as the 2016 campaigns showed, but it's still a very big difference.) Nil Einne (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Sources

What does socking mean in this context?

Metalreflectslime (talk) 03:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Can we get an answer here? There should be an open debate as to who fits the criteria and what the criteria should even be. How is this "socking" or "canvassing" and what does those mean in this context?--SkullKnight1189284 (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Big support for Yang in major declared. I have moved it and would like it to stay there. Seems like the people (even if not the admins!) are with me. --AndInFirstPlace (talk) 17:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I removed Yang from the list of major candidates. I do not see the talk page support referred to above. More importantly, I see no source indicating that Yang has held office or been included in five independent national polls. Please do not revert without justification. SunCrow (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Kirsten Gillibrand - Running/Exploring/Impending?

I think Kirsten Gillibrand is falling into a complicated middle ground here. Her website states she is "preparing to run for President" and last night on the Late Show she said she will be running for President. She has formed an exploratory committee but she has already decided to run.

The provided source next to her candidacy links to the Late Show.

Technically speaking, she probably does not belong in the candidates list because she is not officially running, yet. I'm OK with a standard that says one who says they will run is a candidate, but is that what we are going with?

If not, we should probably put her in exploring. We should include a note saying she has stated she intends to run or something similar.ObieGrad (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

I personally think that if a candidate has publicly and definitively announced that they will be running and have a running campaign website, then listing them with declared candidates (even if they are not officially declared candidates) makes the most sense because they are, for all practical purposes, in the race. They did the same thing with Tulsi Gabbard when she informally but publicly announced her candidacy. SCC California (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

If she is exploring a run, then she is exploring a run. That's where she currently goes, IMO. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

It's an exploratory committee [11]. She should be listed there. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:16, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Correct. That's what the section is for. Jonathunder (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhian2040: Pinging user to loop them in this discussion. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

She has announced during an event, you can watch it here --> https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/now-2020-candidate-gillibrand-builds-campaign-gender-60423209

That source you cite states: "But Gillibrand, who announced the creation of a presidential exploratory committee Tuesday on CBS' "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert", meaning she still goes in the "formally exploring" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:00, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

@Rhian2040: has violated WP:1RR on this issue and is close to 3RR. Jonathunder (talk) 23:17, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Like I said, Gabbard and Gillibrand have DECLARED. It says DECLARED, not formally declared

Gillibrand is not yet past the exploratory committee stage, while Gabbard has an announcement pending. Do you mind signing your comments? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What is the point in waiting for Gabbard's "official" announcement. Clearly, she already announced it. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gabbard has an announcement pending. When the facts change, we'll be justified in changing her status. David O. Johnson (talk) 07:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Gillibrand announced on January 15 (https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/15/kirsten-gillibrand-i-am-going-to-run-for-president-in-2020.html). I moved Gillibrand to the declared candidates section. SunCrow (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The intro you cite states "The New York Democrat says she is launching an exploratory committee for a White House run." She's still exploring a run at this point. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree, not running yet. She will make an actual announcement later, and that will be a milestone that gets covered too.--Pharos (talk) 18:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Ojeda and Campaign HQs.

Keeping this simple and to-the-point: should we consider the "home state" column as where the candidate has held office or where the candidate's campaign is being run? When it comes to candidates with no government experience, we use the latter.

In almost all cases though, these are one and the same (Delaney HQ is in Bethesda, Maryland, etc). Richard Ojeda, however, has the complication of being a former State Senator from West Virginia, while his campaign headquarters is located in Washington, D.C.

I'm in favor of listing DC over WV. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It's the "home state" of the candidate, not the campaign. West Virginia is where he would have an advantage in the primary, as well as in the general if it came to that, and future American schoolchildren would certainly be taught that President Ojeda's "home state" was West Virginia.--Pharos (talk) 04:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the home state should be where the candidate maintains their residence. Note that a candidate could have moved from the state where they had held office; for example, Richard Nixon was elected to the House and Senate from California, but by the time he ran for President in 1968, he was a resident of New York. In the case of Ojeda, the fact that he maintains his campaign headquarters in Washington, D.C. doesn't necessarily mean he has taken up residence there. He might have his campaign workers based in Washington while he himself might keep his residence in West Virginia and spend much of his time campaigning in other states. It might be easier to attract campaign workers from other states to work in DC than in WV. That said, if we later learn that Ojeda has moved away from WV, we can update his information. But given that he was serving in the WV legislature until earlier this week, I wouldn't think he had moved out of the state yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree withe you on Ojeda, but someone like Nixon was the favorite son of California, and that seems much more politically relevant than his interlude in New York.--Pharos (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Pharos here. In a theoretical victory scenario, Ojeda would be defined by his West Virginian roots and, in the campaign, would play it up. I think Ojeda would also, if asked, say that his home state is West Virginia, not DC. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 07:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Okay, Ojeda was a member of the WVa state legislature when he announced. That should be all the proof we needArglebargle79 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

The separate candidates article

A false consensus was reached on getting rid of an important and useful separate article on the Democratic candidates, I move we revive the article and move the "Speculative candidates" "declined to run" galleries over there. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• Move Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:22, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

"False consensus"? Nonsense. There was unanimous support to merge the candidates article back into this one: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates. Kindly drop the stick. — JFG ^talk 17:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)