Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential candidates

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 13 January 2020 and 4 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Darbyyself, SamMeurer.

Above undated message substituted from

talk) 16:39, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Declared major candidates criteria

I believe the criteria to qualify as a "Major Candidate" is not inclusive enough. As Trump has proven, someone who has not hold formal political office before does not really prevent that person from being a serious contender. You could make similar arbitrary cutoffs as "hasn't won a statewide office" or "hasn't participated in a national election before".
A better gauge of whether a candidate is serious or not might be whether they've declared AND how much they've campaigned in early primary states.
I think we should be VERY skeptical about "national polling" figures given how they tend to arbitrarily exclude candidates from their lists and have recently been poor predictors of campaign success (see 2016). Also I would be wary of labeling candidates as not a major contender, this early. I wouldn't want to risk creating a feedback loop where candidates aren't taken seriously because they were disregarded earlier.

For just one example: Andrew Yang has quite a bit more buzz about him than either of the 2 "major" candidates.
"Andrew Yang for president" - 11 million google results
"John Delaney for president" - 7.5 million google results
"Richard Ojeda for President" - 400,000 google results

Obviously I'm sure search results for Biden, or Bernie or Warren would come up with even more google results, but of course they would have more because there was a lot of buzz around those 3 in 2016 already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Endymon (talk • contribs) 18:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits is a very bad criteria, except perhaps as means to estimate what other criteria might be used. You are also using google wrong - if you search for "John Delaney"+president, you have only 282,000 hits, with Yang and then Ojeda below him. And there are several reasons my google method is also bad, but it is a bit less bad than yours.--Pharos (talk) 06:10, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Undo the Merge

There was no reason to do this as it was destructive of an excellent article and will cause much unneeded work. This article is necessary. There may have been some discussion but I was not informed as I should have been. I move we bring it back.Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of article

User:Arglebargle79 has recreated the page, even though the consensus was to merge back in December: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates

@JFG, Pharos, Orientls, Bob from the Beltway, WillPeppers, and Tillerh11: A user recreated an article we agreed to merge. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's a
WP:CSD G4. Just tag it for deletion. — JFG talk 18:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Done. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was some discussion on
π, ν) 20:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see any evidence of a consensus to re-create this page. Where is the discussion you are referring to? — JFG talk 13:53, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
π, ν) 15:33, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
There is support, if not yet a consensus, for re-activating the page. Where might be a good place to have a discussion on that specifically? I'm not sure a lot of editors would see it on this talk page since the main page is currently only a redirect (but I might be wrong-).--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You could start a new thread at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. — JFG talk 07:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you compare the number of people who said they were for recreation to the number who were the “consensus” to get rid of it, you will notice that there are more of the former than the latter. It is necessary. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating the article: eight months later

The reason to do this is obvious. There's a need for it as filing has begun an there's less than three months to the first actual votes in Iowa and California. The main primary article is going to have to be completely redone and it's best to start it now so we don't have to do it later. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Candidates

A recent edit put Sanders above Biden. As far as I am aware, Biden still generally polls above Sanders, but in one CNN poll, Sanders is above Biden. I would prefer not swapping candidates back and forth, only swapping if one clearly is outpolling another.

talk) 23:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

I agree. If there are one or two polls that differ, it shouldn't change the order. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter now. the first results will take place in only two weeks, and if Biden or Bernie blow each other out of the water, then we'll discuss it then. The listing for the top four will change over the following month. Bloomberg, Styer or Klobuchar may very well make up to the fist chart, or maybe they won't, I dunno. The polling criterion I used is only temporary until we actually get results. Then, we can change it to order to either delegate strength or popular vote totals, or both. I suggest the former for those who get delegates and the latter for those who do not. Getting one delegate outranking how many tens of thousands of votes the next person gets. As my mother once told me. The least person in is far better off than the best person who doesn't.
Also, a couple of other things, I should mention. those withdrawn candidates who are still on the ballot should not be on the list twice. If they're on the ballot in several states, then they're going to get substantial results (thousands, or even tens of thousands or even a hundred thousand votes), while those who withdrew before, won't get any more than ten of fifteen in New Hampshire or Vermont. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divisions in article / arbitrary order

Why are there so many divisions such as "leading in at least one statewide poll" "polling 3-7%" "polling less than 2%". And why are they ordered by polling average exactly? The only distinctions needed are "Nominee" "withdrew during primaries" and "withdrew before primaries" like in the 2016 republican article (and if you really wanted, the withdrew but stayed on ballot). There is no need to be putting candidates into arbitrary polling brackets, when the results will speak for themselves when in. All these categories do is make Wikipedia look unprofessional. I would like to see if there is a consensus to change it to the categories of :

"Nominee" "withdrew during primaries" "withdrew before primaries but stayed on (Xamount of) ballot/s" "withdrew before primaries" from it's current form of needless divisions. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the layout should be simplified. I don't believe that there was a discussion to change it. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and I think these 4 categories are perfectly fine. Would candidates be listed alphabetically?
talk) 06:53, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I think that candidates should be listed alphabetically. If you look up further in the talk thread, there is already a disagreement on Sanders v. Biden. How we measure the candidate order can be construed in any number of different ways to favour one candidate or another. This can (and may) be done by bad-faith or heavily bias actors for their preferred candidate. Alphabetical is unbiased and easy for readers to understand the order. The current system is not. I would therefore favour changing the system to an alphabetical order within their categories. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the reason for the divisions should be simple. Those who withdrew "before the primaries started but stayed on the ballot" is there, is because there was an objection on the primaries page to having them listed as "withdrew during the primaries" which would have been simpler and actually better. There are three ways of judging when the primaries began. The first is when the very first debate started. The second is when filing to get on the ballot got underway (my favorite), and the third is when the first results are announced (Iowa).
Filing to get on the ballot somewhere is, in fact, a result. It means s/he is going to get votes. NH and Vt are the only states that have write-ins that are counted for everybody. Usually, they are not. Mickey Mouse isn't counted anywhere else. So, in three states Kamela Harris is still a candidate whether she likes it or not. So we should combine "those who withdrew prior to the start of the primaries but remained on the ballot" with "those who withdrew during the primaries" because technically they're the same. Also, remember, people are already voting, and, as someone said, there may be more people voting in California on February 2nd than in Iowa. So if you want to put Mayor Pete ahead of Bernie for a week, go ahead. But it's only for a week or so. If Bernie wins Iowa and NH then he should be on top until super Tuesday. If Biden is, then he should be (Pete and Warren won't probably win anything but will remain on the top four). if Styer comes in second in South Carolina, and thus wins delegates, then he should be brought up to the top tier. Same with everyone else. if they withdraw, then put them on top of the "withdrew during the primaries" section. That's what was done in 2012 and '16 and it should be kept that way.
Please, I implore you, it's not
WP:Crystal to say that we're going to start getting actual results and things are going to change very quickly after that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I thought that the primaries began when the first primary is held.
talk) 05:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree, WittyRecluse. That's what I've always thought as well. I wonder what is we're missing? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that getting on the ballot is itself a result is OR. I don't see why that should be given extra weight (or sorting candidates by polling numbers, for that matter). We'll have official results from the Iowa caucuses in a little over a week. It's best to just sit on it and not make any radical changes, I think.David O. Johnson (talk) 07:15, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the entire page just had a radical change. The primary is in a number of phases. There have been debates, invitations to which are issued based on polling results. that was a phase. "exploratory committees" by prospective candidates before it is a different phase. Almost a dozen candidates have already dropped out. Why is that? They couldn't get into the debates. Why was Marianne Williamson declared to be a major candidate, and not someone like Moise Boyd, who at one time got nearly 100 thousand votes in California's gubernatorial primary a couple of dozen or so years back? Because she raised enough money and managed to convince enough people to support her when talking to pollsters. Beto O'Rourke and Kristan Gillibrand...heck, a dozen major candidates have already been forced out due to the debate rules. The Primary has been going on for months. I'm undoing the radical change and putting back the categories, which will only last a week because Iowa's a week from tomorrow. The categories will not change, but their names will. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus for your change.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:19, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Argle, it's not our job to be organising categories within the remaining major candidates. That's favouritism. That's punditry. Wikipedia is not a site for pundits. We, in our capacity as editors, shouldn't be judging candidates on their polling numbers. The only reason we should check polls is to see who is being included on the polls, and recording the polls on the polling page. Nothing else.
The radical change was a reversion to the consensus of the 2020 primaries page. To my knowledge, your insertion of the categories was never discussed. Sure, Iowa might be around a week away, but your consistent punditry bring the page into disrepute, no matter how long it stays up. After Iowa, sure, we'll likely be sorting by results, but that's no reason to be a substandard article until then.
The categories/distinction between "those who withdrew prior to the start of the primaries but remained on the ballot" with "those who withdrew during the primaries" needs to stay because they are not "technically both the same". Withdrawing before the first contest but receiving votes is different to withdrawing after the first contest. However, I do think the "those who withdrew prior to the start of the primaries but remained on the ballot" needs to remain a distinct, separate category, if for nothing else apart from recording the votes received by said withdrawn-but-on-the-ballot candidates. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 06:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After Iowa

Thoughts on the active candidate sort order being highest = most delegates (with most popular vote being a tiebreaker, followed by alphabetical order as the second tie breaker) after Iowa? We'll keep the sort order for inactive candidates (even those who dropped out) as most recent drop out = highest. NebuchadnezzarHammurabi (talk) 06:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me
talk) 04:31, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
I also agree that delegate count should be the sort order after the Iowa caucuses. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve been advocating that for weeks. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes quite a bit of scrolling to reach the actual candidates. The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries template is taking up too much space. Is there a way we could do some reformatting? Dobbyelf62 (talk) 15:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate count on candidate list?

Do we really need the delegate count on a page that is a simple list of the candidates? Maybe in the chart below, but having the whole template on top seems superfluous. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Current" template

@Occono:, I disagree that articles about presidential candidates - as opposed to the articles about their campaigns - should have a current template slapped on top. The articles as they stand are as accurate and complete as any normal Wikipedia article, and I don't think any missing up-to-the-minute info is important enough to warrant a very visible tag on such highly trafficked pages. (That's aside from the fact that these pages are updated very very rapidly). Any other editors care to weigh in? (see here or here for examples. Hydromania (talk) 08:12, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized discussion already started at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Adding_Current_template_to_active_presidential_candidate_articles. Three opposes, no support besides nom. Hydromania (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate count vs. popular vote sorting

Currently, Bernie is first in the list of active candidates, as he has the most popular votes. I would argue that the table should be sorted by delegate count, as that is the metric by which the Democratic Party nomination is gained. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the table should be sorted by delegate count.
talk) 06:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

What constitutes relevancy to be listed?

Is there an argument for why Joe Sanberg should be listed here? His own Wikipedia article is quite limited in info, and he doesn’t seem a well known enough figure to be listed with the bunch, especially with the likes of Michelle Obama, Al Gore, Oprah, and a few dozen other public officials and celebrities. I deleted him because he didn’t seem relevant, but someone put him back in. I’d like to hear their argument listed here.

Nate Rybner 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

I meant this for the list of “Declined to be candidates”. Apologies!

Nate Rybner 13:22, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Since Sanberg has a Wikipedia article, that means they already meet the WP:Notability threshold. I'm the editor who added him back, btw. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Edwards inclusion as declined candidate

Hi,

I don't think John Edwards should be included as in the "Declined to be candidates" section as the cited ref (this one here: [1]) does not explicitly mention Edwards ruling out a 2020 run for president. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwards has been out of politics for years. He hasn't been anywhere near politics since his trial. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biden picture

Someone tried to put a horrendously ugly picture of Biden as the "official" one on this page. They said it was "consensus" but it wasn't. There was no discussion. Please keep it off the site. Arglebargle79 (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was warned that the disgusting picture must be protected and that to remove it would cause sanctions. First off, why does ANYONE want a horrendously ugly picture there? Second, When was there a consensus? I had removed the picture and replaced it over a month ago. The kid is out of line. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:50, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please remember the ugly picture of Biden that has been put on by someone has been removed and replaced by a more flattering one. It has never been agreed to by consensus. There's a kid who's trying to put it back and has threatened sanctions. Not cool.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:57, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@
Talk) 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Please note that there's no such thing as a "silent consensus" second I have been tryiong to get that picture off ALL of the pages for MONTHS, since I first saw the damn thing. Unless someone can tell me why the WORST picture of Biden imaginable would be consensus, i will try to remove it as it offends me. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:06, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concede

Hello Arglebargle79. As an admin I've been looking over the open reports. Now I have left a proposed closure on the report about you, calling for a block of your account. You may still have time to avoid this. My advice is that you promise to make no more edits regarding Joe Biden pictures until a clear consensus has been reached on a talk page. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 18 June 20

The fugly picture stays. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ALL candidates should be at top of the article

There is no valid reason to put "Other candidates" at the bottom of the page. As of July the 8th, there's page after page of retired candidates before you even get one, still active, other candidate. Telling us they have no chance of getting elected is a poor argument since putting them at the end ensures just that. Obiwanceleri (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are major candidates; that's the valid reason. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates&oldid=1196855740"