Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 6 December 2016

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

2020 United States presidential election was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (November 1, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

This article was nominated for deletion on March 2 2006. The result of the discussion was delete.

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 October 2015. The result of the discussion was keep.

Consensuses reached for the 2012 and 2016 elections apply for the 2020 election as well, unless these consensuses are reversed. Regarding the infobox: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that received at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. In order for a third party to be included, they need to have ballot acces in the 2020 election to at least 270 electoral votes, per this consensus.

A fact from 2020 United States presidential election appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that potential candidates in the United States presidential election of 2020 include Tom Cotton, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West? A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2015/November. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/United States presidential election, 2020.

Hillary Rodham Clinton

Given both sources that say Hillary's a potential candidate for 2020 assumed she would win the 2016 election, should we remove her? If so should we wait until she officially loses the election? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 20:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt she'll run again in 2020. Dustin (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't assume one way or the other. If there are sources suggesting she might, we include her. If not, we don't. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

As of now we don't have any up to date sources. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Until you have a reliable source that states she will not run again, do not remove her. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're the one that needs a reliable source that she is a potential candidate. The current sources only reference her being a potential re-election candidate which obviously isn't possible. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:58, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

And why isn't it possible? That sentence right there is opinion-based and so was your initial edit summary. The sources given say she might run for 2020, but there are no sources that say she will not. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 11:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Did you actually read the sentence you're calling opinion-based? "The current sources only reference her being a potential re-election candidate which obviously isn't possible." The key word in there is "re-election." Obviously she's not going to be running for re-election in 2020. So any sources describing that scenario can't be used. We need a source written after November 8 that suggests she might run in 2020. Earthscent (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

She said that someone else would be the first female president in her concession speech. Doesn't that completely rule put her candidacy in 2020? "Now, I, I know, I know we have still not shattered that highest and hardest glass ceiling, but some day someone will and hopefully sooner than we might think right now." It is vague, and can be interpreted in many different ways, but I think she is basically declining a 2020 run. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't add Clinton, unless there's a reliable source. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary can't run again. It appears her health and the health of her adviser Bill Clinton are an issue. Please use your eyes and your heart if they were your own parents, and remember what 4 additional years can do to disease progression. The Clinton Foundation is losing support (down 37%) so she will not have the finances she once had, there is still a question as to whether or not the FBI is still investigating her and we won't know the ramifications of that for some time now. All politics aside, just remember 4 years is a long time for a senior who already has medical problems, be fair and admit that much at least. However we do know that one of her friends and donors has said that he feels they are done. http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/01/clinton-pal-mcauliffe-says-hillary-is-done-with-politics-oh-and-hes-looking-forward-to-working-with-trump-n2253121 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about "she can't run". It's about reliable sources, not opinions. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Is Ben Carson really the nominee for Secretary of HUD yet?

Under the "Declined candidates" subsection of the "Republican Party" section, it lists Ben Carson. It describes him as the "ominee for Secretary of Housing and Urban Development since 2016." Is that accurate? My understanding was that, as of writing, Donald Trump is considering nominating him for that position but hasn't decided yet. Can anyone confirm or deny whether he's currently the nominee? PiratePablo (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, he is now the HUD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14B:4401:D5C0:8920:B67F:D07E:1347 (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No, he's not the HUD nominee. Only when Trump becomes US President (Jan 20, 2017), will Carson become the HUD nominee. GoodDay (talk) 14:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Potential vs. speculative candidates

The change in the sections were done without consulting users, so I am here to ask for your opinion. I believe potential was always used, someone correct me if I am wrong. Here is what I've gathered on the definitions of potential and speculative according to the Oxford Dictionary:

Potential: "Having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future."

Speculative: "Engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge."

Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:03, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

To my knowledge, you're right that potential was always used. Personally, I think "potential" makes more sense than "speculative." For example, if a politician says, "I might run in 2020," then that would count as a potential candidate, because it's straight from the horse's mouth. That person would not count as a speculative candidate, however, because they're not really the subject of speculation, per se- they're just the subject of potential. But that's just my opinion. So, personally, I think we should change it back to "potential." But we should get feedback from more users before we decide to change it or keep it. PiratePablo (talk) 18:37, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I think speculative works. Idrgaf, but "potential" candidates technically includes anybody over the age of 35. Even if we're not just speaking technically, that really could mean anybody over the age of 35 with military, government or business experience at this point. Kanye wants to run for crying out loud. Speculative means that people are thinking about him running, and while that still would include some people who shouldn't be included - Paris Hilton, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Joe Biden, etc. - that name would better indicate what we're getting at. The condition that they are speculated by reputable sources would be disseminated below the section title. But again, idgaf. DaCashman (talk) 02:02, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. You've changed my mind. I now think that "speculative" makes more sense than "potential." PiratePablo (talk) 23:53, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! DaCashman (talk) 08:14, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't mention it. PiratePablo (talk) 16:38, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

CNN Celebrity Candidates

CNN recently put out a small list of speculative candidates for the 2020 U.S. presidential election, found here. Included are: Tom Hanks, Oprah Winfrey (however, they quote her as saying that she "would never run for office"), Stephen Colbert, and Tim McGraw for the Democratic nomination as well as Kayne West and Dwayne Johnson, who are both already listed on the page. Should they be added to the page or ignored as just baseless speculation? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:51, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe Hanks and Winfrey should be ignored in this case. As you said, Winfrey stated that she'd never run for office, and Hanks is a very unlikely candidate. Colbert is a wild card in this, he did run in '08, but it was more of a joke than anything. I could see him as a real candidate, but he'd probably do something like Kimmel did with his "Vice-Presidential run." McGraw is also a tossup, He did say he would possibly enter politics at around the time the 2020 election comes around, but I'd just wait to see if he announces anything. Crashguy42 (talk) 16:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Republican poll removed

I removed the following poll, found at https://morningconsult.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Politico_MCPostVPToplines-1.pdf, from the Republican section:

National polling

The reason I removed it is that the question posed was, "If Donald Trump were to lose the 2016 election, which one of the following Republicans would be your top choice to see run for President in 2020?". Trump did not lose the 2016 election, and so the premise of the question is no longer valid. It stands to reason that Republicans would be much more likely to support Trump for the 2020 nomination if he won the 2016 general election than if he lost it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. MB298 (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Trump in the infobox for the 2020 election

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.

Since Donald Trump is the presumptive incumbent for the 2020 election and will most likely be seeking re-election at that point, should we include him in infobox as of right now? --Proud User (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Survey (Trump in the infobox for the 2020 election)

Write your comment below the following line, in a format similar to this:

• Yes, because Trump is very likely to seek re-election in 2020, and while death is possible, potential death by November 8, 2016 was not a reason to remove candidates from the 2016 election infobox before the election, So why wait to put Donald Trump in the infobox for the 2020 election? --Proud User (talk) 20:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• No: per WP:CRYSTALBALL, legally (or if you prefer technically) Trump isn't even definitely the next President yet as the Electoral College hasn't even voted. Aside from that perhaps slightly pedantic point, we have no idea whether Trump will seek another term you have no evidence to support your claim that he will "will most likely be seeking re-election at that point", indeed I'd say of all the presidents in recent years he is by the far the most likely to not want to do another four years; given his lack of previous political experience he may not enjoy being President very much and certainly he will have much less freedom to do what he wants (because of security etc) than ever before in his life, plus given his advanced age (he will be the oldest President to the start their first term), he may not want another four years. Even if he does seek the nomination have no indication that he will get the nomination. Given that in 2016 (as was also the case in 2012 and 2008) we didn't even put candidates into the infobox until they were described in reliable sources as the presumptive nominee following the primary results there is no way we should put Trump in the infobox now, three years before the process of primaries even begins and a whole four years before the election! Ebonelm (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• No. There have been no indications he will seek re-election. While that is more than likely, lots of things can happen in four years. Just because he won the previous election does not mean he will seek re-election. We can't predict the future. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not, WP:CRYSTAL. We might just as well put Lisa Simpson as the 2020 winner, since it's well-known that she is the next pres after Trump. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:51, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose — While Trump is likely to seek reelection, there is a very strong possibility he could face primary opposition, whether it be from Ted Cruz or whoever, it doesn't matter. Having him in the infobox violates WP:CRYSTAL. MB298 (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• No, I agree with everything said above, Trump's not guaranteed to even run in 2020, let alone win the nomination. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 17:04, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Absolutely not We don't know that he'll make it through one term, let alone run for a second. His potential business conflicts of interest could lead to impeachment. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
• Weak No. I'm OK only as far as listing him below as one of the possible candidates, but it seems a bit too much emphasis to have him in the info box or the lead, that seems just a bit too much premature and WP:SPECULATION at this point to be naming him as the presumptive candidate whereas just listing him as a potential does not. After all, he might choose to not run or age and health at 74 may prevent. I'm not saying it's unlikely -- most Presidents do run again -- just saying to not overemphasize the possibility. . Markbassett (talk) 03:33, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• No WP:CRYSTALBALL. We're not here to assume the future. No. _{Adotchar| reply here} 10:11, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• No no one should go in the infobox until, at minimum, they've won enough delegates to secure the nomination. It shouldn't matter at all that there's an incumbent president. Earthscent (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
• No, take Lyndon B. Johnson for example. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 15:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• No Anyone who said yes knows nothing about Misplaced Pages or how elections work. Calibrador (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per other "No" comments above. We didn't even list Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee in the infobox for United States presidential election, 2012 until April 2012, when he had secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination. In fact, I would suggest leaving out the candidates' images and "TBD" altogether at this time, as in the example linked here, to deter some people from being tempted to insert candidates' names prematurely. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per WP:CRYSTAL. Also, if we do keep Trump & Pence as Republican presumptive nominees? then we can't call them 45th Prez-elect or 48th Vice-Prez until 20 January 2017. Here's why -- Tyler, Fillmore, A. Johnson & Arthur were never President-elect; Ford & Rockefeller were never Vice President-elect. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per Crystal. Pincrete (talk) 22:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
• No per wP:CRYSTAL; has not stated he will seek re-election nor has he received the nomination LavaBaron (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Close

Do you think it's time we closed this RfC? There is strong consensus to not add Trump as incumbent for the Republicans per WP:CRYSTAL. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: I think it's time. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Residence of Dwayne Johnson

The home state of Dwayne Johnson is listed as California, which his state of birth, but according to his article and http://miami.curbed.com/2014/10/1/10040852/the-rock-moves-into-55m-southwest-ranches-house-immediately-orders-1, he resides in Southwest Ranches, Florida. Which state should be listed as his home state? MB298 (talk) 05:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I think that Florida should be listed. In politics, a person's home state is generally considered to be their state of their residence, not necessarily their state of birth. For example, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) was born in New York, but his home state is virtually universally listed as Vermont because he's a Senator from Vermont. PiratePablo (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@PiratePablo: I've changed it. MB298 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove Hillary Clinton as speculative candidate for 2020?

Her inclusion is sourced to Heavy, which has been repeatedly cited as not RS, and something called Romper. LavaBaron (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

• remove not cited to RS LavaBaron (talk) 01:53, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian speculative candidates were removed. Why?

Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura were removed as speculative candidates for the Libertarian Party's nominee for president. Why? Is there anywhere that says they're not running? Crashguy42 (talk) 02:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Vote 4 DJH2036: MB298 (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Austin Petersen and Jesse Ventura didn't meet the qualifications of being listed after the Election. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 03:20, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

It's 2020 not 2016

As this article is about an event that takes place in 2020? IMHO we should be editing in that those potential candidates would no longer be holding some of their current offices or have assumed their future offices. For example, Joe Biden won't be Vice President by 2020 & Tammy Duckworth will be a US Senator by 2020. Future status should match future events. GoodDay (talk) 02:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: The positions refer to their current positions; when Joe Biden leaves office, for example, he will be listed as a "Former Vice President". MB298 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

My argument is that we shouldn't refer to their current positions, in an article about a 4-years into the future event. GoodDay (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

People going to this article and looking through the candidate lists will not think, "Oh, Joe Biden will be Vice President in 2020." They will think, "Oh, Joe Biden is Vice President in 2016." Otherwise, the article would be overly confusing. MB298 (talk) 03:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Not confusing, IMHO. BTW, your revert has created inconsistencies concerning the year 2017. GoodDay (talk) 03:14, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I noticed that Donald Trump's been removed as a potential candidate, specifically as "potential incumbent" When clearly he is. WP:Crystal Ball basically is an injunction against listing something out of the ordinary happening in the future. Trump NOT being the incumbent in 2020 is just such a thing. There was a perfectly good picture there and it should be put back, and remain there until the "airport/DMV" picture is released to the public.

Anyone disagree?Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hobbyists and Lunatics (not you)

I noticed GoodDay tried to put Jack Fellure on the page as a major candidate. He is NOT. He is merely a retired hobbyist who has no intention of doing anything beyond sending a couple of letters to the FEC. How do I know this? It was what he did after he announced for president in November of 2012.

For this page (and it's too damn early to even think about), leave the barely notable fringe guys out of the main page until 2019 at least if they are "running" as a minor party candidate, and entirely if they're a major party "candidate", although when the separate page is created in a couple of years' time, it might be nice. Donald Trump is unique in that he's the only "vanity candidate" who actually won.

For the time being, list Trump and Pence as the incumbents and the others ONLY if they have been mentioned by reliable media. This should only change if for some reason Trump or Pence are removed from office.

That being said, there will be no polling for the Republicans to speak of, as there was no polling for them in 1984 and 2004 at all and none for 1992 until the end of the year. There is an incumbent.

To repeat. No minor vanity candidates on the main page. Unless they are mentioned by the mainstream media. okay?Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

An Rfc was held concerning Trump & Pence. The result was to delete them. GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please see the RfC that closed just recently. There was strong consensus to not include him per Misplaced Pages policy. Also, please read WP:OWN. The last paragraph gives the impression that you own the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑

I am not advocating putting his picture in the infobox, which is on the upper right corner of the page, and looks like this:

United States presidential election, 2020

← 2016 November 3, 2020 2024 →

The electoral map for the 2020 election, based on populations from the 2010 census. The 2020 Election will be the last election to use the data from the 2010 Census; subsequent elections will use information from the as yet to be collected 2020 United States Census.

Incumbent President Donald Trump Republican

What I am talking about is the Republican candidates section. where you have he hobbyist Jack Falere listed as a major candidate even though he isn't. Remove him and put Trump back there, please. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the last time, Donald Trump will not be put there because he has not said he will seek reelection. See the RfC above. And please stop reverting editors. One more revert, and you'll be at WP:3RR. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, Arglebargle79. You're heading towards a block. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Neither has anyone else' listed in the article. Not even Joe Biden, who was basically joking. Jack Fellure alleged announcement is nowhere to be found. I googled him and there's nothing since 2015. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I'll let others decide on Biden & Fellure. But, stop putting Trump & Pence in, as though they're already re-nominated. GoodDay (talk) 22:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources says otherwise about those who have expressed interest, declared and speculated candidates. If you find an updated reliable source that indicates the opposite of what the sources say, don't go ahead. Otherwise, leave it as it is. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

He's been mentioned in the mainstream media. That is all that is necessary at this point. At this point in time, there's nothing BUT speculation. Trump hasn't even taken office yet and the first debate is three years away. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Arglebargle79, can you not read what is being told to you? Donald Trump will not be added per Misplaced Pages policy and consensus established. That discussion is over. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:02, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Dwayne Johnson????

Just flipping trough my watch list and saw that Dwayne Johnson was a Speculative candidate. Is this true? JustAGuyOnWikipedia (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

• Former good article nominees
• All unassessed articles
• Unassessed Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• Unassessed United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• Unassessed United States articles of Low-importance
• Unassessed United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• Unassessed United States Government articles
• Unknown-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles