Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

John Kerry

On February 8, 2015 Kerry made a hint on running for the presidency in 2016. Here are three sources -> CBS, Politico, and Fox News. Should Kerry be added to Publicly expressed interest? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

I think he belongs under speculated. Saying "you never say never" is not the same as publically expressing interest. He specifically says that he hasn't given it any thought.ObieGrad (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

What is Interest?

I believe other editors and I have a disagreement about what constitutes publicly expressing interest. To me this should be a very strict standard, the candidate must make a public statement (not a private statement to donors nor to sources close to the person) saying they are at least thinking about it (not "never say never" nor "I really haven't thought about it"). What is consensus?ObieGrad (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the statement must be stated publicly and must come directly from the candidate him/herself or through an authorized spokesperson speaking on the candidate's behalf.--Cojovo (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Violation of WP:MIRROR?

This article is currently used as a citation for more than a 1/2 dozen potential candidates (most of whom don't really seem all that "potential" at this point). A close look at the article's listing of potential candidates should make it SO obvious that the writer's source is Wikipedia! Namely, this very page as well as the articles for the Democratic and Republican candidates. The listings in the news article correspond almost exactly to the listings on the Wikipedia article (at least as it was back in late January when the news article was published) in terms of categorization (those "who have expressed interest" or "considering a run", "other potential candidates"), all the same names. Sorry, but I don't see how that can be purely coincidental. WP:MIRROR states that content that is copied or forked (in this case, the latter) from Wikipedia is not a reliable source (as it's obviously self-referencing). Given how transparent it is that the writer basically just copied from the list of potential candidates on this very Wikipedia page, I think the news article in question should be removed and disqualified as a source.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, there is no actual speculation in that source. Rather it is what basically amounts to name-dropping, void of any analysis or explanation of why those listed are "potential" candidates. Shouldn't there some kind of reason given, if only a brief statement, of why a particular person is considered a potential candidate before they be included? Shouldn't the bar be set at least slightly higher than just being randomly mentioned on some journalist's laundry list of names of people he/she generically terms "potential candidates"? I certainly think so. Comments and feedback would be appreciated.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with I.C. Rivers' analysis of the soruce. I think the source should be deleted. I however don't agree with the idea that a journalist must describe why they are speculating. Clearly though this news article used Wikipedia.ObieGrad (talk) 14:52, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that source is clearly a WP:FORK. I have removed it, and updated the listings accordingly.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Sanders has started a PAC

See here for the link to the article. I think we should add Sanders to the "started a PAC" group. Am I right that you only need one source for when a candidate starts a PAC/exploratory committee? Mhoppmann (talk) 18:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The article does not refer to a PAC affiliated with Sen. Sanders, but rather a Super PAC (officially) unaffiliated with him. Therefore, Sanders should remain where he is. --Vrivasfl (talk) 21:29, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

But, a lot of PACs are officially not affiliated, as we all know, however, this does not mean a thing in reality. So, how do we know that this PAC isn't actually affiliated with Sanders? Mhoppmann (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The source does not clearly indicate that the PAC was formed or initiated by Sanders.--JayJasper (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Schweitzer

This article was provided as justification for removing Schweitzer. I don't believe this qualifies him to be removed from speculated because he doesn't say he won't run. Instead he just says that he has no plans to do so. In my opinion, not having plans is not enough to get removed from the speculated list.

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/opinion/tribune-editorials/2015/02/21/movies-schweitzer-jeb-versus-hillary/23786253ObieGrad (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think tht at this point, less than 2 years from the election and campaigns gearing up, someone saying that have no plans or no intentions to run should be considered declined. I agree that during the first 2 years of the election cycle "I have no plans" can be playing coy, but we're at a point now where there is really no incentive for someone who is even entertaining the notion of running to make such a statement. IMO, Scheweitzer should be considered declined.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:49, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I disagree, as long as we continue to have speculated candidates we should not rule them out unless they have declined or don't have sources. At this point in 2011, Rick Perry was still on the declined list.ObieGrad (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm with NextUsPrez on this. While ObieGrad has a good point about Perry, it should be noted that Perry was the exception not the rule. Once the mid-terms elections are over, it is rare for someone to deny interest in running and then change their minds and run. If I'm not mistaken, last time around we "declined"-listed all those who basically said "not interested" post-midterms on that rationale. I think we should do so again.--Newbreeder (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Al Gore

There has been some speculation on Al Gore recently. Here are two sources: Gore 1, Gore 2. Mhoppmann (talk) 23:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

RS for candidate interest

Sheen was removed because he sources were not RS. While I concede that the sources would not normally meet Wikipedia standards, one of them have a video of him expressing interest. Seems to me that that should override the reputation of the source itself. What is consensus on this?ObieGrad (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Given Sheen's reputation for making hyperbolic statements and the fact that the reputable media dosen't seem to be taking his "interest" seriously or worthy of note, it's probably best not to include him for now. If at some point, the reliable sources do find his supposed presidential aspirations noteworthy,then we can add him to the list.--Newbreeder (talk) 03:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Elizabeth Warren in the running?

I know she has said repeatedly said she's not interested in running, but this article (http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/elizabeth-warren-i-will-be-voice-working-people) seems to imply she might have some interest after all, and there is still lots of speculation about her possibly running in 2016 (see this google news search:  https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=elizabeth+warren+2016&oq=elizabeth+warren+2016&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j43i53.1568.9157.0.11049.21.11.0.10.10.0.305.1939.1j6j3j1.11.0...0.0...1ac.1.pyKiITOdeSc&safe=strict&gws_rd=ssl). Should she be included on the potential candidates list, or is there a rule against listing people who say they're not running? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B105:851F:0:38:A0C:9801 (talk) 20:00, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

We do not include as "potential candidates" those who have ruled out running. Warren is listed at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016#Declined.--Newbreeder (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Is Bernie Sanders a potential Republican and Green candidate also?

I see that Bernie Sanders is listed both as potential democratic candidate and potential indepdent, based on sources. I found these sources (http://www.alternet.org/activism/bernie-sanders-best-option-run-president-green0, (http://www.thenation.com/blog/179798/democrat-green-independent-run-bernie-run-jockeying#) which discuss him a potential green party candidate, and this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-michael-cohen/if-bernie-sanders-runs-fo_b_6826454.html) discusses him as potential republican candidate. I know it would be highly unusual for one person to be categorized as a potential candidate for 4 different parties, but should Sanders also placed in the green and republican sections based on these sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bi222 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

There would have to be at least two sources for such inclusion under a different category. That being said, Sen Sanders has said that he would not be a spoiler in 2016. This article seems to be a clear indication from Sen. Sanders that if he runs, he's running as a Democrat. --Vrivasfl (talk) 15:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

To Vrivasfl's comment I would add that 2 sources within the past 3 months would be needed to include him in those respective categories. One of the "Green" sources is nearly a year old, so it's a no on that. As for the "Republican" source, aside from the fact that a second would be needed, it seems to be not so much a "speculation" on the possibility of Sanders actually running as a R, as much as an op-ed where the writer is just hypothetically floating the idea. As for the "clear indication" that Sanders would run as D if he runs, that does indeed seem to be the direction he's leaning. However, per his recent comments, he has not entirely ruled out the possibility of running as an independent, so he should remain listed in that category in addition to the D category.--Earlgrey T (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Has Gore declined?

Should Al Gore be moved from this page to the "declined" listed on the democratic candidates2016 page, based on these sources? "Al Gore allies: He’s not running in 2016", "Al Gore, the Democrats' only hope in 2016, reportedly bows out" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli755 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think he should be moved based on these sources. I believe that he has to say something himself, not just people who supposedly know what he is thinking.ObieGrad (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Cruz hasn't announced yet

Mr. Cruz has not announced his campaign yet(that won't happen till tomorrow), so why is he in the "declared" section? Shouldn't we wait to hear the words directly out of his mouth before placing him in that section?

Mhoppmann (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we need to wait until the announcement is actually made before listing him as an actual candidate. Thus, he has been reverted back to the "potential" section for the time being.--JayJasper (talk) 19:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

minor candidates vs. major candidates

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

---

What is the criteria for a candidate being considered a "major candidate" vs. being considered a "minor candidate"..? Prcc27 (talk) 23:35, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll hazard a guess it refers to the status of the candidate's party. See List of political parties in the United States#Major political parties. Dwpaul ^Talk 01:54, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Dwpaul: I don't think so.. there're two sub-sections for the Republican Party (which is a major political party): minor candidates and major candidates. If we don't have a criteria for the distinction then I say we get rid of it all together! Prcc27 (talk) 02:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I've undone it, as major changes like that shouldn't be made without consensus on the talk page. Personally, I dislike the terms "major" and "minor" because they are very subjective.Ratemonth (talk) 02:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have some criteria. It is unlikely, for example, that Vernon Supreme's candidacy will be historically important but at the same time we need to be objective. Debate season starts in August, maybe the requirement should be participating in at least one debate? Just an idea.ObieGrad (talk) 02:39, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

That sounds like a good requirement. Ratemonth (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If we do that, I think it might be a good idea to have a note in the article of what our criteria for a major candidate is. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

There needs to be some common-sense consensus that Vermin Supreme is a fringe candidate. The article referencing Supreme's candidacy is hardly a real source of fact since it only says "For 2016, he wants to do something even crazier and more brazen than anything he's attempted before: Go legit—at least sort of." Clearly this is speculation (hence the future tense). As far as Supreme being a Democratic candidate it is only inferred in the article (based on his 2012 affiliation) and not stated outright.LenLiptack (talk) 22:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Prior consensus

This very topic was discussed on this page a while back and a consensus was seemingly reached. See this thread. In a nutshell, it was agreed that candidates who had been included on five different major nationwide polls (as found on Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016) would be listed in the "major" section and included in the gallery. Those not meeting this criteria would be listed in the "minor" or "other" section, and not included in the gallery. The basic rationale for this is that a candidate has be listed on least five different major polls to even have a chance to qualify for inclusion in a primary debate. You can see from reading the linked thread that were objections to the use of the terms "major and "minor" candidates. It was suggested the terms "polled candidates" and "other candidates" be used instead to sound more NPOV. While I agree that these terms sound more neutral, the term "polled" sounds a bit awkward and confusing, IMO. It seems to imply that the candidates were participants in the polls rather than the object of them. How does "Featured in multiple major polls" and "other candidates" sound to everyone? Any other ideas?--JayJasper (talk) 23:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Ratemonth (talk) 23:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Makes sense. The "Featured in multiple major polls" section could link the articles "Nationwide opinion polling for the Democratic Party 2016 presidential primaries" and "Nationwide opinion polling for the Republican Party 2016 presidential primaries" LenLiptack (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

That also sounds a tad awkward, but it certainly is preferable to the status quo that suggests all the candidates are equal in their electability. I would certainly support implementing the distinctions. Nations United (talk) 03:42, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In accordance with at least the last two election articles, I would agree with removing the minor candidates from the gallery and candidate list that do not fit this previously held consensus of being in at least 5 different polls. Looking at the previous articles, I do not think that it would be necessary to include them in the article unless they meet this criteria, especially if consensus exists from past discussions as you stated. I'm not seeing much objection from this discussion, and I think it would be very difficult to make the case against following previously established consensus of at least the 2008 and 2012 election, if not more. Gage (talk) 09:14, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the prior (and apparently, present) consensus for using the 5-poll standard as a benchmark for inclusion in the pre-primary election stage. I also like LenLiptack's idea of linking the Nationwide opinion polling....for...presidential primaries" articles for each party accordingly. I would be in favor of keeping the "minor/other" candidates included on the page for the time being, in a separate sub-section as suggested. In the last cycle, I believe we kept them on the page through the primary elections and then narrowed down to only the candidates that qualified for participation in least one primary debate, or were on enough primary/caucus ballots to at least theoretically win enough delegates to secure the nomination, as well as candidates (including 3rd Party candidates) that had been nominated by a notable party and were on enough state ballots in the general election to at least theoretically get the minimum number of electoral needed to win the election. We can now add the 5-poll standard to that list as well. That criteria worked well last time and I think we should stick with it this time around. We should also state under the heading for the "Major/Featured" candidates that the candidates have been listed on 5 major polls so the reader is clear on what the distinction is between "major/featured" and "other" candidates. Another thing, for whatever it's worth, I would have no problem with using the term "Major candidates" as it used fairly often in reputable media sources. I think it would be fine as the term was clearly distinguished. With that said, I also have no have no strong objection to "featured in major polls", but it just seems to be a bit more verbiage than is necessary. Just to toss out a few suggestions - would "prime" or "prominent" candidates work?--NextUSprez (talk) 19:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I am okay with dividing this up but I think that we need to use different terminology. Right now Ted Cruz is a "Candidate" and there are "Other Candidates". Other as opposed to what? Is Ted Cruz a "Major Candidate" or "Polled Candidate" or "Prominent Candidate"?

I'm okay with "featured in major polls" for now, as most of those who have commented here so far seem to be ok with it. We can later discuss a different term, if there's a desire for it.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:10, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Additionally the description of Jones and Istvan as "Other Nominations" is factually inaccurate. The whole idea of independent candidacy is that there is no nomination required.ObieGrad (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, "nominations" is misnomer when applied to independents. Really, the word "nominations" shouldn't be on the page at all at this point, seeing how nobody's been nominated yet.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Including Cruz's information

As this may become an issue in the near future (to some it already is), I think that some explanation on how Cruz qualifies for the presidency should be included in either the background, the Republican candidates section, or a foot note at the bottom. It would pretty much be something like this:

Ted Cruz, who was born in Calgary, Canada, is technically eligible for the Presidency due to the Nationality Act of 1940. Cruz's mother lived in the United States for more than 10 years as was required by the bill. While Cruz technically had dual citizenship, he officially ended his Canadian citizenship on May 14, 2014. Probable references would be:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/05/yes-ted-cruz-can-be-born-in-canada-and-still-become-president-of-the-us/275469/

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/cruz-draws-presidential-buzz-but-is-he-eligible-85873.html

http://library.uwb.edu/guides/usimmigration/54%20stat%201137.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I would suggest taking out the word "technically" - especially the first use of the word. Ratemonth (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

::It would be easier to refer readers to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016#Eligibility concerns.--JayJasper (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I have revised the hidden note which will seen by anyone who attempts to edit Cruz' entry to refer readers to Ted Cruz presidential campaign, 2016#Eligibility concerns, which addresses the subject in detail.--JayJasper (talk) 18:07, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Should Fellure be included?

While Jack Fellure has filed with the FEC for the 2016 election, I'm wondering if he can be left on this page. Here is the criteria for inclusion, as I've come to understand it:

Notability

Sources (credible, and the newer the better)

And a candidate is eligible

Well- Fellure was the 2012 Prohibition Party nominee, so notability wise he's fine. He was born in West Virginia and has lived in the US his whole life. So eligibility wise- he's fine. But when it comes to sources- he's losing a lot of ground. I found that the only sources related directly to Fellure are his FEC filings. There are no other sources about him. In all honesty- I can't even find if the man is alive or not. There's nothing out there.

With so little about him at all- should Fellure be left up there? Or should he be removed?

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 06:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

He should remain. He is an FEC-filed candidate who meets Wikipedia's notability requirements. "Newer sources" should not be a requirement for declared candidates (see WP:recentism), and neither should "Eligibility." PSL nominee Peta Lindsay was only 28 when she ran in 2012.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for explaining the rules more to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of some issues?

I've noticed that there have been some people putting climate change into the Potential Battlegrounds Section. Would it be smart, since the primaries are under a year away, to include some potential issues? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it would be best to wait until the primary season is well underway and we know what key issues are being discussed/debated in the campaigns before we include issues in the article.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Potential Swing States

We mention the states that are expected to be close if the national race is close, but then we mention fringe Democratic targets (does anyone really think that the Democrats have a shot in Texas, Georgia, or Arizona?). If those have to stay, we need to find a Republican article giving some fringe GOP targets- Minnesota? New Jersey? New Mexico?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.59.122.10 (talk) 14:09, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

The swing states mentioned in the section are all sourced, and mentioned in an article by a reputable source. If you can find some articles that claim a few fringe swing states, go ahead and add them to the list. But there's no need to strive to give the Democrats and Republicans an equal amount of swing states, if, in reality, the states we're claiming as swing states have not been claimed as such by a credible source. Also, I usually stay out of the talk page, so apologies if this is formatted incorrectly. MassachusettsWikipedian (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

new candidates

Lincoln Chafee(democrat) is running(Exploratory Committee) http://www.chafee2016.com/83.80.208.22 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Chafee is now included as a "formally exploring" candidate.--JayJasper (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton to announce candidacy on Sunday April 12

SOURCE:http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/hillary-clinton-expected-announce-2016-presidential-campa-article-1.2179866 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.236.2.170 (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Update

This really needs an update, Bush, Jindal, Carson and Walker are all featured in daily polls. I will not edit because the last edit I made, removing a dead mad from candidates in the 1892 election, was reversed and I was flamed by Wiki admins...ah Wiki— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.151.109.22 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 13 April 2015‎ (UTC)

The names you mentioned are featured in major polls, but none are officially candidates yet. When their candidacies become offical, they will added to the "featured in major polls" section.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

45th US President

May we PLEASE stop adding in that the indiviaul elected will become the 45th president. Though it's highly likely that Obama will complete his second term, it's not 100% certain. GoodDay (talk) 12:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

For clarification, what you mean is that it's possible (even if the chances are less than 1%) that Obama will die in office and that Joe Biden will briefly be the 45th and then the person who wins this election (if not Biden) will be the 46th. Georgia guy (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

That's not speculation, it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion. Why even bother saying this election will be held on November 8, 2016? After all, we could have a nuclear war before then, or as a crazy person said in another article mentioning the next president, Obama could use his dictatorial power to cancel the election! It should say the winner will be the 45th president, and we can change that in case of highly unlikely circumstances. Reywas92^Talk 01:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

It's about the balance of probabilities. Obama probably won't resign or die before 20 January 2017 but I'd say it's still not as unlikely as a nuclear war or the election being cancelled! MFlet1 (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Still doesn't mean we can't make a very reasonable assumption. If anything changes, that's the point of Wikipedia. Reywas92^Talk 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Warren

Warren has, yet again, softened her 2016 stance. When asked point blank if she would run in 2016, instead of her usual unequivocal answer, she said this, "I want to see who else gets in this race and I want to see what the issues are that they push". Should she be readded? --NDACFan (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Considering the various first sentence is "Sen. Elizabeth Warren insists she's not running for president." I don't think the fact that she didn't give an absolute "NO!" once really means that she should be included as a potential candidate. PrairieKid (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

She has been considered in several major polls. She should be mentioned in the potential section.--Drako (talk) 03:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

She is acknowledged as having previously been a potential candidate at Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016#Declined.--Rollins83 (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Roseanne Barr is running

She gives no indication what party line she is running on, but makes it clear she is running again: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/16/roseanne-forget-hillary-vote-for-me.html--Eli755 (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Waka Flocka Flame

Waka Flocka Flame announced he is running for President. He meets the criteria as he is a notable person (has his own Wikipedia page) and he is being covered by reliable sources.

Can anyone locate any information as to which party (if any) he is running under? I put him as an independent for now in the absence of any information.ObieGrad (talk) 20:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I removed him. He is not a legitimate candidate as he does not meet the age requirement (he's only 28). Bahooka (talk) 18:57, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Peta Lindsay and Róger Calero were presidential candidates who actually attained ballot access in some states despite being ineligible to serve as president due to age and/or citizenship issues. Several states allow ballot status to candidates who do not qualify for the office, so he can run for president even if he cannot serve if elected. As ObieGrad noted, he meets all the other criteria, so his inclusion is legitimate.--Thatotherdude (talk) 19:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Further, Arnold Schwarzenegger has appeared on similar lists for prior elections, even though he's ineligible. Also, see the note in this article saying to keep Ted Cruz on the list. Based on that, Wake Flacka should be on the list. —C.Fred (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

It seems odd to me to include candidates who cannot even legally become president and are doing it most likely for publicity, but if that is the consensus I will leave it alone. Thanks for the feedback. Bahooka (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please note that I have taken the liberty of correcting the spelling of the subject's name (Flacka-> Flocka) in the header and the OP's question, to avoid ongoing confusion. Dwpaul ^Talk 19:47, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Independent Candidates

I consolidated the list of "other candidates" to the "independent candidates" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.156.157.230 (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Source says Vermin Supreme is "running as a third-party candidate"

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

---

Check it out:

"Supreme has already announced his 2016 presidential campaign, in which he said he’ll be running as a third-party candidate."

No particular party specified. The source is a college paper, I don't know whether or not it passes the wikipedia litmus test for reliable sources. But if it is considered legit, shouldn't he be moved to the Independent & 3rd Party candidates column? Maybe his listing could read "running as candidate for an unspecified third party" or something similar.

Supreme is currently categorized as a Democratic candidate, which I guess is because he ran in the democratic primary in the last election As far as I know, however, he hasn't specifically said he's going to run as a democrat this time around. And even if has, these recent comments strongly indicate that he's reconsidered it. Seems to me, if a candidate dosen't specify the party line (or lack thereof) they are running on, they should by default be placed in the Independent-3rd Party listings. Does anyone agree, disagree or...what?--Yessiree, dude! (talk) 04:20, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't move him to the other section based solely on that source, which is not a WP:RS citation. You seem to be right, however, about him there being no clear indication that he is running as a Democrat this time. As best as I can tell, he's listed a Democrat by default since he ran as one last time. I agree with you that "unspecified" candidates should by default be listed as independents. When I have the time, I'll look for more sources on Supreme to see if there is verification as to what if any party affiliation he is running under. In the meantime, feedback/information from other editors would be helpful.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I would put Supreme in the 3rd party/independent section and note that he has no specified party affiliation.--Ewers1 (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I Moved him as it did not seem he was moved before and it did not seem to say he was running as Democrat. If he in fact is running as Democrat please take the liberty to change him back to Democrat, but as of now he's listed under Third Party/Independents. -- Non-Account Holding Guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.186.68.154 (talk) 03:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@173.186.68.154, Thank you for making the move. I believe it was the right action, based on this conversation.--Yessiree, dude! (talk) 14:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

I also agree it was the right move, and have moved him to the third/independent candidates page as well. At this point, it seems he can't be nailed down with regard to party/affiliation. While the college newspaper has him saying he's a third party candidate, this article has him seemingly making a move for the republican nod. He's all over the map, apparently, so for the time being it seems most appropriate to categorize him (if only by default) as independent.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

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

Lynch Running

Dennis Michael Lynch has filed with the FEC. Is that enough to consider him running, or should he stay under exploring based on his website?

http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/879/15970676879/15970676879.pdf vs DML2016.comObieGrad (talk) 15:27, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I think an FEC filing is the most clear evidence possible that a person is running for office. If there isn't already consensus on this, I submit that an FEC filing is sufficient by itself to demonstrate an individual is running for President. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I disagree that a FEC filing alone is sufficient to qualify someone as a candidate. A lot of candidates file while they're still in the "exploratory" stage, Ben Carson being a current example. Carson has filed with the FEC, but says he is not presently a candidate and his formal announcement is still impending. Since Wikipedia is a tertiary source that relies on reliable published sources, we should categorize someone as a candidate only when the sources clearly identify as such. Also, if I'm not mistaken, I think a person can get listed on the FEC files by a draft committee or petition movement, even if the individual him/herself never actually files directly. I seem to recall that Michael Bloomberg got listed during the 2008 presidential cycle even though he himself never directly filed and never actually ran.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Waka Flocka Flame (2)

Howdy. Should we include Waka Flocka Flame in the other candidates section? He will only be 30 on election day 2016, which means he is not even eligible to become President. He doesn't seem to be challenging that. He certainly does not have an actual campaign being built. Should we include him? PrairieKid (talk) 02:12, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion above on this very topic.--Yessiree, dude! (talk) 02:44, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionally ineligible and a joke "candidate." How can he be a candidate if he is younger than the requisite age? Wiki should not sanction nor identify him as a candidate as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.36 (talk) 20:38, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Should we Edit in a note mentioning his intelligibility while keeping him on since he fits the standards then? --Political Boss 10:39, 25 April (EST)

Yes, I think editing in a note about his ineligibility would be a good idea.--Cagey Slim (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a note is appropriate but we should have some firm guidelines on this. I think for a "Constitutional Ineligibility" note to be attached to a candidate there must be undisputed agreement that the candidate is not eligible. We don't want notes getting added to candidates like Ted Cruz.ObieGrad (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

If that is the case then what should said guidelines be? I would assume we'd simply follow the legal guidelines for who is Constitutionally Eligible for the position and who is not. Political Boss (talk) 12:13 27 April 2015 (EST)

Maybe the rule should be, any candidate who: A) States they are not eligible, B) Fails to meet age requirement, C) Fails to meet the basic citizenship requirement. I just don't want this page to be an edit war over the Natural-born-citizen clause.ObieGrad (talk) 16:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we don't need an Edit War over Ted Cruz. Why though would a candidate state they an not eligible? Why would they thwn run if they just told everyone they couldn't. Anyways. I think you are right in that the basics should be the age and basic citizenship requirement, but I'd wait for a more veteran editor to agree before I did anything. --Political Boss (talk) 13:23 27 April 2015 (EST)

I think the note that we have is sufficient. The fact is that his campaign is receiving a relatively high amount of media publicity. He is impacting the election in his own way. It also is a slippery slope because it's difficult to draw a clear line in the sand of who is and who is not eligible. Arnold Schwarzenegger was long on the list because there was a chance he would challenge the Constitution. While most people believe Ted Cruz can be elected, there is still some doubt. I just worry that we would be working on a case-by-case basis that would cause conflict at every turn. Nah, it's probably better to keep the note and call it good. PrairieKid (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution: “No Person … shall be eligible to the Office of President …who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years”. It’s a cut and dry statement of fact that Waka Flocka Flame is not eligible for the office of the president of the United States, and I think it’s appropriate for a note to reflect this fact. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 April 2015

Bernie Sanders announced his presidential campaign 2601:D:BB00:CE8:5CE7:6AAE:A8E:C296 (talk) 05:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 06:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done The request was made a little too soon, but Sanders has now made it official.--Rollins83 (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Is Sanders democrat ??

Is Bernie Sanders candidat from Democratic party?? You sure about it ?? I guess he is independent. M.Karelin (talk) 15:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

He is an Independent in the Senate, but he has announced he will seek the Democratic nomination rather than run as an Independent, so he is listed there. --Vrivasfl (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Potential candidates: comparative status, categories

The section of the article that names Potential candidates is not exactly consistent between the parties, nor is it that clear. For example, the Republican party is the the only one with a section for "Other potential candidates"; whereas, the Democratic party is the only one with "Announcements impending." Should we assume that this is just happenstance? This is not necessarily differentiated from other categories like "Formally exploring a candidacy" or "Publicly expressed interest." At that, the order of which these categories appear (under each party) is also inconsistent. There should also be a definition or explanation for each of these categories, not just some of them. This would also help with placement. Ca.papavero (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I think you got the parties backwards in your second sentence- but thats not really important. The reason why there are "Other potential candidates" is because those four have been mentioned in media sources within the last three months. No Republicans have been mentioned who haven't either declined already or have officially stated they are interested in it. And no Democrats have scheduled events where they are likely to announce their candidacy. The sections are added when one or more candidates are talked about- either speculation by media sources, publicly exclaiming interest, forming an exploratory organization, or news reports say that one (or more) candidate(s) will announce on or around a particular date. Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders used to be in the "Announcements Impending" section for Democrats (seperately), but when they announced- they were moved to candidates, leaving the section blank and rather pointless. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Huckabee - Home State

Just to clarify, Mike Huckabee is from Florida http://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-huckabee-registers-to-vote-in-florida/ (unless there is a reference that this has changed) despite formerly being Governor of Arkansas.ObieGrad (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

This is the same situation as Newt Gingrich in 2012. He lived in Virginia but consensus was to keep his home state as Georgia. I don't think Huckabee should be any different. He announced his candidacy in Arkansas and was a former Governor there, so he clearly has deeper ties to that state than Florida. TL565 (talk) 19:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's because Gingrich's FEC filing was in Georgia and (I think) his voter registration must have been as well. Totally different. PrairieKid (talk) 05:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I found this discussion here. I don't know what exactly determines the home state. People are focusing too much on current residence. Huckabee has no political ties to Florida and he clearly represents Arkansas as reflected in the media. TL565 (talk) 06:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

I edited it to say he was the governor of Arkansas and is now from Florida. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 22:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Seems to be the best way to me as well. Once the FEC filing comes out, we'll know for sure where he is registered. For now, everything points to Florida. PrairieKid (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a edit war going on over a pretty minor point. Let me ask a different question, what is the value of putting the home state at all?ObieGrad (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

It's very important. For one thing, it is often an advantage for those coming from potential swing states like Marco Rubio, Chris Chirstie or Scott Walker. For another, the constitution requires that a Vice-President not come from the same state as the President so Ted Cruz and Rick Perry couldn't run on the same ticket, for example, because they're both from Texas. I don't think we should remove it just because of a small dispute over one candidate. Can we agree to do whatever the FEC filing says? PrairieKid (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

The swing state point is a good one. I am not in agreement with the FEC rule though because the FEC address is not necessarily the home address. For example, Hillary Clinton's FEC filing lists a PO Box in NYC and I don't think anyone claims she lives there. http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/524/15031411524/15031411524.pdfObieGrad (talk) 14:49, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Uh, Clinton does live in NY and represented it in the senate. It's actually a great example--she was born in Illinois and was considered an Arkansan for many years but is now considered a New Yorker. Huckabee may turn out to be the same way by living in Florida. PrairieKid (talk) 03:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Thats completely different than Huckabee. No one is going to think of Florida when they are talking about him. As 13aboucourt said below, he has never called himself a Floridian and launched his campaign in Arkansas. It would be dumb for him to try to represent Florida not only because he has no significant history there, but as you mentioned before, two people representing the same state can't run on the same ticket. This would mean he and Rubio can't be on the same ticket. I seriously doubt the FEC filing will be in Florida. TL565 (talk) 05:30, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Gov. Huckabee launched his campaign in Hope, Arkansas, which he still considers his home town. His campaign headquarters is in Little Rock. Yes, it is true that he lives in Florida. However, he has never called himself a Floridian and he does not talk about his life in Florida on the campaign page mikehuckabee.com. If we are to say that Gov. Huckabee is a Floridian, we need to consider Dr. Ben Carson a Floridian as well, since his primary home is in West Palm Beach and not in Maryland. The media hasn't discussed how there are more than two Floridians (Jeb and Marco) running for president, and probably never will because Dr. Carson and Gov. Huckabee do not have major accomplishments in Florida and do not consider themselves Floridians. 13aboucourt (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

We need some solid criteria for this. FEC filings won't work as a campaign can be anywhere. (Fiorina's is in DC for example).ObieGrad (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

How about we list their state as the last one they pursued office in (IE Scott Brown would be from New Hampshire as he pursued the Senate last year, despite being a Senator from Massachusetts two years prior) or- if they didn't run for political office before- where they are most well known to have worked (IE Ben Carson worked at John Hopkins Hospital in Maryland). Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Vote 4 DJH2036's idea.--Eli755 (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with that method very strongly. There have been candidates who have been out of office for several years and moved to other states several years ago who should be listed with that state. Huckabee could be similar. Another example is from 2000, when Dick Cheney was considered from Texas until roughly the day he was announced he was running for Vice-President when he was forced to change his registration to Wyoming (Bush Jr. was also from Texas). That seems like a rule that has a good intention and seems logical but could have massive consequences if enacted. PrairieKid (talk) 05:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

The main reason the home state distinction is important in my opinion is because two candidates from the same state are ineligible. Therefore, I think Huckabee's home state should be listed as Florida because that's where his home is. If he wins the nomination and his running mate resides in the same state- one of them would be required to move (or another running mate would have to be picked). Prcc27 (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I already mentioned so many times that this isn't the case. Newt Gingrich lived in Virginia since 1999 but was able to represent Georgia in the 2012 election. TL565 (talk) 06:50, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Huckabee is going to represent Arkansas. FEC filing here http://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/301/15031423301/15031423301.pdf TL565 (talk) 02:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I like DJH2036's idea but maybe we can override it if the media is strongly associating a candidate with another state. FYI the rule about President and Vice President being from the same state is that a single elector cannot vote for a President and Vice President from the elector's state. If Bush and Cheney were both "from Texas" than an elector in Texas could not vote for both of them (but an elector from Oklahoma could).ObieGrad (talk) 13:37, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Should Snyder be reinstated as a potential candidate?

Yesterday Rick Snyder was removed from this page as a potential candidate because of this politico article: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/rick-snyder-not-running-for-president-117713.html. However, today this article came out saying Snyder's office refutes the politico article and that he is still undecided about whether or not to run: http://www.wxyz.com/news/political/gov-rick-snyders-office-refutes-politico-report-saying-he-wont-run-for-president-in-2016. Should we reinstate him to the potential candidate list, or maybe wait a little while and see if the confusion can be cleared up?--Eli755 (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we should reinstate him- especially since the candidate hasn't announced himself that he isn't going to run. Prcc27 (talk) 20:34, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Snyder is definitely not Running.

The Governor himself issued a statement and press release from his official mi.gov website for the office of the governor http://www.michigan.gov/snyder/0,4668,7-277--354207--,00.html

Here's the statement in toto

"Gov. Rick Snyder: I will focus my attention on Michigan's continuing comeback, telling our story

It’s time to accelerate efforts, create more opportunities for future

Thursday, May 7, 2015

LANSING: Gov. Rick Snyder released the following statement: “Michigan is America’s comeback state. Unemployment has dropped to its lowest point in 14 years, nearly 400,000 private sector jobs have been created and for the first time in a long time, Detroit is on the path to becoming a great city again.

“But our work is not done and there are still historic issues to solve. When I ran for reelection, I promised my fellow Michiganders that the job was not done, that we could not be complacent, that it was time to accelerate and get even more done to reinvent our state and create opportunities for our future.

“I do not have plans to run for president in 2016. I will focus my attention on continuing Michigan’s reinvention. I will continue to tell Michigan’s comeback story nationally because our reinvention should not be unique to just our state. In addition, being loud and proud about Michigan can help grow our state by attracting more investment, businesses, and new residents.

“While too much of our political system is focused on partisan fights, Michigan has been using what I call “Relentless Positive Action” to solve problems. Michigan's comeback is the blueprint for job creation, balanced and drama-free budgets and effective, efficient, accountable government.” Also His own local Detroit CBS station's reporting from this morning, e.g. May 8, offers a very matter-of-fact statement on the matter: "Snyder ended any White House speculation Thursday, saying he’s not running for president in 2016. The governor says his trips out of state have been to promote Michigan, not test campaign waters." http://detroit.cbslocal.com/2015/05/08/gov-snyder-rings-new-york-stock-exchange-bell-this-morning/ Vibrantmatter (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I would vote to keep him.

A. Per consensus, the candidate himself must decline. "Sources familiar" don't qualify. B. His statement "I do not have plans" is not the same as "I will not" C. The CBS article appears to be simply reading into "I do not have plans" statement. There is no quote from him in the story. D. The WXYZ report contradicts the CBS report.

We need more specifics to act here.ObieGrad (talk) 14:42, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Rick Perry

So, I've regularly removed Rick Perry from the Announcement Impending Section. The source that keeps getting cited says Perry is considering announcing around June 1st. It could be May 28th or June 3rd. Or it might not happen at all. The point is that Perry does NOT meet the definition of announcement impending because he does not have a set scheduled event as is our criteria. He (or the media) has not said "there will be an announcement in X town on Y date" so we can not include him yet. It's just WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTAL. Sorry. I just wanted to get it on the tp to explain why I keep reverting it. PrairieKid (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Removing him from that section was the right move. He has not decided on a specific date to announce .--Cojovo (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Split completely between Republican and Democrat

Howdy. I was wondering if there would be any opposition to completely splitting up the Republicans and the Democrats. As it is now, the article seems a bit disorganized and messy and it is difficult to really see which party everyone belongs to and to understand the relationship between prospective candidates and declared candidates of the same party. Could we put all of those under one "nominations" section with a subheading for the Democrats and one for the Republicans with all of their candidates there? It would be just like the 2012 election and every other election I can find. If no one objects, I'll make the change. PrairieKid (talk) 01:39, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I should add that we are no longer at the point of just listing candidates. The campaign itself has begun and it's important that we begin to have some prose relating to the campaigns and primaries. That would be much easier to do with my proposed change. PrairieKid (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Overall, I like the changes you made and agree that it is better organized. However, I re-titled the section you had named "nominations" to "declared and potential candidates". I did this because "nominations" seemed a bit misleading, or premature at the very least, at this point as nominations are still about a year or so away from taking place. Also, the section includes independents for which "nomination" is non-applicable. Aside from that fairly minor detail, thanks and good job with the changes!--Rollins83 (talk) 16:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

New candidates who meet requirements

Darryl Cherney, a musician and activist, has formed an exploratory committee for the Green Party (as far as I know its just that). https://www.facebook.com/DarrylCherneyforPresidentExploratory

Mitch Potts formally withdrew her run for president on the Green Party platform. https://www.facebook.com/MidgePottsForPresident2016 Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 13:56, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Cherney has been added to the Green section.--Cojovo (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

John Bolton--- major or minor candidate?

Howdy. With John Bolton's expected announcement tomorrow, I am a little unsure about where to place him. On the one hand, he does not meet our requirements to be featured in 5 major nationwide polls. On the other, he is being treated by the media as a major candidate, although a long shot. Bolton will almost definitely be featured in major polls now--while that might sound like WP:CRYSTAL, I'd argue to WP:IGNORE the rule because it is nearly inevitable. Before consensus is reached, I think we should keep him in the minor candidates section because of our technical criteria. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 03:30, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

If we have a criteria, let's stick with it. (I personally doubt Bolton will get any traction, but hey, who knows) - Cwobeel (talk) 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Bolton would be a minor candidate. He's been featured in a grand total of two polls (none since the beginning of April). Upon his announcement, howe ver, he will probably be featured in more polls. Once he reaches the limit- he will be added. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 12:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

It's all a moot point now:http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/john-bolton-wont-run-president-2016-n358921— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:b850:406:0:3:4f7:b801 (talk • contribs) 18:06, 14 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Democrat announcements impending section - Possibly add this section?

O'Malley to announce May 30 Chafee and Webb will announce some time before or after that. Dem impending section would be great to add this info in and provide for future announcement info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.242.135.36 (talk) 05:20, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

 Done by User:PrairieKid: [1].--JayJasper (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

References

Lindsey Graham

Lindsey Graham has stated "I'm running for President." He will 100% OFFICIALLY announce his campaign on the 1st- but does this constitute him being included in major declared candidates? I say yes. He said he was running today; before- he stated he was 91% sure he'd run. Really the only thing left is filing with the FEC.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32786233

Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

I say no, wait until the official announcement. There is not a clear consensus among the sources that he has "declared" - e.g. : "may run", "to announce presidential decision", "as he preps presidential run", "says 'I'm running' but doesn't launch presidential campaign", "all but confirms he's running. --JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok- I agree with that.

Just a side note to everyone- Scott Walker is likely to announce his candidacy after Wisconsin's budget passes (sometime in June to early July), and Bobby Jindal is likely to announce after Louisiana's congress ends (sometime in June or July). If one of them schedules a speech for around then, it is likely to be their announcement. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 21:25, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Potential candidates who have expressed no interest

Should we really be including candidates who have expressed no interest in running? Draft campaigns have no affiliation with the candidate who they're trying to draft, so unless that person has publicly expressed interest in running they should not be listed on this article. --PiMaster3 ^talk 14:32, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

There is an important distinction here. We are including candidates based on media speculation, not draft campaigns. We are also excluding candidates who say they are not running (example: Elizabeth Warren) even if there is speculation. I do think it's a debatable question if we should continue to include candidate on mere speculation at this point.ObieGrad (talk) 19:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

The OP may be referring to Steve Stockman, listed as a potential Constitution Party candidate. Both sources say the party is working to recruit him to run, but give no indication as to whether or not Stockman is actually open to it, nor do they give indication of any independent speculation they he may run. IMHO, based on the sources presently supplied, he does not meet the inclusion criteria.--Rollins83 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Weird candidate names

I wonder if these people actually legally changed their names to what they're filing as.

• "Buttocks, Sydneys Voluptuous"
• "Caesar, President Emperor"
• "Savior, Ole"

FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Trump will announce in June. See his facebook page and then the video83.80.208.22 (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's a UPI article that quotes him saying he will announce "one way or the other" in June. No specific date given, though, so I don't think we should move him to "announcements pending" until he gives a more concrete date for his announcement.--Earlgrey T (talk) 18:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

He will annouce June 16 http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-28/donald-trump-said-to-plan-june-16-announcement83.80.208.22 (talk) 09:37, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

See the discussion below about whether or not to add him. PrairieKid (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Is Pataki a Major Candidate?

Looking at the polling article I am not sure Pataki meets the requirements to be a major candidate. He is listed in five different polling samples, but the samples were not from five different polling agencies. In other words, if Fox News issues two samples, are each of the polls a major poll? If not, are there five polls listing Pataki? Here is the count based on the polling article:

Fox News x5 CNN x1 Monmouth University x1 Update: The latest Qunnipiac poll (not in article yet) includes him too ObieGrad (talk) 15:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

This is my problem with our method. He's held high elected office, has been in the media quite a bit and has spent a good deal of time in Iowa and New Hampshire recently. He is really well known as a Governor, particularly for his response to the September 11th attacks. He is absolutely a major candidate in my opinion. I think we may need to change how we determine what that means. PrairieKid (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with PrarieKid. Pataki is, for all intents and purposes, a major candidate (one who's on the outside looking in though). On the Democratic side, if someone like Al Gore were to say he's running- he would be a major candidate. But we'd list him as a minor candidate for at least a month while waiting for polls to include him. One thing I thought of was to include the person as a major candidate if they were either in the House, a Governor, a Senator, or a member of the Cabinet/Vice President (although, he/she'd likely already be in one of those terms) at some point during their political careers. If minor candidates who did not meet the previous categories (say Jack Fellure) were listed in at least five polls from more than two major news organizations, then they can be listed as major candidates. The only question would be over whether or not to include diplomats (had Bolton run) or heads of internal organizations (Mark Everson) as part of the major candidates section immediately (I'd say no). Just floating the idea. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

In general, I agree. Someone who has held major office is automatically a major candidate upon announcement. However, I would like to suggest that major office consist of sitting/former President, Vice President, Governor, Senator, or cabinet/cabinet-level position (which would have included Bolton had he run). With the exception of the Speaker, I think general House members is too large and disparate a group for automatic inclusion.--Vrivasfl (talk) 17:35, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I concur. People who hold/have held those offices are obviously major candidates and do have a shot! Pataki should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should expand our standards of what constitutes a "major" candidate to include major offices previously or currently held. I agree with Vote 4 DJH2036's suggestions of which offices to include.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with the idea that major office-holders - US. Rep., U.S. Senator, Governor, President/VP/Cabinet member - should be considered major candidates as well as those included in 5 or more major polls.--Earlgrey T (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

To go with what Vrivasf said- if someone is in the leadership position in the House (Speaker, Majority Whip/Minority Leader/Whip) then they should be immediately included as major. If not- then they should be part of the 5 or more major polls part. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Pending list

I went ahead and put my idea for a list down on the article. I included those who have served as the head of a cabinet-level Department, as a member of the United States Senate, as a member of the House Leadership, as a Governor, former Vice-President or Incumbent President. Does that sound good? PrairieKid (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I like it. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I like it too, but is it necessary to include this level of detail in the article? It is going to be pretty rare that a candidate is in Pataki's spot of being a prominent candidate without the requisite polls. How about just saying "... and/or have held a prominent political office." The talk page can be where "prominent political office" is defined.ObieGrad (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Well- while you have a point, it would be easier to just put this out in case it ever happens again (which is more than likely going to happen, perhaps even this year). If it ever comes up again, it'd be nice to have the Wikipedia definition of what the prominent offices are- so there are no questions at all. The talk pages could decide whether or not someone like Mark Everson or a Lieutenant Governor/State Speaker of the House can be classified as a major candidate or not. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Alphabetical Order

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

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

American Freedom Party

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

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

http://kenn2016.com/

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

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

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

Mr. Gividen does not have Wikipedia article and therefore does not meet the notability requirements for this article.ObieGrad (talk) 13:40, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I know he doesn't have one, but the AFP does. And he is- officially- the AFP's candidate for president. Does that constitute at least a statement that he and his VP pick are officially running as the AFP's nominees? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 13:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Prcc27 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

So should we put the name of the person or at least Party under the Third Party Declared Canfidates? Political Bawss 10:02 EST 15 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Political Boss (talk • contribs) 14:02, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

This is what was done for the 2012 Third Party candidates-

Nominee

Merlin Miller Independent filmmaker from Tennessee (Website)

Miller won the nomination of the American Third Position Party on January 12, 2012. Retired professor Virginia Abernethy was selected as his running mate.

It also listed the states they had access in and how many electoral votes they could obtain. I think this is the best option for 2016 as well. For the 2016 AFP candidates- it would look like this:

Nominee

Kenn Gividen Libertarian nominee for Governor of Indiana 2004 from Indiana (Website)

Gividen won the nomination of the American Third Position Party in May of 2016. Retired professor Bob Whitaker from South Carolina was selected as his running mate.

The above references would, of course, be used. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I noticed in the 2012 independent page not all candidates had a Wikipedia article linked to them. If this is what we've done in the past could we post the AFP candidate in the independent page without the Wikipedia article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B169:8AC3:0:E:9EE1:9601 (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Bloomberg a Potential Candidate?

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

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

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

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

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

• Here's what I added to "Potential candidates" -> * Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City 2002-2013
• Sources:

• NY Dems push Bloomberg to run for presudent The New York Post. Retrieved June 3, 2015.
• Hillary Clinton vs. Michael Bloomberg: Could we see a real fight for 2016 Democratic nomination after all? Fox News. Retrieved June 3, 2015.

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

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

Trump to make "major announcement" June 16

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

---

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

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

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

Not enough to have him moved to Announcement pending section, as it's unclear whether the forthcoming announcement is actually about his potential candidacy (although it sure seems to be the case), but thanks for the heads-up. Stay tuned, folks....--NextUSprez (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

At first, I absolutely agreed. I thought it would be like his 2012 "big announcement which was pretty stupid. However, most media have agreed it is a Presidential run, he's talked openly about making the announcement in June and it's at the Trump Tower. I think it calls for inclusion. PrairieKid (talk) 03:38, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I think we need a third party source that outright states that they expect this to be an announcement, seems sources right now are insinuating it might be that but then hedge their bets. This does seem to be a very close call.ObieGrad (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with ObieGrad. A bit too much insinuation and "hedging of bets" for me to be comfortable with including it in the "announcements pending" section. Still looking for a reliable source that plainly states the announcement is having to do with his decision on whether to run or not.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards PrarieKid's take on this. I think there's enough indications that the announcement will have something to do with his running - or not - for president. Especially the part about going to New Hampshire the next day, a major hint there. Although ObieGrad has a good point that it's "a very close call", I think including Trump on the announcement would be justified (barely, but still).--Eli755 (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

The new ref provided for this states this is a 2016 announcement so that settles the issue in my mind. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/donald-trump-sets-date-2016-announcementObieGrad (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Willie Wilson

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

---

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

• Makes sense. Prcc27 (talk) 02:52, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

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

Where is this "requirement"? There is no Wikipedia policy on the matter and the only previous discussion in the talk page was related to prospective candidates. --Tdl1060 (talk) 03:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I was a part of the initial discussions in 2008 that developed this requirement. The requirement is meant to avoid discussions like this. If "Willie Wilson" receives significant coverage then create a wikipedia page for him and add him to the list. If he doesn't get significant coverage and cannot even meet Wikipedia's liberal notability requirements then he should not be listed on this page. Regardless, "Willie Wilson" is a fairly common name so I'm not surprised by the number of g-hits it receives. I doubt many (or any for that matter) of those hits have anything to do with someone by that name running for president.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The figures that I quoted were for a news search for "Willie Wilson" "president" and having looked through several pages all of the news articles referred to the same Willie Wilson, though a few of the later were articles related to his mayoral run.--Tdl1060 (talk) 04:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, then create an article for him: Willie Wilson (businessman).--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:35, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to start a revert war but there certainly does not seem to be consensus to add him. I am of the opinion that the Wikipedia article requirement is appropriate. Although I'd oppose the change, if we are going to change the policy it needs to be changed before adding Wilson. A rule including Wilson will be harder to create than I think may be apparent to everyone. Is there a number of sources that must discuss a candidate before they get in the article? Can any RS discuss them or only "major" ones? There are over 300 Form 2 filers and I bet a good number of them are mentioned in at least some sources. I think the better solution is to have a new article on Willie Wilson to make him qualify.ObieGrad (talk) 05:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear, I do not think redirects (as someone created above) should apply.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Eh, I'm going to nominate it for deletion though. I don't think he is WP:NOTABLE. Sorry. I still don't think he should be included. PrairieKid (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You can see the deletion discussion here. PrairieKid (talk) 01:27, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Rosanne Barr endorses Berie Sanders

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

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