Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 6

4433:-- we should not remove all discussion of "minor, potential, or 'declined' candidates" from the article. At this stage, much of what there is to say about the election revolves around potential candidates -- and while I don't claim to know who the Democratic presidential nominee will be, I think there is a good chance that they are probably listed in the "publicly expressed interest", "potential candidates", or maybe even "declined candidates" section right now. I would, however, like to propose a suggestion for narrowing down the minor declared candidates. Currently, to be listed, a person must only (a) have declared their candidacy and (b) be notable enough to already have a Knowledge (XXG) article. I would like to suggest a third requirement -- the person (c) must have a website specifically for their presidential campaign. That would apparently take out Jack Fellure, Jonathon Sharkey, Brad Thor, Harry Braun, Rocky De La Fuente, Geoffrey Feiger, Zoltan Istvan, Vermin Supreme, Lawrence Jackson, Dan Rattiner, and Kanye West. I mean, Kanye West is definitely notable, but despite his past claims, he hasn't shown himself to be definitely running for president in 2020. If someone is serious enough to run for president, they ought to be serious enough to have a campaign website. -- 292:- As I said, a poll is a poll is a poll. I think it was actually quite interesting how they polled her against President Trump twice, once using her real name (Stephanie Clifford), and once with her significantly more well known stage name (Stormy Daniels). The large discrepancy (42-41-17 for Clifford|32-41-27 for Daniels) shows that the electorate would narrowly elect some generic Democrat they've never heard of named Stephanie Clifford over the incumbent President, however they would not actually vote in the porn star Stormy Daniels, even if she were the Democratic nominee. Really, it does come down to whether or not it's satirical, and we have a track record of bending the rules of the article in order to remove satirical candidates (Stephen Colbert and Vicente Fox, namely). I feel this could also eventually apply to Kanye West, as well. So in conclusion, while the neutralist in me wants to keep her (as well as Colbert and Fox) for the sake of adhering to the pre-established rules and the consensus on the article, I don't think we'd be losing much by removing her (let's keep her polls in the polling section, regardless). 4916:

to make a general comment for women to run for office. She could certainly run for Congress, for Senate, or, just like like any other natural-born citizen of this country, for president, and she could do it in the upcoming election, but I see no reason this scant one-off nothingness must be mentioned here as something serious or predictive. I appreciate your contributions to Knowledge (XXG), but I liked the section you just deleted from here, "Proposal: Delete the damn article at this point." Sure I could be in the minority here, but it's historically a lot easier to add speculation to election articles than to remove it or keep it from popping up on the large number of them (and separate, semiduplicative articles on the primaries!), so I don't want to take previous years' articles as hard precedent. I feel too many people have the idea that "It has a reliable source! It's connected to something/someone notable! You can't remove that from anywhere, ever!"

2481: 4195:'running' in some form or another." In addition, I feel that the website thing shouldn't be mentioned in the article proper, only hidden before each section (Like where it used to say "Only add people with two or more speculative sources, no kitchen sink lists, blah blah blah"). Honestly it feels kinda arbitrary and unprofessional to have the introduction to each section say "Here are the guys running for President that have publicly announced their candidacy and also have a campaign website," then go "Here's the ones that don't." Now that we've actually implemented this rule, we may as well go all or nothing here, we're currently standing with one foot in and one foot out the door. Removing that awkward middle segment would make it nice and consistent to have photos of the declared and interested candidates. And I also believe that it's more appropriate to show a photo of the presumed frontrunner 659:

disclosure, I am a Democrat, but it almost seems like the purpose of the paragraph is to elevate division, distract from the discussion at hand, disqualifying potential candidate's abilities, and other major distractions. I think the Democrats are over the Perez-Ellison rift (I think) and it wasn't very big to begin with. I don't see how impeachment is relevant here, especially in the context of House races. Perhaps some of this information could be shifted over to article(s) on House races. Note I am not asking anyone to add this, but nothing is mentioned about momentum an opposition party often has when not in power. We have seen that in the past with the Tea Party and now with the so-called "blue wave." Granted you could take what I say with a grain of salt, but I feel like some of this might have been written to dwell on certain House races other than the 2020 Presidential election.

772:

some kind of "Minor 2020 candidates" article for people like Boss and Fellure, who are indeed mildly notable people running in 2020, but haven't received any media coverage. That's a good compromise, I think. Overall, I don't really think it's that much of a big deal yet. There's only 9 non-major candidates that've declared so far from both parties. 4 of them (Thor, Fieger, Wells, and Yang), have received press coverage. The other 5 (Fellure, Sharkey*, Boss, Braun, and De La Fuente) have not (Although I did find mention of Sharkey in the NY Daily News after West had first announced at the VMAs in 2015, they didn't outright mention 2020, just that he's also a strange politician seeking the presidency in a future election).

4450:- I'm very much in favor of having rules to keep track of everything, we're Knowledge (XXG), we need to be impartial. There are literally hundreds of people that've filed with the FEC, but we only include individuals that are notable enough to already have their own biographical Knowledge (XXG) article. I've proposed that we could move the "minor" candidates to their own subarticle if it really bothers people, but nobody ever follows up with that. This article is very similar to other American future election articles, with a "speculative" and "declined" sections, just look at any U.S. Senate or gubernatorial election page for 2018. Who the media is anticipating will run is notable (for example, how 4980:

and dozens of names to be thrown about, and it's just not relevant at this point; at any level of elections, we should just cover who runs, not who could run and who didn't run – at least not without prose explaining their importance. I had to nominate the 2024 presidential election article for deletion in January 2016! I haven't examined the Booker and Hickenlooper sources but they at least have had substantial coverage in preparing for a run or considered as strong likely candidates, unlike Richards. As we've all been discussing with even the declared candidates, there is discretion to be had. Anyway, back to work, you all know my opinion for anything else on the article...

3676:

of Trump as a candidate than a reflection on his own chances in a serious campaign. He also says "I'm only saying that because people don't really have a sense of who's going to come up. I mean, somebody great's going to come up I hope," directly indicating that he's not serious about the concept. The thing he says that may have most contributed to his name being added to the list was "the only reason I say that is because I'd love to run for that kind of position," where I think "position" is more likely referring to public office in general than the presidency in particular. I can't find anything else he's said that would indicate that this was an expression of interest.

1654:

sink articles, why allow kitchen sink polls, which have even less than the one paragraph articles may have? If we require two media sources, why not require at least two polls? This article is far too permissive and loses usefulness and credibility when it includes so many people. With respect to criteria for declined candidates, I still fail to understand why it should be included at all, especially once the primaries get going - If they aren't running, they obviously declined to run! Anyway, there should still be at least the same criteria of two articles implying they might actually run, not just one guy suggesting they'd be a good candidate.

2118: 2004: 1226: 4242:, but he doesn't mention specifically that he is running for President in 2020 there. He does have a section for "Governor Run" and a section for "2016 US Presidential Run", but nothing for "2020 US Presidential Run", which I think says something about his priorities. If he doesn't feel like putting up a web page for his 2020 presidential candidacy, that's his decision -- but in that case, I don't feel like giving him the same level of recognition on Knowledge (XXG) as other candidates who have taken the bare minimal step of putting up campaign websites. -- 1621:

pollster: that's what brought us Gowdy and Powell. This is why I suggest to require at least 3 national polls (my suggestion of 5 above is a bit excessive, or perhaps we could accept 2 polls from different pollsters), or one poll where the candidate polls above 5%. I don't like speculation-based listings because they have no basis in fact. I could accept them if there is a strong filter on source quality, but that's hard to define. What do you think of my proposed criteria for "potential" and "declined" candidates? —

1676:). I see how it's a bit hypocritical to require 2 speculative articles but only 1 national poll (setting aside the fact that writing a speculative article is much easier and faster than organizing a national poll). It just seems like a solution without very much of a problem? I haven't checked each individual instance of it happening, but it appears to only really apply to Gowdy and Powell (both of which I've seen crop up in "kitchen sink" articles and informal chats regarding the race (like 1258:

newspaper articles where sports reporters are writing "Ex-NFLer makes White House bid" or anything like that, as one might expect. There are at least three possibilities as to how a Lawrence Christopher Jackson could have filed with the FEC if it wasn't the football player: (1) the candidate coincidentally shares the same name as the athlete; (2) the candidate is using a pseudonym (as did some of the Form 1 filers for the 2016 election), or (3) the Form 1 was submitted as a hoax. --

4285:(in the case of minor candidates). Opposing this position were editors who felt the RfC was overly broad and would extend extraordinary and unchecked authority to undo prior consensus of more limited scope. (Two other arguments were presented which were less compelling. On the "pro" side was the argument that the current article is a "mess" or "horrible" while, on the "con" side was the notion that a change here would require all similar articles on this topic to also be amended 2453: 4117:

consensus to remove pictures of declared candidates with no web site, I was reverted, and I took the extra step of removing galleries of people who only "expressed interest". Finally, I kept the galleries for "interested" candidates for the Republican and Democratic parties, because there is actually a nomination process in the major parties, and they have more credibility than potential non-party candidates. Further opinions on this topic welcome. —

31: 4414:- no to unlimited authority to ignore prior consensus and do massive unspecified changes. Limit it to the specific names listed above and then I think it might be OK -- or state some specific principle for content, or say delete all the ones declining, or anything else that is specific and it might be acceptable. But just "massive" changes or "invalidate *all* page content rules" without detail or massive support is not proper. Cheers 4687:: In agreement with Elephanthunter, the page is in dire need of cleanup, but clear rules/guidelines need to be established for that to be done efficiently. I agree as well with others who have argued that listing "declined" candidates is overkill for this article, and belongs on sub-articles instead. Also in agreement with Metropolitan90's suggestion that a campaign website be requirement for listing of declared minor candidates.-- 4551:- If these exclusionary changes are applied to this article, then they must be applied to every other article on future U.S. elections as well. I think I'm not alone in saying that this would be far too massive and unnecessary of an overhaul. If anything, the rules should be refined to reduce the number of "kitchen sink" candidates, but otherwise the typical Knowledge (XXG) reader wouldn't take much of an issue with this article. 1454:, who doesn't have a campaign website but definitely stirred up a lot of media attention and received the endorsement of a Never-Trumper. In any case, I don't think these rules should be applied to third party candidates, since very few of them actually hold office, so they practically are all "minor" candidates. And I still support the possibility of just moving all these "minor" candidates to a subarticle if need be. 4017: 3906: 2523: 4400:

as having declined to run. Perhaps in subarticles, but this page should be what is happening in the election, not what isn't. If someone isn't listed as running (potentially running) it should be self-explanatory they are not running. Your edit is a bit extreme, but yes I would support most any trimming of this article, as most of it is unnecessary or outdated speculation and minor irrelevant nobodies.

2510: 2375: 3952: 3805: 3565: 3133: 2962: 2066: 1953: 1178: 3168:). As a result from Rhian2040's indiscriminate re-addition of content, the error fix was reverted, so the error is again visible in the "Notes" section. I do not think the massive content disputes that currently pague the article do include such a technical issue, so I merely ask for the error to be fixed (basically it would mean to conduct the same edit as the one I linked). Thank you. 3418:– I think we should keep the "Declined" section with brief mentions of denials, because that would avoid repetitive discussions about "didn't Senator X say he may run at some point?" and it's informative to readers to find out who is out of the race. The worst category today is "potential" because it's entirely based on speculation of journalists, pollsters or random joes. — 4568:: No, as the information will winnow itself out over time; the closer we get to the time frame in question, the more the unsourced and unimportant information will be dropped, removed, re-worded. No need to rush that. However, perhaps removing those folks who have not explicitly declared (and been covered, of course, in RS) would be a better direction for this RfC. 2399: 217: 3442:

running for the office, EVER" could make up their minds in one year. We would also have the issue of whom should we add to such section: should we include any person who says 'no', or should we require that the person in question has openly considered it at first, then renegued on it? I believe such a section would be too open to

4517:. While we have to broadly reflect what reliable sources say, we do not simply parrot all reliable sources; we are required to exercise editorial judgement, as directed by the policy linked above (and several others). The media has a 24 news cycle which it fills with speculation, among other things. We cannot do the same. 4081: 2256: 4614:

Article is currently horrible mess of disconnected news reports and pure speculation that doesn't serve the aim of cataloguing relevant encyopediac informaition. It should be rewritten completly like the original support suggested, a comprimise might be moving most of the current article into another

4399:

It is absurdly undue to give such prominence to idiot perennial candidates like Rocky de la Fuente and Jack Fellure as well. We should not be highlighting them with pictures and large table rows or anything at all just because they can fill out an FEC form. It's also ridiculous to list so many people

4287:

Both sets of arguments were, in my opinion, equally strong. With neither argument more compelling than the other, I also examined the distribution of opinions with eight editors opposing the proposal and seven supporting it. Ultimately, though there seems to be a strong sense that much of the content

3675:

I don't think the clip this entry is based on is substantial enough to count as "publicly expressing interest." Baldwin appears to be joking when he talks about how he runs his campaign and how he would most likely win. Also, when he says he would win it seems to be more of a statement on the quality

3431:

Detail: is we keep the Declined section, it should be condensed to just the names of people, without their current title or list of prior positions, followed by one citation documenting their refusal to be a candidate. The section would end up being a single paragraph in prose, so as not to distract.

2868:

I wouldn't want to make a number of endorsements a criterion we use in this article at all. I mean, three of Yang's four endorsers are people I've never heard of. The criteria we use should be more objective than that. Also, I wouldn't want to set the criteria with the goal of intentionally excluding

1925:

Well it's obvious he didn't express interest in running, which is why I'm suggesting he should be in the potential candidates section. The fact that he's insinuating that it's *theoretically possible* that he will run makes him a *potential* candidate. He didn't say he won't run, just that he doesn't

1910:

I think when you're asked if you're gonna run in 2020 and you respond with "I could, but I won't" that counts as saying "no." He didn't add on anything like "we'll see," or "it's too early to think about that," like most others do, it was just a flat "no." Especially since he prefaces it by saying he

1284:

with the tagline "I retired from Americas greatest sport so I can be happy." He also discusses his past career in the NFL here. The Twitter account used to have "2020 presidential candidate" in its bio, I know because I remember looking him up when he was first added to the article. It doesn't at the

658:

I think the paragraph on the Democratic Party is overemphasizing the party division thing. Also, why is it mentioning House races and impeachment and whatnot? The comment about the "old folk's home" is inappropriate, too. I understand the need for Knowledge (XXG) to have critical narratives, and full

4915:

Why are your standards so low for inclusion in this article? There is absolutely no way to reasonably conclude from that that she's actually considering running for president in 2020. Of course it was tongue-in-cheek. It was a vague, impromptu response to a broad, unexpected question, which she used

3441:

I think it is just too soon for having a "declined" section. What prevents a candidate who has declined at this stage to renegue on their declination and running for the office? Specially when most declines are based on rather ambiguous statements. Even someone who said right now "I'm definitely not

1653:

I support these changes, both the website requirement (and more?!) for runners and JFG's removals. It's ridiculous that just one random private polling company can decide to do a kitchen sink poll of names that no one is seriously expecting to run, and this article lists them. If we disallow kitchen

1279:

Twitter handle (@LoJackson94). The name is pretty consistent with one of his nicknames: LoJack. Using the Wayback Machine, I found that the account used to be verified up to its most recent capture in December 2016. As of now (July 2018), the account is not verified anymore. The same user also posts

4979:

No sorry, you have been consistent and been editing in good faith. I've been paying attention to these articles since before the 2012 election and I just think with the deluge of news sources and sites that do speculation (and pollsters that like to have nonspeculative fun), it's so easy for dozens

2160:

There is no need for a CONSENSUS or an RfC to remove policy-violating material from an article, and this article was full of violations of CRYSTAL, WEIGHT, OR, SYNTH and POV, much of which I have removed.The article was (and in some ways still is) a massive piece of dreck, and should probably never

1620:

Thanks for the detailed explanations. I had not seen where the prior criteria for inclusion were listed. They should be made more prominent in a non-archivable section of the talk page. On substance, I think "1 national poll" is insufficient, because it puts us at the mercy of an isolated idea by a

836:

as a Republican. His article was nominated for deletion shortly after being put on this page. It was fully deleted in September 2017, so if you go back far enough in the talk page archive (probably anywhere from around June to September 2017) I'm sure you can find us discussing his notability while

4938:

Well damn. I mean to answer your question; I've always taken I guess you could say a neutralist stance on Knowledge (XXG)? Where I try to sort of treat everything kind of equally, I suppose? (I'm sure you've seen plenty of me defending the status quo) Basically, I don't see Richards' expression of

4715:

Now that this distinction has been made, I propose that we move all mention of notable candidates without campaign websites to their respective primary pages. The independent and unaffiliated candidates should probably be removed or moved to some sort of "List of Third Party Candidates in the 2020

3508:

We should not have such excessive speculation on the article, nor retain people who are not in fact involved in the election at this point. If someone is not listed as running, readers would assume they did not run - no need to explicitly list a negative. As an ever-changing website, we can add or

1799:

There are reports that Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand are preparing campaigns and PACs and money to run for president,can we put them in the potential candidate section for Kirsten Gillibrand and Publicly expressed interest for Elizabeth Warren,or do we put both in the potential candidate

1521:

I agree with these requirements for declared candidates. What bother me more is the unseemly list of "potential candidates", which includes some people merely because some journalist or some pollster decided they might be running some day. That's flawed. For example, I removed Steve Bannon and Ann

699:

I trimmed down a lot of the details, but Democrats trying to out-progressive each other (and whether or not the more progressive candidate actually gets nominated) in the midterm primaries is widely considered a prelude to the 2020 primaries. The Republican section has similar mention to potential

3402:

is my preference for now. The value of the "potential" candidates listing is that it is likely that at least some of them will wind up actually running for the nomination. The "declined" candidates can be listed in the separate articles pertaining to their party's primaries which can go into more

3062:

Opinion polling for the Democratic and Republican primaries should be moved on to their respective pages, as has been done for all US elections. As for global election polls, I would say to just create separate articles for nationwide and statewide polls, just as it's done for previous elections:

2803:

I think those without a website in this case should be removed entirely. This essentially turns the declared candidates section into three categories: "Major," "Other," and "Other-other" candidates. I still think news coverage would be a better way to go about this. This method, as I've mentioned

1565:

will run can be a pretty good gauge of how the race is being viewed by the general public at the current time. We've already tightened the rules a bit from where they used to be (where we allowed "kitchen sink" articles and articles based on social media posts). We can't actually have a "declined

1560:

Well the reason your edits were reverted is because they go against our current consensus: at least 2 (but no more than 3) sources of speculation or 1 national opinion poll. I think the speculation is an important aspect of the early life of articles like these. You can see very similar setups in

771:

Considering that one of this article's primary purposes is to provide a list of notable candidates, and that the consensus is that "notable" is defined as when an individual has their own biographical Knowledge (XXG) article, I'm fine with the way things are now. Perhaps we should create and link

4596:

shape. Bad enough to warrant your proposal as a stopgap solution. But I suggest that, in cleanup, we establish clear rules. For instance: Only mention the intersection of candidates with an FEC filing and enough notability to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) article. The less opinion involved, the less

4943:

from that of Booker's or Hickenlooper's, they're notable people that were asked about 2020 and didn't say "no." I figure an article like this has to have rules, and we can't really just expel certain people just because we think it's a bit silly (I think Kanye West's supposed candidacy is quite

2822:

I prefer the website criterion to the news coverage criterion. Either a candidate has an official campaign website, or they don't. That's an objective criterion. But it's more difficult to determine what counts as significant news coverage -- and if we were evaluating how much media attention a

1468:

As I see it, the advantage of the website criterion is that it can be applied to candidates from the major parties as well as third party/independent candidates; it's purely within the ability of the candidate and their supporters to accomplish. By contrast, someone like Kanye West, or comedian

509:. I've always been a bit skeptical of West's inclusion at all, but he made a public announcement at the VMAs rather than Perlman for example, who's only made a Facebook post about 2020. We must be non-partial. Daniels might seem ridiculous, but why should she be excluded over, say, someone like 4368:

I see no way to salvage the article as it stands, and feel removing most of the content is the only way to bring this article up to encyclopedic standards. An article that is 260KB in size (much of it tables and references) about an event that will not occur for over 12 months is ridiculously

4116:

There's been a bit of back and forth with galleries of candidates. In the section about potential third-party candidates, it seemed to me inconsistent to have pictures for people who simply "expressed interest", and no pictures for those who actually "declared" a candidacy. However, as we had

3844:

I appreciate the protection of the article, which was appropriate, and understand that full protection is always of the "wrong version" (to someone), but in this case, the restorations were violations of Discretionary Sanctions, so an administrator should edit through protection to remove the

1257:

who filed a Form 1 with the FEC to declare a presidential candidacy is the ex-football player? Granted, the purported candidate and the football player have the same middle name, but we have no sources indicating that the football player is a candidate other than that FEC filing. There are no

4194:

I mean doesn't that sort of defeat the purpose of having the website parameter in the first place? Building from that, I think we should take the Fellures and Fiegers of this page and just move all mention of them to their respective primary pages as a sort of "Oh yeah, these people are also

751:

My take: A diary: Just because someone has a wikipedia page and is involved in an event that also has a wikipedia page doesnt mean they merit being mentioned in that event's wiki. Kanye West, Lawrence Jackson, Jonathan the Impaler are all notable but not necessarily worthy to be mentioned in

4159:

respectively to include the 5 inhabited territories). I see no real reason to treat members of third parties that've expressed interest any differently than members of major parties, especially since we've now removed the distinction between them, just listing them all in the same category.

3521:

The most sensible option IMHO, in agreement with the majority of those have commented so far. I agree with EditDude that the primary pages - and possibly other sub-articles - should keep the lists of "potential" candidates, as those articles are intended to provide more detailed information

1537:

Also list as "potential candidates" people who have hinted at a potential run in a mainstream media interview. That would for example include Carly Fiorina who said she would "certainly consider" running, but exclude Steve Bannon whose candidacy is only a matter of speculation by our cited

492:

We only cite public statements, not social media posts. You're mocking Stormy Daniels, who has met the criteria of the article by being featured in a national poll, but if we allowed social media posts to dictate who's on the article, this would open the floodgates to include the likes of

746:

Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall

2161:

have been allowed to exist this far in advance of the election -- for chrissake we haven;t even had the mid-terms! All it should have is the official information about the when and the where, and ZERO speculation about WHO. This is not someone's personal political blog. Strip it.

4364:

is the same person that filed an FEC report. The coverage of the potential Democratic Party race is also ridiculous; statements 2-3 years out are notoriously unreliable as to whether people will actually run, as other elections in the interim time period often change this.

1541:

I would keep the list of "Declined to run" for people who have personally responded negatively to a direct question about their potential candidacy. This helps avoid renewed speculation and gives accurate information to readers who may otherwise wonder about some unlisted

1311:, and while Jackson has some interesting things to say, one thing that I couldn't find anywhere on either of those pages was a mention of him being a candidate for President of the United States. I am going to suggest a possible resolution for this in the section below. -- 737:

Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a

4184:

My preferred solution would be to re-instate pictures for the "declared but no web site" candidates, just in short gallery format, not as a full-fledged table; that would remain reserved for "declared with campaign site" candidates. What do our fellow editors think? —

1427:

criterion. Merely having a campaign website doesn't mean that a person should be listed; they also must have declared their candidacy and be notable. Also, this criterion is not meant to be retroactive to past elections; I don't want to remove Abraham Lincoln from

2823:

candidate had received, we would probably want to require an increased amount of media coverage as we get closer to the election. No matter how many bloggers endorse Brad Thor, if he is serious about running for president, he ought to have a campaign website. He

4340:

This article has, for quite some time, operated on what I feel are a ridiculous set of "rules" that amount to original research and synthesis. A positive result from this RFC should invalidate *all* page content rules, requiring them to have a new consensus.

2885:

Yes, please. Anything to keep this article focused a bit more on actually notable (not Knowledge (XXG) notable) people. If they're a joke candidates who can't even take themselves seriously enough to have a campaign website, why should we take them seriously?

4964:

I'm sorry if I, like, upset anybody based on my editing patterns. Like I said, it's mainly for the purpose of maintaining a sense of continuity, where we include people if they meet the criteria - period; I'm open to said criteria changing over time, though.

2993:

Change Michael Avenatti's status that he is "not registered to the political party of this section, but has been the subject of speculation or expressed interest in running under this party" to a Democrat. He has called himself a "lifelong Democrat". Source:

1606:. The thing is that none of these people have actually received any significant media speculation that they might run in the first place. Our current consensus for that is at least 1 (typically 2) speculative article and 1 instance of them declining to run. 3030:

Polling data 2+ years before a general election (and 1+ year before a primary election) with speculative candidates is not particularly useful. With 67KB of it already, it is already too much of the space on this page. I'm not sure the data needs to be

4960:

saying he'd be able to win against Trump if no one good showed up). This was just sorta meant to come to an agreement as to whether or not Richards' statement technically counts and I'm leaning towards yes with a pretty egalitarian view of "expressing

755:

Who's Who: Yes, Jeff Boss, Jack Fellure, Harry Braun and others are all running for president. But they haven't received any news coverage at all. We need proof that they are notable enough to include in this article, not just proof that they are

3096: 1449:

even knows what a website is, though. Regardless, I've also seen a proposal for adding the requirement to have the candidate receive some sort of news coverage for their campaign. That would still exclude Fellure, but would include

1834:

They would both hypothetically be put in the "potential" category, but Gillibrand and Warren have both publicly denied that they're running in 2020. Unless they make a public statement about the race, then they should stay there.

1663:

Especially in the pre-primary environment (which we will be in for the next 18 or 19 months), listing notable people (that have been the subject of speculation) who've officially ruled out running is very important. For example,

1875:

Okay,so publicly denying equals,not running,but the article from this month clearly says that Elizabeth Warren is making moves in preparations to run,so there is a potential here,then why is Tulsi Gabbard on the potential list

376:

her, i've asked for her name to be removed before and have been ignored for whatever reason. There's no reason to believe she is even interested but for some reason people seem to really want her up there. It's weird honestly.

998:

I believe that you think youre right, but if youre confident it was already agreed upon then you can tell me where this discussion took place. We need proof these rules were agreed upon. It needs to be written somewhere. Like

790:

a consensus and then pretended it's always been that way. "Lawrence Jackson is notable enough for this page because Knowledge (XXG) says he is notable in completely unrelated subjects." That contradicts the diary rule written

1419:

If, in the present day, someone is supposedly running for president, but doesn't have a website for their campaign, it's unlikely that their campaign is significant enough to justify listing in this encyclopedia article.

786:"The consensus is that 'notable' is defined as when an individual has their own biographical Knowledge (XXG) article." This is one of the rules that i think is made up. I believe either you or someone else came up with it 4717: 1630:

I'm more leaning towards a numerical amount (probably 2 polls rather than 1) than basing it on their poll performance. Depending on how many people are in the poll could drastically change their placements (For example:

700:"shadow campaigns" against President Trump. Senator Reid's comments also are both relevant and noteworthy, similar comments are featured for Republicans from Senators McCain, Flake, Collins, Paul, and Governor Christie. 2192:

The primary campaign has started, at least in Iowa and New Hampshire. I've reverted your change as you've thrown the baby out with the bathwater; though I probably support more than half of the individual removals.

680:

I agree, I think that the irrelevant information should be removed and moved to an appropriate page. I am also speaking as a democrat, but I do agree, unless similar information is added to the republican paragraph

3075:. Just to note that opinion polls with speculative candidates are not really speculative by themselves, as it is obvious those polls do exist, and that they will later get considered ahead of debates and the such. 2355: 2351: 4174:

So, are you in favor of removing the gallery of "interested" Democrat and Republican hopefuls until they actually file their candidacy? I think that would considerably diminish the readability of the article. —

1744:

Thanks, I have moved West to the "withdrawn candidates" section instead of the "declared candidates" section based on that article, which indicated that West now says he is going to run in 2024 instead of 2020.

1500:

Thanks, I am hoping to get some more support as well. If we can reach any kind of consensus on the website criterion, we can probably find a way to get some mention of the candidates with no website somewhere.

3250:

I'm of the opinion that usage of photos within the article text is usually unnecessary and space-wasting – maybe it's more appropriate on each individual primary article, but on this page it's just excessive.

2291: 924:

Having a wikipedia article as a requirement isnt mentioned again until i tell him the rules dont say that anywhere on April 30th, 2017. He then changes the rules on May 1st telling me "this is what was agreed

1485:

I guess you can count me as a soft yes for the website thing. Maybe with the caveat that we still create a subarticle for a more "complete" list of minor candidates. Possibly on the individual primary pages?

3509:

remove any changes in status without retaining every future, past, and present individual at all times. Those declared should at least have a website as proposed above to exclude non-serious candidates.

1672:

has also ruled out a third run, something that the incumbent President basically challenged her to do. It seems like this is moved to the respective primary pages once the election actually happens (

1122:. Until he either makes a public declaration on some platform that isn't social media or files with the FEC, we can't include him. If he's serious, I expect he'll file with the FEC again eventually. 3832:

Unless I'm misunderstanding, this article is under a "1RR, consensus needed to restore a revert" sanction. My edits, made consecutively, constitute a single edit for the purpose of counting reverts

3078:

I nonetheless concur that the amount of information that was shown in here was excessive, specially when much of this is already covered in the articles for the Democratic and Republican primaries.

1680:'s). But for a declined individual, typically their article in which they rule out running is treated as their second source (as they almost always are directly asked about it to give that answer). 662:

Anyone have thoughts? Feel free to critique me if you see fit. It's also ok to partially or fully agree/disagree with my assessment. I might be somewhat clouded by bias but want others' feedback.

4632:– We should have clear criteria for inclusion, and we should mercifully weed out all speculation, wishful thinking and personal opinion from the contents. A lot of the current article borders on 636: 478: 4925:

Sorry I got a bit worked up there, I've been commenting on this talk page and article too much lately. I need to try to focus on real life work and will be cutting back on my editing for a bit.

2480: 2102: 863:

in topic #32, however it doesnt look a consensus (of any kind) was reached. I did some more digging though and i think the rule that "candidates have to have a wikipedia page" was invented by

1154: 3474:

is definitely the most reasonable, but the individual primary pages should keep their lists of potential candidates; that way, those pages actually provide info the main article doesn't. -

3219:

As this is caught up in "consensus required", let's start cleanup proposals. The galleries here are absurdly excessive. We should remove all of them except for declared candidates. The

625:

about running, plus he probably has the money, connections, and base of support to run, and likely would be able to bring a large new voting block to whichever party/platform he chose.

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 2437: 2176:

I'd just throw out there that we should probably at least keep the polls and candidates that've, y'know, already started running like the incumbent for example? Oh well, I guess.

2735: 3861: 1534:

List as "potential candidates" only people who have been mentioned in at least 5 national polls, or who have received at least 5% of support in at least two national polls.

1987:

I am the independent candidate William Hurst, born 4 July 1983, Announced candidacy 4 July 2018. Images from the website williamhurstcampaign.org are welcome to be used.

4900:

I feel like that counts as expressing interest in running for President, since it was in response to a direct question (albeit tongue-in-cheek) about the 2020 election.

2368: 2364: 1728: 1561:

other articles on elections that haven't happened yet. The only primary difference is the inclusion of pictures of each person. I've mentioned before that who the media

2847:

I think we ought to make a certain level of notable endorsements grounds for makings someone a major candidate. Yang has four, so maybe five? - 7/29/2018, anonymous.

2763: 1566:

candidates" section without media speculation. I've found that a number of notable people have said that they won't be running in 2020 (including but not limited to:

3068: 4140: 2106: 4082:"STEYER raises the stakes: New $ 10 million voter drive -- SWALWELL not ruling out 2020 -- ERIC TRUMP on Fresno radio -- SIXTH firefighter dies battling wildfires" 1003:

pointed out the 2016 election article currently has candidates that dont have wikis. It also included candidates without wikis before the election took place like

4458:

race). You're also just being incredibly vague with your proposed changes. What kind of "rules" would you like to implement in place of the ones we already have?

4132: 3064: 2543:

Other notable persons who have announced that they are running for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 but have not established campaign websites are:

1635:

won a plurality in the 1 and only Iowa primary poll, but the poll failed to mention any of the biggest likely candidates like Biden, Harris, Sanders, or Warren).

3367:

is the one that would best combine having a useful amount of information on candidates and avoiding the article becoming an indiscriminate collection of gossip.

594:

OK, I missed that. My bad. Out of curiosity, when/if Kanye doesn't make the ballot, will he be listed as failed to qualify or declined? - dont know how to sign

4156: 4152: 4148: 4144: 3224: 3220: 3072: 2128:

that support the change you want to be made. Additionally, since all of the other people on the list have Knowledge (XXG) articles, please make sure candidates

1673: 983:

Actually, this was reached on a previous Presidential election article (I wasn't involved in the article's rules at the time). I simply carried the rules over.

47: 17: 3864:; this is not the case (the overall point of the restriction is to promote the stable form of the article, which was the version before Beyond My Ken's edits) 1668:

has already said that he has no plans to run for a third time, so the LP is currently scrambling to find someone to take up the helm as the face of the party.

3884:

interpretation, but it is not what the sanction says, nor -- at least to my knowledge -- was that the purpose of the sanction, which was not to protect the

1145: 4878:

In the article, Richards was attending an event and was asked questions that were written on index cards from audience members. The two in particular that

3164:

Before the page protection, I conducted an edit fixing a cite error issue resulting from the name "d" being defined multiple times with different content (

3677: 3012:

Based on the source you cited, I have removed that note. If other evidence appears that suggests otherwise, the note can be restored in that situation. --

477:. This page needs to remove him as a "2020 independent" ASAP if it wants to maintain ANY credibility. Stormy Daniels as a candidate seriously? Grow up.-- 1285:

time of writing and would have come after the latest capture on the Wayback Machine. Other than that, though, I don't know of any other concrete proof.

4455: 3962: 3575: 3143: 2972: 2446: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2076: 1963: 1429: 1188: 838: 153: 2125: 1233: 339:- There is no indication that she will run, furthermore, the source could be better and most likely isn't serious considering her current profession. 4136: 3318:; though the "interested" field may need to be changed to require them to have actual campaign-style events (and not just comments to reporters). 3036: 2329: 2325: 2321: 394:

Daniels (which should really have been Clifford to begin with). There's no indication that she would run and the source is somewhat questionable.

869:

Please only include candidates in this section who've stated that they will run for President and who haven't declared their run via social media

4652:

as per the comments made above; the current criteria for inclusion and separation of speculative/declined candidates is farcical and unhelpful.

2995: 1895:

Bloomberg should be moved from declined to potential. All he said was that he has no plans to run in 2020. That doesn't mean he's ruled it out.

2442: 2429: 2347: 2283: 4318:

Should a massive amount of information, including all discussion of minor, potential, or "declined" candidates, be removed from this article?

531:

I also suggested removing Kanye at one point. However, what with no social media, he needs to stay. However, I take issue with the fact that

265:

The poll is a joke, IMO. The RfC is not. I tried to BOLD-ly remove this and was reverted; an RfC is the easiest way to find consensus here.

3546:

consensus for option C. Accordingly, I will request removal of the extra sections. They may be restored if a new consensus later emerges. —

832:

simultaneously, before this he was the Vice Presidential nominee for the latter party in the 2016 election, he also ran for local office in

626: 4944:

silly, but I've advocated that he stay on the page regardless), but that hasn't stopped consensuses to be made to exclude specific people (

2854: 2308: 2304: 1772: 542: 1731: 1382: 601: 535:

is listed as a candidate, he only did a social media post. - A person who sadly doesn't quite understand how to sign my posts, 5/8/18.

569: 4384: 4329: 3753: 3633: 3329: 3238: 3050: 2922: 2204: 1729:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/music/news/kanye-west-us-president-run-bid-2024-twitter-campaign-latest-a8321106.html

1705: 1473:

in 2016, can get news coverage of their supposed campaign without actually running an actual campaign, merely by being a celebrity. --

825: 640: 622: 482: 469: 323: 276: 198: 167: 2425: 1158: 1033:

You know what I don’t really care anymore. I’ll go another break. I’ll check back on this page in like a year or two years or never.

114: 4579: 4292:. However, more targeted proposals - based on the iteration of opinions presented - seem like they would be more likely to pass. 2221:

This will illustrate how I propose to apply the website requirement, in the case of the Democratic "other declared candidates".

2611: 1103: 311: 1816: 841:

page currently has a bunch of third party candidates listed without pages of their own (including the Independent candidate

837:

his article was still up. For the record, I'm in favor of keeping the status quo (shocker). It's also worth noting that the

4313:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3680: 900:

Im looking at the archives and between the creation of the article and April 1st, 2017, that "rule" was mentioned once, by

466: 4706:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2895:

I would like to go ahead and make that change, but I think I need at least a little more support from editors to do so. --

453:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1146:

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/sen-kamala-harris-not-ruling-out-2020-white-house-run-n886166

4970: 4905: 4854: 4463: 4229: 4165: 4005: 3104: 2813: 2181: 1916: 1840: 1762: 1685: 1640: 1611: 1491: 1459: 1346: 1290: 1127: 904: 860: 850: 777: 705: 577: 518: 431: 297: 4984: 4974: 4929: 4920: 4909: 4858: 4696: 4679: 4661: 4644: 4624: 4606: 4584: 4560: 4543: 4526: 4505: 4486: 4467: 4440: 4423: 4404: 4390: 4335: 4301: 4249: 4233: 4189: 4179: 4169: 4127:

I mean, there's most certainly nominating processes for every third party (even if that process is, in the case of the

4121: 4047: 4009: 3936: 3897: 3873: 3854: 3789: 3771: 3759: 3735: 3723: 3704: 3662: 3649: 3639: 3608: 3550: 3531: 3513: 3500: 3483: 3460: 3436: 3422: 3410: 3394: 3377: 3358: 3335: 3283: 3269: 3260: 3244: 3206: 3191: 3178: 3117: 3108: 3088: 3056: 3019: 3006: 2940: 2928: 2902: 2890: 2876: 2862: 2838: 2817: 2796: 2582: 2210: 2185: 2170: 2149: 2110: 2050: 1996: 1935: 1920: 1904: 1885: 1869: 1859: 1844: 1828: 1809: 1780: 1766: 1752: 1739: 1723: 1713: 1689: 1658: 1644: 1625: 1615: 1551: 1508: 1495: 1480: 1463: 1439: 1386: 1350: 1318: 1294: 1265: 1240: 1218: 1162: 1131: 1107: 1061: 1048: 992: 961: 854: 806: 781: 765: 709: 690: 674: 644: 609: 581: 550: 522: 486: 472: 435: 403: 386: 365: 348: 329: 301: 282: 260: 239: 204: 173: 142: 4040: 3929: 3699: 2712: 2670: 2043: 4143:, just not in every state (worth noting that major party primaries weren't held in all 50 states until 1976 for the 722:

I think we may be breaking some of these rules in our page. Im just saying maybe. I want to know what others think.

4891: 4751: 4501: 3496: 2486: 38: 4637: 3958: 3811: 3604:", all sections on "potential" and "declined" candidates should be removed from the article. Thanks in advance. — 3571: 3139: 2968: 2633: 2072: 1959: 1184: 1142:

With this, we have our first woman in at least a long time to publicly express interest in running as a Democrat.

564:

In defense of Thor, he would've normally not met the criteria as he initially only tweeted about running. However

463: 382: 723: 4602: 4437: 4246: 3407: 3188: 3016: 2937: 2899: 2873: 2858: 2835: 2579: 1926:

have any plans on running. If you don't say that you aren't running, you shouldn't be in the declined section.

1749: 1505: 1477: 1436: 1315: 1262: 988: 833: 546: 4278: 3447: 1776: 824:, who as you may have noticed no longer has a Knowledge (XXG) article. He's running for the nomination of the 4288:

of this article should be trimmed or culled, I don't feel there is a consensus to implement the removal of a

3841:) were all made without a consensus to do so, so they are all invalid, and in violation of the DS sanction. 2996:

https://www.salon.com/2018/08/11/exclusive-michael-avenatti-reflects-on-his-candidacys-serious-debut-in-iowa/

1735: 1378: 4966: 4901: 4850: 4692: 4459: 4360:

is going to run is not encyclopedic. It is certainly synthesis and probably false that the football player

4225: 4161: 4001: 3893: 3850: 3527: 3279: 3100: 2809: 2704: 2691: 2662: 2638: 2533: 2470: 2177: 2166: 1912: 1836: 1758: 1709: 1681: 1636: 1607: 1487: 1455: 1342: 1286: 1123: 1000: 846: 773: 701: 605: 573: 514: 427: 293: 4131:

in 2016, to decide on their nominees via a conference call). There's even full-blown primary elections for

2850: 1370: 1150: 1091: 1044: 957: 802: 632: 597: 538: 4657: 4378: 4323: 3747: 3627: 3522:(including reliable, well-documented speculation) pertaining to candidates and related campaign matters.-- 3323: 3274:

Support keeping photos only for the declared candidates. I am in 100% agreement with the OP on this one.--

3256: 3232: 3044: 2916: 2313: 2296: 2198: 1363: 317: 307: 270: 226: 192: 161: 4271:"a massive amount of information, including all discussion of minor, potential, or "declined" candidates" 1335: 4522: 4497: 4419: 3719: 3492: 3304:

Option C: Remove all "declined" and "potential" candidates, keep "interested" and "declared" candidates.

2736:"Rocky De La Fuente Tells Court that He Plans to Seek Democratic Party Nomination for President in 2020" 2498: 1374: 1099: 670: 513:, who was on the page solely based on his polling appearances before formally endorsing Trump for 2020. 399: 361: 184: 138: 4633: 4290:"massive amount of information, including all discussion of minor, potential, or "declined" candidates" 4282: 3618:

This got caught up in the candidate issues, but I don't believe anyone has objected to its removal (by

3032: 4415: 3301:

Option B: Remove all "declined" candidates, keep "potential", "interested", and "declared" candidates.

4575: 3099:

of early polling for previous elections (see: 2013 or 2009 polling for '16 and '12 elections, etc.).

2551: 2457: 2360: 2142: 565: 378: 256: 4514: 4513:. Including candidates who have not explicitly declared an intention to run is a massive failure of 4478: 3385:

seems like the best option. I don't see the value in listing "potential" and "declined" candidates.

2098: 1209:

The declared Libertarian candidates should include Arvin Vohra and Dan "Taxation Is Theft" Behrman.

340: 4598: 4482: 4434: 4297: 4243: 3869: 3404: 3354: 3307:

Option D: Remove all "declined, "potential", and "interested" candidates, keep declared candidates.

3185: 3013: 2934: 2896: 2870: 2832: 2576: 1881: 1855: 1824: 1805: 1746: 1502: 1474: 1433: 1312: 1259: 1210: 1095: 1038: 984: 951: 943: 901: 864: 796: 761: 686: 344: 1988: 4872: 4798: 4688: 4671: 4556: 4534:

Candidates should not be excluded because how of editors feel. This is about facts, not opinion.

4023:

The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to

3912:

The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to

3889: 3846: 3523: 3479: 3390: 3275: 3002: 2740: 2556: 2162: 1214: 4667: 4274: 1911:"could," meaning running in 2020 would be theoretically possible, but he has no interest in it. 821: 2933:

Okay, I went ahead and made those changes. Hopefully they will be accepted by the community. --

2452: 1331:

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

4653: 4620: 4539: 4374: 4373:

shows the changes I want to make, though I feel even more could be removed than I did remove.

4319: 4128: 3743: 3623: 3619: 3346: 3319: 3252: 3228: 3040: 2912: 2194: 1992: 1055: 829: 313: 266: 222: 188: 157: 3597: 3543: 2129: 1084:

Please add John McAfee as a presidential candidate. He has announced he is running. (Source:

4827: 4775: 4675: 4518: 4361: 4345: 4200: 3715: 2514: 2379: 2287: 1931: 1900: 1632: 1591: 1571: 1272: 1254: 1247: 1085: 666: 395: 357: 2018: 4949: 4803: 4571: 4353: 4029: 3918: 3695: 2565: 2416: 2135: 2032: 1677: 1669: 1237: 475: 423: 252: 4224:

website that was also used for his 2016 run and his 2018 run for Governor of California.

3655: 3443: 2011: 1817:

https://www.politico.com/story/2018/01/02/elizabeth-warren-2020-election-democrats-319045

1415:

3. The person must have an official website specifically for their presidential campaign.

1114:

So far, he's only made statements on social media. We need to treat him like we do, say,

419: 2831:, but I don't see anything there that even mentions that he is running for president. -- 1397:

I mentioned this above, but I want to separate it into a separate section on this page.

4953: 4293: 4027:. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ 3916:. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ‑‑ 3865: 3350: 1877: 1851: 1820: 1801: 1525:

and I removed Trey Gowdy and Colin Powell because they were mentioned in just one poll.

1034: 947: 883:. He said he made the changes because a consensus was previously reached "awhile back". 792: 757: 682: 149: 3993:

as a placeholder for candidates that have no publicly available photos of themselves.

3215:

Proposal: Remove all photos of people who are not declared candidates from the article

2522: 1757:

That's based on a social media post, though, which we don't allow (see: John McAfee).

1308: 1281: 4981: 4926: 4917: 4815: 4552: 4401: 4217: 4199:(in both the primary and general elections) over someone like self-described vampire 3997: 3732: 3510: 3475: 3386: 2998: 2887: 2764:"Ad for attorney Geoffrey Fieger sends message he wants to run for president in 2020" 2612:"OFFICIALLY A CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT 2020 4TH TIME ON THE BALLOT DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY" 2300: 1655: 1579: 1575: 629:, but I support his further inclusion in this article until we can say for certain. 506: 4957: 4843: 4833: 4770: 4616: 4535: 4024: 3913: 3782: 3453: 3370: 3199: 3171: 3081: 1665: 1595: 1583: 1446: 4875:, was recently removed from the "expressed interest" section for the Democrats. 4289: 4270: 3349:

of interested candidates needing to have had actual campaign style events. Best,

462:

Kanye is going for the Republican nomination in 2024, to continue Trump's legacy

4945: 4793: 4746: 4741: 3984: 3035:

on Knowledge (XXG) at all, but if so, it should be spun into an article such as

2547: 2404: 2024: 1927: 1896: 1587: 1567: 1115: 502: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3671:

Removal of Alec Balwin from "Individuals who have publicly expressed interest"?

3069:

Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020

2509: 2374: 1341:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above.

187:

are notorious for "joke" polls, and no credible sources believes she will run.

4879: 4838: 4496:

Knowledge (XXG) does not operate solely on how editors "feel" about an issue.

4357: 4203:, even if the latter is the only one that has actually joined the race so far. 3689: 2433: 2317: 2273: 1603: 1599: 1119: 498: 494: 4780: 4761:

campaign websites that would be moved to primary pages or outright removed:

4736: 4451: 4349: 4196: 3491:

seems like the best one to me. It wouldn't be based as much on speculation.

3113:

Totally agree, all polling at this stage is meaningless crystal fancruft. —

3065:

Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2020

2805: 2261: 1470: 1451: 532: 4080:

Marinucci, Carla; White, Jeremy B.; Parthasarathy, Maya (August 14, 2018).

3403:

detail about the candidates under discussion from that particular party. --

2911:

candidate. It's better than relying on an off-hand comment to a reporter.

1719:

Nobody knows if he's running, that's just hype. Undue for this article. —

4641: 4186: 4176: 4118: 4086: 3768: 3659: 3646: 3605: 3547: 3433: 3419: 3266: 3114: 2793: 2569: 1866: 1720: 1622: 1548: 510: 2398: 2767: 2560: 1364:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/22/politics/merkley-nyt-2020-bid/index.html

1327:

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

621:

I don't think West's bid can be in any way compared to that porn star,

2255: 1445:

I think that's a pretty reasonable requirement. I'm not entirely sure

4220:

fall in all this? He declared he's running as a Libertarian, and has

1303:

First of all, thank you for looking into this issue. I looked at the

4636:, and that is not acceptable for an encyclopedia; it's an insult to 2808:

who's received a notable endorsement and a lot of media attention.

2465: 1984:

I am requesting my addition as an announced independent candidate.

871:. He changed it on May 1st 2017 without a consensus. He changed it 1304: 1276: 4716:

U.S. Presidential Election" page. Something similar is there for

4356:

are not actually declared candidates, and speculation on whether

3601: 2387: 1400:

Currently, to be listed as a declared candidate, a person must:

4239: 3946: 3799: 3559: 3127: 2956: 2060: 1947: 1172: 25: 3037:

2018 polling of the 2020 United States presidential election

2528: 1407:

be notable enough to already have a Knowledge (XXG) article.

752:

everything they are involved in, such as the 2020 election.

572:

which counts as a public statement outside of social media.

4344:

It is undue to mention gadflies and publicity-seekers like

942:

In conclusion, no there was no consensus to add that rule,

251:- This is a joke right, especially considering the source? 4000:(D-CA) has expressed interest in running as of August 14. 3556:

Edit request: remove "potential" and "declined" candidates

1086:

http://fortune.com/2018/06/04/john-mcafee-president-2020/

820:

I remember it was reached in regards to the inclusion of

213:

Darn! Those campaign posters would be collector's items.

4956:

being included in two national polls, and most recently

4830:(still don't even know if this is actually him for sure) 3095:

I'd at least like to preserve the polling data, there's

2828: 4727:

campaign websites that would stay in the main article:

4370: 3839: 3836: 3833: 3165: 2101:

businessman from Arizona expressed his interest to run

1529: 1526: 1523: 1004: 880: 876: 872: 4615:"List of Canidates for the 2020 Presidental Election". 3796:

Full protection edit request to uphold the DS sanction

3614:

Proposal: Remove the section "Advantage of incumbency"

3294:

Which candidates should be included in this article?

3265:

Agree to keep photos only for declared candidates. —

1531:

but we need clear criteria. Here are my suggestions:

1528:

Those people have since been restored to the article,

946:

made it up and then lied that everyone agreed on it.

859:

Youre right Bill Bayes was mentioned in the archives

4281:(in the case of potential candidates) and the essay 2550:, a renewable energy consultant and researcher from 2022:(especially a website rife with spelling errors and 718:

What do you guys think of these official wiki rules?

418:

PPP is a frequently cited poll that currently has a

113:

The following discussion is an archived record of a

4477:to the arbitrary and unnecessary changes proposed. 3026:

Proposal: Remove all polling data from this article

2907:I'm fine with this (for now) as a test for being a 123:

No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4897:To this, she responded "never say never, right?" 4640:. Also, excess reliance on speculative polls. — 3678:He even said that he was "not going to do that" 4894:, who was the one interviewing her on stage). 1432:because he didn't have a campaign website.) -- 3602:#Proposal: Remove candidates from the article 3225:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 3221:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2020 1411:I would like to suggest a third requirement: 1236:that support the change you want to be made. 126:A summary of the conclusions reached follows. 18:Talk:2020 United States presidential election 8: 3290:Proposal: Remove candidates from the article 3071:would be the names to go, as it is done for 2559:, a businessman and political activist from 2057:Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2018 1944:Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018 1865:No, because they have publicly denied it. — 867:. The rules for inclusion used to say this: 4055: 2848: 2586: 2230: 1850:Can I change them to potential Candidates. 1704:I thought he was running in 2024,not 2020? 1368: 1169:Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018 1148: 1089: 1042: 955: 800: 630: 595: 536: 3987:? I believe in the past we've used this: 3963:United States presidential election, 2020 3576:United States presidential election, 2020 3144:United States presidential election, 2020 2973:United States presidential election, 2020 2077:United States presidential election, 2020 1964:United States presidential election, 2020 1430:United States presidential election, 1860 1189:United States presidential election, 2020 627:West might not be running as soon as 2020 154:United States presidential election, 2020 3990:File:Gray - replace this image male.svg 3943:Protected edit request on 18 August 2018 3845:material again to uphold DS and policy. 3124:Protected edit request on 11 August 2018 2953:Protected edit request on 12 August 2018 152:be listed as a "Potential candidate" on 4072: 3681:Here's the link to the source provided. 2603: 2248: 1795:Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand 1771:Where has he said he's running in 2020? 4269:Policy arguments in favor of removing 2703:Braun, Dorothy L. (December 7, 2017). 1815:here is a source for Elizabeth Warren 637:2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:2D8D:8ADA:BC12:3330 479:2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:39F4:FA94:D0CF:5925 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4952:saying he was interested in running, 4871:Cecile Richards, former President of 3835:. The restorations of that material ( 3731:More nonsense devaluing the article. 2804:before, would exclude GOP challenger 2103:2600:8800:8900:5800:D53:3D43:EBED:DBD 1522:Coulter because of media speculation, 729:Ensure Knowledge (XXG) pages are not: 7: 4309:The following discussion is closed. 2734:Winger, Richard (January 10, 2017). 2634:"Jain body holds oath- taking event" 2156:Removal of policy-violating material 1155:2601:242:600:5BA0:352A:D44:17D7:14D5 214: 568:, who broke the story, received an 4352:, some "declared" candidates like 3039:and not included in this article. 2217:Proposed design with new criterion 2132:before adding them to the list. — 1393:Proposed new criterion for listing 24: 4666:Unarchived to request closure at 3996:In addition, U.S. Representative 3184:I think I have fixed that now. -- 2762:Russell, Kim (January 13, 2017). 4702:The discussion above is closed. 4216:And while I'm at it, where does 4015: 3950: 3904: 3888:but to discourage edit warring. 3803: 3563: 3310:Option E: Remove all candidates. 3227:pages are more than sufficient. 3131: 2960: 2521: 2508: 2479: 2451: 2397: 2373: 2254: 2116: 2064: 2002: 1951: 1360:CNN backs up the NYT interview. 1224: 1176: 449:The discussion above is closed. 215: 29: 4277:with two editors also invoking 3767:– Not a clear intent to run. — 3363:Clearly, of all the proposals, 4454:was expected to jump into the 3622:). I agree with the removal. 2575:Let me know what you think. -- 2240:Current or previous positions 843:Princess Khadijah Jacob-Fambro 1: 4884:"Are you running for office?" 3983:Can we get a blank photo for 3600:consensus in the discussion " 2422:Former college football coach 1404:have declared their candidacy 1080:John McAfee is 2020 candidate 570:exclusive statement from Thor 1253:How certain are we that the 4985:02:47, 26 August 2018 (UTC) 4975:09:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC) 4930:02:04, 25 August 2018 (UTC) 4921:01:48, 25 August 2018 (UTC) 4910:01:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC) 4890:(referring to the comedian 4859:09:43, 25 August 2018 (UTC) 4302:20:13, 23 August 2018 (UTC) 4250:05:25, 23 August 2018 (UTC) 4240:Zoltan Istvan has a website 4234:01:48, 23 August 2018 (UTC) 4190:10:44, 19 August 2018 (UTC) 4180:10:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC) 4170:06:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC) 4122:10:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC) 4048:16:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC) 4010:00:15, 18 August 2018 (UTC) 3977:to reactivate your request. 3965:has been answered. Set the 3937:16:55, 20 August 2018 (UTC) 3898:21:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3874:20:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3855:20:34, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3826:to reactivate your request. 3814:has been answered. Set the 3790:15:39, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3772:15:33, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3760:00:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 3736:00:20, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 3724:13:57, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3705:03:07, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3663:15:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3650:12:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3640:16:22, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3609:15:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3590:to reactivate your request. 3578:has been answered. Set the 3551:15:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC) 3532:21:00, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 3514:00:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 3501:05:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 3484:01:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC) 3461:12:56, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3437:12:41, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3423:12:33, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3411:01:39, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3395:23:38, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3378:20:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3359:18:35, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3336:16:17, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3284:20:56, 14 August 2018 (UTC) 3270:12:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3261:14:25, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3245:02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3207:12:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3192:01:31, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3179:20:42, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3158:to reactivate your request. 3146:has been answered. Set the 3118:12:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3109:10:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3089:10:43, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3057:02:36, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 3020:01:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 3007:01:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 2987:to reactivate your request. 2975:has been answered. Set the 2941:01:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC) 2929:15:55, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 2903:03:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 2713:Federal Election Commission 2705:"BraunforPresident.US 2020" 2671:Federal Election Commission 2441:Candidate for President in 2333:Candidate for President in 2211:15:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 2186:10:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 2171:08:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC) 2091:to reactivate your request. 2079:has been answered. Set the 2012:reliable, published sources 1978:to reactivate your request. 1966:has been answered. Set the 1203:to reactivate your request. 1191:has been answered. Set the 623:it sounds like he's serious 5005: 4822:Independent / Unaffiliated 4697:17:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC) 2891:23:00, 1 August 2018 (UTC) 2150:05:08, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2111:03:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC) 2051:20:12, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 1997:19:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC) 523:10:38, 28 April 2018 (UTC) 487:05:14, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 4680:23:31, 28 July 2018 (UTC) 4662:13:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 4645:11:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 4625:06:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC) 2877:04:47, 30 July 2018 (UTC) 2863:12:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 2839:13:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 2818:01:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 2797:20:24, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 2583:04:35, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 2225:Other declared candidates 1936:04:24, 29 July 2018 (UTC) 1921:07:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC) 1905:23:22, 23 July 2018 (UTC) 1886:21:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 1870:20:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 1860:02:32, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 1845:01:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC) 1829:21:41, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 1810:21:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 1781:17:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC) 1767:21:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 1753:15:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 1740:04:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 1724:18:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 1714:20:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC) 1690:22:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 1659:18:33, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 1645:22:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC) 1626:11:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 1616:03:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC) 1552:09:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 1509:03:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC) 1496:01:47, 10 July 2018 (UTC) 1423:(To be clear, this is an 1387:02:00, 23 June 2018 (UTC) 1271:From what I've gathered, 1163:12:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC) 1132:16:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC) 4846:(withdrew from the race) 4783:(withdrew from the race) 4711:Websites vs. No Websites 4704:Please do not modify it. 4607:21:29, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 4585:04:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 4561:02:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 4544:19:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 4527:04:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 4506:03:52, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 4487:03:30, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 4468:02:11, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 4441:01:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 4424:23:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 4405:08:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 4391:06:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 4336:06:03, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 4311:Please do not modify it. 1481:03:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC) 1464:23:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 1440:02:00, 7 July 2018 (UTC) 1351:23:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 1319:01:47, 6 July 2018 (UTC) 1295:05:34, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 1266:05:11, 3 July 2018 (UTC) 1241:14:14, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 1219:14:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC) 1108:21:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 1062:00:01, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 1005:this one in october 2016 834:Hattiesburg, Mississippi 710:04:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC) 691:20:14, 30 May 2018 (UTC) 675:04:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC) 645:11:00, 16 May 2018 (UTC) 610:19:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 451:Please do not modify it. 436:06:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 404:04:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC) 143:13:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC) 120:Please do not modify it. 4948:'s satirical campaign, 4888:"#RichardsWilliams2020" 4868:To avoid an edit war: 4597:potential for abuse. -- 4262:RFC on article contents 4147:and until 1980 for the 2639:Daily News and Analysis 1049:22:30, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 993:03:39, 9 May 2018 (UTC) 962:23:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 855:22:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 807:21:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 782:06:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 766:02:38, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 582:22:07, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 551:20:20, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 387:17:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 366:05:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC) 349:01:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC) 330:01:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 302:00:29, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 283:01:16, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 261:15:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 240:00:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 205:23:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 174:23:08, 2 May 2018 (UTC) 4025:edit the page yourself 3914:edit the page yourself 3645:Removal looks fair. — 3345:as described above by 2130:have their own article 4720:. For clarification: 3683:Consensus to remove? 3542:Looks like we have a 3298:Option A: Keep as-is. 3073:the previous election 2499:Schenectady, New York 2019:your personal website 1547:What do you think? — 1356:Merkley Second Source 306:Did you include bofa 185:Public Policy Polling 42:of past discussions. 4882:followed up on were 4592:: The article is in 3343:Option C alternative 2792:Looks good to me. — 944:user: Vote 4 DJH2036 902:user: Vote 4 DJH2036 654:Democratic paragraph 566:The Washington Times 3416:Option C + Declined 2568:, an attorney from 2430:U.S. Representative 2348:U.S. Representative 2284:U.S. Representative 2279:Conspiracy theorist 865:user:Vote 4 DJH2036 115:request for comment 4967:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4902:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4873:Planned Parenthood 4851:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4799:Rocky De La Fuente 4460:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4312: 4226:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4162:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4141:Constituion...ites 4002:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 3654:Totally unsourced 3101:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 2810:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 2741:Ballot Access News 2557:Rocky De La Fuente 2178:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1913:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1837:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1759:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1682:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1637:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1608:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1488:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1456:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1343:Community Tech bot 1287:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1124:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 1001:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 847:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 774:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 702:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 574:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 515:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 428:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 294:IOnlyKnowFiveWords 4810:Libertarian Party 4757:Minor candidates 4723:Minor candidates 4310: 4129:Prohibition Party 4109: 4108: 4046: 3981: 3980: 3935: 3830: 3829: 3714:- per proposal. 3594: 3593: 3162: 3161: 2991: 2990: 2865: 2853:comment added by 2789: 2788: 2642:. October 9, 2017 2541: 2540: 2147: 2095: 2094: 2049: 2029: 1982: 1981: 1389: 1373:comment added by 1207: 1206: 1165: 1153:comment added by 1110: 1094:comment added by 1051: 964: 830:Prohibition Party 809: 647: 635:comment added by 612: 600:comment added by 553: 541:comment added by 237: 131:Consensus was to 103: 102: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4996: 4939:interest as any 4892:Jessica Williams 4828:Lawrence Jackson 4788:Democratic Party 4776:Jonathon Sharkey 4765:Republican Party 4731:Democratic Party 4583: 4498:David O. Johnson 4387: 4381: 4362:Lawrence Jackson 4346:Jonathon Sharkey 4332: 4326: 4291: 4272: 4201:Jonathon Sharkey 4099: 4098: 4096: 4094: 4077: 4056: 4043: 4038: 4035: 4032: 4019: 4018: 3972: 3968: 3954: 3953: 3947: 3932: 3927: 3924: 3921: 3908: 3907: 3821: 3817: 3807: 3806: 3800: 3788: 3785: 3756: 3750: 3694: 3692: 3658:, by the way. — 3636: 3630: 3585: 3581: 3567: 3566: 3560: 3493:David O. Johnson 3459: 3456: 3376: 3373: 3341:My !vote is for 3332: 3326: 3314:My !vote is for 3241: 3235: 3205: 3202: 3177: 3174: 3153: 3149: 3135: 3134: 3128: 3087: 3084: 3053: 3047: 2982: 2978: 2964: 2963: 2957: 2925: 2919: 2829:official website 2779: 2778: 2776: 2774: 2759: 2753: 2752: 2750: 2748: 2731: 2725: 2724: 2722: 2720: 2709: 2700: 2694: 2689: 2683: 2682: 2680: 2678: 2667: 2658: 2652: 2651: 2649: 2647: 2630: 2624: 2623: 2621: 2619: 2614:. August 5, 2017 2608: 2587: 2525: 2519:November 6, 2017 2512: 2494: 2493:January 13, 1975 2483: 2455: 2412: 2401: 2377: 2269: 2258: 2231: 2207: 2201: 2145: 2141: 2138: 2126:reliable sources 2120: 2119: 2086: 2082: 2068: 2067: 2061: 2046: 2041: 2038: 2035: 2021: 2006: 2005: 1973: 1969: 1955: 1954: 1948: 1592:Claire McCaskill 1572:Condoleezza Rice 1273:Lawrence Jackson 1255:Lawrence Jackson 1248:Lawrence Jackson 1234:reliable sources 1228: 1227: 1198: 1194: 1180: 1179: 1173: 1058: 326: 320: 279: 273: 231: 220: 219: 218: 201: 195: 170: 164: 141: 139:Compassionate727 135:Stormy Daniels. 122: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5004: 5003: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4995: 4994: 4993: 4950:Stephen Colbert 4866: 4864:Cecile Richards 4804:Geoffrey Fieger 4713: 4708: 4707: 4569: 4385: 4379: 4369:over-detailed; 4354:Geoffrey Fieger 4330: 4324: 4315: 4306: 4305: 4304: 4264: 4114: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4102: 4092: 4090: 4079: 4078: 4074: 4061: 4041: 4033: 4030: 4016: 3970: 3966: 3951: 3945: 3930: 3922: 3919: 3905: 3819: 3815: 3804: 3798: 3783: 3780: 3754: 3748: 3690: 3688: 3673: 3634: 3628: 3616: 3583: 3579: 3564: 3558: 3540: 3454: 3451: 3371: 3368: 3330: 3324: 3292: 3239: 3233: 3217: 3200: 3197: 3172: 3169: 3151: 3147: 3132: 3126: 3082: 3079: 3051: 3045: 3028: 2980: 2976: 2961: 2955: 2923: 2917: 2869:a candidate. -- 2785: 2784: 2783: 2782: 2772: 2770: 2761: 2760: 2756: 2746: 2744: 2733: 2732: 2728: 2718: 2716: 2707: 2702: 2701: 2697: 2690: 2686: 2676: 2674: 2665: 2660: 2659: 2655: 2645: 2643: 2632: 2631: 2627: 2617: 2615: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2592: 2566:Geoffrey Fieger 2492: 2417:Bartow, Georgia 2410: 2267: 2227: 2219: 2205: 2199: 2158: 2143: 2136: 2124:please provide 2117: 2084: 2080: 2065: 2059: 2044: 2036: 2033: 2010:Please provide 2003: 1971: 1967: 1952: 1946: 1893: 1797: 1702: 1678:FiveThirtyEight 1670:Hillary Clinton 1633:Martin O'Malley 1395: 1358: 1329: 1251: 1232:please provide 1225: 1196: 1192: 1177: 1171: 1140: 1082: 1056: 724:WP:NOTNEWSPAPER 720: 656: 460: 455: 454: 424:FiveThirtyEight 379:FuturePresident 324: 318: 277: 271: 216: 199: 193: 168: 162: 145: 136: 118: 108: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5002: 5000: 4992: 4991: 4990: 4989: 4988: 4987: 4962: 4954:Stormy Daniels 4933: 4932: 4923: 4865: 4862: 4848: 4847: 4841: 4836: 4831: 4819: 4818: 4807: 4806: 4801: 4796: 4785: 4784: 4778: 4773: 4755: 4754: 4749: 4744: 4739: 4712: 4709: 4701: 4700: 4699: 4682: 4664: 4647: 4630:Strong support 4627: 4609: 4599:Elephanthunter 4587: 4563: 4546: 4529: 4508: 4490: 4489: 4471: 4470: 4444: 4443: 4435:Metropolitan90 4427: 4426: 4408: 4407: 4316: 4307: 4286: 4279:WP:CRYSTALBALL 4273:were based on 4268: 4267: 4266: 4265: 4263: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4257: 4256: 4255: 4254: 4253: 4252: 4244:Metropolitan90 4209: 4208: 4207: 4206: 4205: 4204: 4182: 4113: 4110: 4107: 4106: 4101: 4100: 4071: 4070: 4067: 4066: 4063: 4062: 4059: 4053: 4051: 4050: 3979: 3978: 3955: 3944: 3941: 3940: 3939: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3828: 3827: 3808: 3797: 3794: 3793: 3792: 3774: 3762: 3738: 3726: 3672: 3669: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3665: 3615: 3612: 3592: 3591: 3568: 3557: 3554: 3539: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3516: 3503: 3486: 3468: 3467: 3466: 3465: 3464: 3463: 3448:WP:CRYSTALBALL 3426: 3425: 3413: 3405:Metropolitan90 3397: 3380: 3361: 3312: 3311: 3308: 3305: 3302: 3299: 3291: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3272: 3263: 3216: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3186:Metropolitan90 3160: 3159: 3136: 3125: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3111: 3092: 3091: 3076: 3027: 3024: 3023: 3022: 3014:Metropolitan90 2989: 2988: 2965: 2954: 2951: 2950: 2949: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2935:Metropolitan90 2897:Metropolitan90 2882: 2881: 2880: 2879: 2871:Metropolitan90 2855:74.110.185.157 2844: 2843: 2842: 2841: 2833:Metropolitan90 2800: 2799: 2787: 2786: 2781: 2780: 2754: 2726: 2695: 2684: 2661:Yang, Andrew. 2653: 2625: 2602: 2601: 2598: 2597: 2594: 2593: 2590: 2577:Metropolitan90 2573: 2572: 2563: 2554: 2539: 2538: 2536: 2532: 2526: 2520: 2517: 2513: 2506: 2501: 2497: 2495: 2490: 2484: 2476: 2475: 2473: 2469: 2463: 2460: 2456: 2449: 2440: 2424: 2419: 2415: 2413: 2411:April 10, 1968 2408: 2402: 2394: 2393: 2391: 2385: 2384:August 5, 2017 2382: 2378: 2371: 2359:Candidate for 2358: 2346:Candidate for 2345: 2332: 2312:Candidate for 2311: 2295:Candidate for 2294: 2282:Candidate for 2281: 2276: 2272: 2270: 2265: 2259: 2251: 2250: 2247: 2244: 2241: 2238: 2235: 2226: 2223: 2218: 2215: 2214: 2213: 2189: 2188: 2157: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2099:David J Silver 2093: 2092: 2069: 2058: 2055: 2054: 2053: 1980: 1979: 1956: 1945: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1892: 1889: 1873: 1872: 1848: 1847: 1814: 1796: 1793: 1792: 1791: 1790: 1789: 1788: 1787: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1783: 1773:104.247.238.46 1747:Metropolitan90 1701: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1693: 1692: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1555: 1554: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1539: 1535: 1518: 1517: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1503:Metropolitan90 1475:Metropolitan90 1434:Metropolitan90 1417: 1416: 1409: 1408: 1405: 1394: 1391: 1357: 1354: 1339: 1338: 1336:ArvinVohra.jpg 1328: 1325: 1324: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1313:Metropolitan90 1298: 1297: 1260:Metropolitan90 1250: 1245: 1244: 1243: 1205: 1204: 1181: 1170: 1167: 1139: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1081: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 1070: 1069: 1068: 1067: 1066: 1065: 1064: 1047:comment added 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 1014: 1013: 1012: 1011: 1010: 1009: 985:Vote 4 DJH2036 972: 971: 970: 969: 968: 967: 966: 965: 960:comment added 933: 932: 931: 930: 929: 928: 927: 926: 915: 914: 913: 912: 911: 910: 909: 908: 891: 890: 889: 888: 887: 886: 885: 884: 813: 812: 811: 810: 805:comment added 749: 748: 740: 739: 731: 730: 719: 716: 715: 714: 713: 712: 694: 693: 655: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 616: 615: 614: 613: 589: 588: 587: 586: 585: 584: 557: 556: 555: 554: 543:74.110.185.157 526: 525: 459: 456: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 442: 441: 440: 439: 438: 407: 406: 389: 369: 368: 351: 334: 333: 332: 287: 286: 285: 245: 244: 243: 242: 208: 207: 183:listing her. 150:Stormy Daniels 146: 130: 129: 128: 109: 107: 106:Stormy Daniels 104: 101: 100: 95: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5001: 4986: 4983: 4978: 4977: 4976: 4972: 4968: 4963: 4959: 4955: 4951: 4947: 4942: 4937: 4936: 4935: 4934: 4931: 4928: 4924: 4922: 4919: 4914: 4913: 4912: 4911: 4907: 4903: 4898: 4895: 4893: 4889: 4885: 4881: 4876: 4874: 4869: 4863: 4861: 4860: 4856: 4852: 4845: 4842: 4840: 4837: 4835: 4832: 4829: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4817: 4816:Zoltan Istvan 4814: 4813: 4812: 4811: 4805: 4802: 4800: 4797: 4795: 4792: 4791: 4790: 4789: 4782: 4779: 4777: 4774: 4772: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4766: 4762: 4760: 4753: 4750: 4748: 4745: 4743: 4740: 4738: 4735: 4734: 4733: 4732: 4728: 4726: 4721: 4719: 4710: 4705: 4698: 4694: 4690: 4689:Thatotherdude 4686: 4683: 4681: 4677: 4673: 4669: 4665: 4663: 4659: 4655: 4651: 4648: 4646: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4628: 4626: 4622: 4618: 4613: 4610: 4608: 4604: 4600: 4595: 4591: 4588: 4586: 4581: 4577: 4573: 4567: 4564: 4562: 4558: 4554: 4550: 4547: 4545: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4530: 4528: 4524: 4520: 4516: 4512: 4509: 4507: 4503: 4499: 4495: 4492: 4491: 4488: 4484: 4480: 4476: 4473: 4472: 4469: 4465: 4461: 4457: 4453: 4449: 4446: 4445: 4442: 4439: 4436: 4432: 4429: 4428: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4410: 4409: 4406: 4403: 4398: 4395: 4394: 4393: 4392: 4388: 4382: 4376: 4372: 4366: 4363: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4347: 4342: 4338: 4337: 4333: 4327: 4321: 4314: 4303: 4299: 4295: 4284: 4280: 4276: 4261: 4251: 4248: 4245: 4241: 4237: 4236: 4235: 4231: 4227: 4223: 4219: 4218:Zoltan Istvan 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4202: 4198: 4193: 4192: 4191: 4188: 4183: 4181: 4178: 4173: 4172: 4171: 4167: 4163: 4158: 4154: 4151:; then until 4150: 4146: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4125: 4124: 4123: 4120: 4111: 4089: 4088: 4083: 4076: 4073: 4069: 4065: 4064: 4058: 4057: 4054: 4049: 4044: 4037: 4036: 4026: 4022: 4014: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3998:Eric Swalwell 3994: 3991: 3988: 3986: 3976: 3973:parameter to 3964: 3960: 3956: 3949: 3948: 3942: 3938: 3933: 3926: 3925: 3915: 3911: 3903: 3899: 3895: 3891: 3890:Beyond My Ken 3887: 3883: 3882: 3877: 3876: 3875: 3871: 3867: 3863: 3860:See my reply 3859: 3858: 3857: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3847:Beyond My Ken 3842: 3840: 3837: 3834: 3825: 3822:parameter to 3813: 3809: 3802: 3801: 3795: 3791: 3787: 3786: 3778: 3775: 3773: 3770: 3766: 3763: 3761: 3757: 3751: 3745: 3742: 3739: 3737: 3734: 3730: 3727: 3725: 3721: 3717: 3713: 3710: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3706: 3702: 3701: 3698: 3697: 3693: 3684: 3682: 3679: 3670: 3664: 3661: 3657: 3653: 3652: 3651: 3648: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3637: 3631: 3625: 3621: 3613: 3611: 3610: 3607: 3603: 3599: 3596:According to 3589: 3586:parameter to 3577: 3573: 3569: 3562: 3561: 3555: 3553: 3552: 3549: 3545: 3537: 3533: 3529: 3525: 3524:Thatotherdude 3520: 3517: 3515: 3512: 3507: 3504: 3502: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3487: 3485: 3481: 3477: 3473: 3470: 3469: 3462: 3458: 3457: 3449: 3445: 3440: 3439: 3438: 3435: 3430: 3429: 3428: 3427: 3424: 3421: 3417: 3414: 3412: 3409: 3406: 3401: 3398: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3379: 3375: 3374: 3366: 3362: 3360: 3356: 3352: 3348: 3344: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3333: 3327: 3321: 3317: 3309: 3306: 3303: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3295: 3289: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3276:Thatotherdude 3273: 3271: 3268: 3264: 3262: 3258: 3254: 3249: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3242: 3236: 3230: 3226: 3222: 3214: 3208: 3204: 3203: 3195: 3194: 3193: 3190: 3187: 3183: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3176: 3175: 3167: 3157: 3154:parameter to 3145: 3141: 3137: 3130: 3129: 3123: 3119: 3116: 3112: 3110: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3094: 3093: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3077: 3074: 3070: 3066: 3061: 3060: 3059: 3058: 3054: 3048: 3042: 3038: 3034: 3025: 3021: 3018: 3015: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2997: 2986: 2983:parameter to 2974: 2970: 2966: 2959: 2958: 2952: 2942: 2939: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2926: 2920: 2914: 2910: 2906: 2905: 2904: 2901: 2898: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2889: 2884: 2883: 2878: 2875: 2872: 2867: 2866: 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2846: 2845: 2840: 2837: 2834: 2830: 2826: 2821: 2820: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2807: 2802: 2801: 2798: 2795: 2791: 2790: 2769: 2765: 2758: 2755: 2743: 2742: 2737: 2730: 2727: 2715: 2714: 2706: 2699: 2696: 2693: 2688: 2685: 2673: 2672: 2664: 2657: 2654: 2641: 2640: 2635: 2629: 2626: 2618:September 16, 2613: 2607: 2604: 2600: 2596: 2595: 2589: 2588: 2585: 2584: 2581: 2578: 2571: 2567: 2564: 2562: 2558: 2555: 2553: 2549: 2546: 2545: 2544: 2537: 2535: 2530: 2524: 2518: 2516: 2511: 2507: 2505: 2502: 2500: 2491: 2489: 2488: 2482: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2467: 2461: 2459: 2454: 2450: 2448: 2444: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2427: 2423: 2420: 2418: 2409: 2407: 2406: 2400: 2396: 2395: 2392: 2389: 2383: 2381: 2376: 2372: 2370: 2366: 2362: 2357: 2353: 2349: 2344: 2340: 2336: 2331: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2315: 2310: 2306: 2302: 2301:New York City 2298: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2280: 2277: 2275: 2266: 2264: 2263: 2257: 2253: 2252: 2245: 2242: 2239: 2236: 2233: 2232: 2229: 2224: 2222: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2202: 2196: 2191: 2190: 2187: 2183: 2179: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2168: 2164: 2163:Beyond My Ken 2155: 2151: 2148: 2146: 2140: 2139: 2131: 2127: 2123: 2115: 2114: 2113: 2112: 2108: 2104: 2100: 2090: 2087:parameter to 2078: 2074: 2070: 2063: 2062: 2056: 2052: 2047: 2040: 2039: 2027: 2026: 2020: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1994: 1990: 1985: 1977: 1974:parameter to 1965: 1961: 1957: 1950: 1949: 1943: 1937: 1933: 1929: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1918: 1914: 1909: 1908: 1907: 1906: 1902: 1898: 1890: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1871: 1868: 1864: 1863: 1862: 1861: 1857: 1853: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1826: 1822: 1818: 1812: 1811: 1807: 1803: 1794: 1782: 1778: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1768: 1764: 1760: 1756: 1755: 1754: 1751: 1748: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1737: 1733: 1732:69.165.135.62 1730: 1727: 1726: 1725: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1715: 1711: 1707: 1699: 1691: 1687: 1683: 1679: 1675: 1671: 1667: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1657: 1652: 1646: 1642: 1638: 1634: 1629: 1628: 1627: 1624: 1619: 1618: 1617: 1613: 1609: 1605: 1601: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1580:Stacey Abrams 1577: 1576:Rick Santorum 1573: 1569: 1564: 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1553: 1550: 1546: 1540: 1536: 1533: 1532: 1530: 1527: 1524: 1520: 1519: 1510: 1507: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1497: 1493: 1489: 1484: 1483: 1482: 1479: 1476: 1472: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1453: 1448: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1441: 1438: 1435: 1431: 1426: 1421: 1414: 1413: 1412: 1406: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1392: 1390: 1388: 1384: 1380: 1376: 1375:98.223.184.94 1372: 1366: 1365: 1361: 1355: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1337: 1334: 1333: 1332: 1326: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1283: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1267: 1264: 1261: 1256: 1249: 1246: 1242: 1239: 1235: 1231: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1216: 1212: 1202: 1199:parameter to 1190: 1186: 1182: 1175: 1174: 1168: 1166: 1164: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1147: 1143: 1138:Kamala Harris 1137: 1133: 1129: 1125: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1093: 1087: 1079: 1063: 1059: 1053: 1052: 1050: 1046: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1031: 1030: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1026: 1025: 1024: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1008: 1006: 1002: 996: 995: 994: 990: 986: 982: 981: 980: 979: 978: 977: 976: 975: 974: 973: 963: 959: 953: 949: 945: 941: 940: 939: 938: 937: 936: 935: 934: 923: 922: 921: 920: 919: 918: 917: 916: 907:in topic #16. 906: 903: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 882: 878: 874: 870: 866: 862: 858: 857: 856: 852: 848: 844: 840: 835: 831: 827: 823: 819: 818: 817: 816: 815: 814: 808: 804: 798: 794: 789: 785: 784: 783: 779: 775: 770: 769: 768: 767: 763: 759: 753: 745: 742: 741: 736: 733: 732: 728: 727: 726: 725: 717: 711: 707: 703: 698: 697: 696: 695: 692: 688: 684: 679: 678: 677: 676: 672: 668: 663: 660: 653: 646: 642: 638: 634: 628: 624: 620: 619: 618: 617: 611: 607: 603: 602:207.30.52.201 599: 593: 592: 591: 590: 583: 579: 575: 571: 567: 563: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 552: 548: 544: 540: 534: 530: 529: 528: 527: 524: 520: 516: 512: 508: 507:Charlie Sheen 504: 500: 496: 491: 490: 489: 488: 484: 480: 476: 473: 470: 467: 464: 457: 452: 437: 433: 429: 425: 421: 417: 416: 415: 414: 413: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 405: 401: 397: 393: 390: 388: 384: 380: 375: 371: 370: 367: 363: 359: 355: 352: 350: 346: 342: 338: 335: 331: 327: 321: 315: 312: 309: 305: 304: 303: 299: 295: 291: 288: 284: 280: 274: 268: 264: 263: 262: 258: 254: 250: 247: 246: 241: 238: 236: 235: 228: 224: 212: 211: 210: 209: 206: 202: 196: 190: 186: 182: 178: 177: 176: 175: 171: 165: 159: 155: 151: 144: 140: 134: 127: 124: 121: 116: 111: 110: 105: 99: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4958:Alec Baldwin 4940: 4899: 4896: 4887: 4883: 4877: 4870: 4867: 4849: 4844:Jeremy Gable 4834:Dan Rattiner 4821: 4820: 4809: 4808: 4787: 4786: 4771:Jack Fellure 4764: 4763: 4758: 4756: 4730: 4729: 4724: 4722: 4714: 4703: 4685:Soft support 4684: 4649: 4629: 4611: 4593: 4590:Soft Support 4589: 4565: 4548: 4531: 4510: 4493: 4474: 4447: 4430: 4411: 4396: 4375:power~enwiki 4367: 4343: 4339: 4320:power~enwiki 4317: 4308: 4221: 4133:Libertarians 4115: 4091:. Retrieved 4085: 4075: 4068: 4052: 4028: 4020: 3995: 3992: 3989: 3982: 3974: 3959:edit request 3917: 3909: 3885: 3880: 3879: 3878:That may be 3843: 3831: 3823: 3812:edit request 3781: 3776: 3764: 3744:power~enwiki 3740: 3728: 3711: 3703: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3674: 3624:power~enwiki 3617: 3595: 3587: 3572:edit request 3541: 3518: 3505: 3488: 3471: 3452: 3415: 3399: 3382: 3369: 3364: 3347:power~enwiki 3342: 3320:power~enwiki 3315: 3313: 3293: 3229:power~enwiki 3218: 3198: 3170: 3163: 3155: 3140:edit request 3080: 3041:power~enwiki 3033:WP:PRESERVEd 3029: 2992: 2984: 2969:edit request 2913:power~enwiki 2908: 2849:— Preceding 2824: 2773:February 21, 2771:. Retrieved 2757: 2745:. Retrieved 2739: 2729: 2719:December 22, 2717:. Retrieved 2711: 2698: 2687: 2675:. Retrieved 2669: 2663:"FEC FORM 2" 2656: 2644:. Retrieved 2637: 2628: 2616:. Retrieved 2606: 2599: 2574: 2542: 2504:Entrepreneur 2503: 2485: 2462:May 24, 2017 2428:nominee for 2421: 2403: 2278: 2268:May 20, 1963 2260: 2228: 2220: 2195:power~enwiki 2159: 2134: 2133: 2121: 2096: 2088: 2073:edit request 2031: 2023: 2015: 2007: 1986: 1983: 1975: 1960:edit request 1894: 1874: 1849: 1813: 1798: 1706:157.52.9.151 1703: 1666:Gary Johnson 1596:Brian Schatz 1584:Jimmy Carter 1562: 1447:Jack Fellure 1424: 1422: 1418: 1410: 1399: 1396: 1369:— Preceding 1367: 1362: 1359: 1340: 1330: 1305:Twitter page 1282:this website 1252: 1229: 1208: 1200: 1185:edit request 1149:— Preceding 1144: 1141: 1090:— Preceding 1083: 1057:Callmemirela 997: 868: 842: 826:Constitution 787: 754: 750: 743: 734: 721: 664: 661: 657: 631:— Preceding 596:— Preceding 537:— Preceding 461: 450: 391: 373: 353: 336: 314:power~enwiki 289: 267:power~enwiki 248: 233: 232: 230: 223:BullRangifer 189:power~enwiki 180: 158:power~enwiki 147: 132: 125: 119: 112: 78: 43: 37: 4946:Vicente Fox 4794:Harry Braun 4752:Andrew Yang 4747:Robby Wells 4742:Ken Nwadike 4638:our readers 4634:WP:FANCRUFT 4594:nightmarish 4416:Markbassett 4283:WP:FANCRUFT 4149:Republicans 3985:Arvin Vohra 3779:per Pluma. 3716:Work permit 3196:Thank you. 2747:January 10, 2677:February 8, 2548:Harry Braun 2487:Andrew Yang 2426:Natural Law 2405:Robby Wells 2361:U.S. Senate 2097:Republican 2025:lorem ipsum 1588:Mark Dayton 1568:Greg Abbott 1116:Ron Perlman 1088:) Thanks 1043:—Preceding 956:—Preceding 801:—Preceding 667:TenorTwelve 503:Ron Perlman 396:K.e.coffman 392:Do not list 354:Oh, come on 36:This is an 4961:interest." 4880:Refinery29 4839:Kanye West 4572:Javert2113 4515:WP:CRYSTAL 4358:Kanye West 4093:August 17, 3967:|answered= 3886:status quo 3816:|answered= 3580:|answered= 3450:material. 3148:|answered= 2977:|answered= 2692:FEC Filing 2534:FEC Filing 2471:FEC Filing 2434:California 2318:New Jersey 2274:New Jersey 2246:Announced 2137:Newslinger 2081:|answered= 1968:|answered= 1700:Kanye West 1604:Dave Rubin 1600:Jeff Bezos 1425:additional 1238:Sir Joseph 1193:|answered= 1120:Chris Rock 861:right here 822:Bill Bayes 744:Who's Who. 499:Katy Perry 495:Chris Rock 458:#Kanye2024 253:PackMecEng 98:Archive 10 4941:different 4781:Brad Thor 4737:Jeff Boss 4654:Mélencron 4519:Vanamonde 4479:Letupwasp 4452:Joe Biden 4371:this diff 4350:Jeff Boss 4294:Chetsford 4197:Joe Biden 4145:Democrats 4112:Galleries 4021:Not done: 3910:Not done: 3870:pingó mió 3866:Galobtter 3620:Mélencron 3351:Barkeep49 3253:Mélencron 3166:this edit 2909:bona fide 2806:Brad Thor 2262:Jeff Boss 2122:Not done: 2014:that are 2008:Not done: 1891:Bloomberg 1800:category. 1471:Ron White 1452:Brad Thor 1230:Not done: 1035:Crewcamel 948:Crewcamel 793:Crewcamel 758:Crewcamel 683:BananaIAm 533:Brad Thor 420:B+ rating 358:Vanamonde 341:Qballer82 310:in 2016? 308:Deez Nuts 90:Archive 8 85:Archive 7 79:Archive 6 73:Archive 5 68:Archive 4 60:Archive 1 4982:Reywas92 4927:Reywas92 4918:Reywas92 4668:WP:ANRFC 4553:EditDude 4402:Reywas92 4275:WP:UNDUE 4087:Politico 3733:Reywas92 3519:Option C 3511:Reywas92 3506:Option C 3489:Option C 3476:EditDude 3472:Option C 3400:Option B 3387:Elspamo4 3383:Option C 3365:option C 3316:Option C 2999:Curdlash 2888:Reywas92 2851:unsigned 2570:Michigan 2515:New York 2496:(age 49) 2414:(age 56) 2380:New York 2314:Governor 2288:New York 2271:(age 61) 1878:Alhanuty 1852:Alhanuty 1821:Alhanuty 1802:Alhanuty 1656:Reywas92 1538:sources. 1383:contribs 1371:unsigned 1307:and the 1211:Macdabby 1151:unsigned 1104:contribs 1096:Legocabs 1092:unsigned 756:running. 735:A diary. 633:unsigned 598:unsigned 539:unsigned 511:Ted Cruz 133:not list 4759:without 4650:Support 4617:Zubin12 4612:Support 4576:Siarad. 4536:NDACFan 4532:Oppose: 4060:Sources 3784:Impru20 3777:Support 3765:Support 3741:Support 3729:Support 3712:Support 3598:WP:SNOW 3544:WP:SNOW 3538:Closing 3455:Impru20 3372:Impru20 3201:Impru20 3173:Impru20 3083:Impru20 2768:WXYZ-TV 2591:Sources 2561:Florida 2552:Georgia 2529:Website 2466:Website 2458:Georgia 2388:Website 1989:Tekbred 1674:example 1309:website 1045:undated 958:undated 803:undated 788:without 372:Please 290:Neutral 148:Should 39:archive 4672:Cunard 4566:Oppose 4549:Oppose 4494:Oppose 4448:Oppose 4438:(talk) 4412:Oppose 4247:(talk) 4139:, and 4137:Greens 3408:(talk) 3189:(talk) 3017:(talk) 2938:(talk) 2900:(talk) 2874:(talk) 2836:(talk) 2646:May 8, 2580:(talk) 2341:, and 2328:, and 2243:State 1928:Prcc27 1897:Prcc27 1750:(talk) 1602:, and 1563:thinks 1542:names. 1506:(talk) 1478:(talk) 1437:(talk) 1316:(talk) 1263:(talk) 1054:Good. 747:topic. 738:diary. 505:, and 374:remove 337:Oppose 249:Oppose 234:PingMe 181:oppose 4238:Yes, 4042:Meep? 3971:|ans= 3957:This 3931:Meep? 3820:|ans= 3810:This 3691:pluma 3656:WP:OR 3584:|ans= 3570:This 3444:WP:OR 3152:|ans= 3138:This 3097:pages 2981:|ans= 2967:This 2708:(PDF) 2666:(PDF) 2432:from 2297:Mayor 2286:from 2237:Born 2234:Name 2085:|ans= 2071:This 2045:Meep? 1972:|ans= 1958:This 1876:here. 1275:uses 1197:|ans= 1183:This 791:above 422:from 16:< 4971:talk 4906:talk 4886:and 4855:talk 4725:with 4718:2016 4693:talk 4676:talk 4658:talk 4621:talk 4603:talk 4557:talk 4540:talk 4523:talk 4502:talk 4483:talk 4464:talk 4456:2016 4420:talk 4298:talk 4230:talk 4166:talk 4157:2004 4155:and 4153:1996 4095:2018 4006:talk 3894:talk 3881:your 3862:here 3851:talk 3720:talk 3528:talk 3497:talk 3480:talk 3446:and 3391:talk 3355:talk 3280:talk 3257:talk 3223:and 3105:talk 3067:and 3003:talk 2859:talk 2814:talk 2775:2017 2749:2017 2721:2017 2679:2018 2648:2018 2620:2017 2447:2016 2445:and 2443:2012 2438:1996 2369:2014 2367:and 2365:2008 2356:2016 2354:and 2352:2010 2343:2016 2339:2012 2335:2008 2330:2017 2326:2013 2322:2009 2309:2017 2307:and 2305:2013 2292:2018 2249:Ref 2182:talk 2167:talk 2144:talk 2107:talk 2030:. ‑‑ 1993:talk 1932:talk 1917:talk 1901:talk 1882:talk 1856:talk 1841:talk 1825:talk 1806:talk 1777:talk 1763:talk 1736:talk 1710:talk 1686:talk 1641:talk 1612:talk 1492:talk 1460:talk 1379:talk 1347:talk 1291:talk 1277:this 1215:talk 1159:talk 1128:talk 1100:talk 1060:🍁 1039:talk 989:talk 952:talk 925:to". 905:here 881:here 879:and 877:here 873:here 851:talk 839:2016 828:and 797:talk 778:talk 762:talk 706:talk 687:talk 671:talk 641:talk 606:talk 578:talk 547:talk 519:talk 483:talk 432:talk 400:talk 383:talk 362:talk 345:talk 298:talk 257:talk 227:talk 4642:JFG 4511:Yes 4397:Yes 4348:or 4187:JFG 4177:JFG 4119:JFG 4034:Hef 3969:or 3961:to 3923:Hef 3818:or 3769:JFG 3660:JFG 3647:JFG 3606:JFG 3582:or 3574:to 3548:JFG 3434:JFG 3420:JFG 3267:JFG 3150:or 3142:to 3115:JFG 2979:or 2971:to 2827:an 2825:has 2794:JFG 2436:in 2363:in 2350:in 2320:in 2316:of 2303:in 2299:of 2290:in 2083:or 2075:to 2037:Hef 2016:not 1970:or 1962:to 1867:JFG 1721:JFG 1623:JFG 1549:JFG 1280:to 1195:or 1187:to 1118:or 1041:) 954:) 845:). 799:) 221:-- 4973:) 4908:) 4857:) 4695:) 4678:) 4670:. 4660:) 4623:) 4605:) 4559:) 4542:) 4525:) 4504:) 4485:) 4475:No 4466:) 4431:No 4422:) 4389:) 4383:, 4334:) 4328:, 4300:) 4232:) 4168:) 4135:, 4084:. 4031:El 4008:) 3975:no 3920:El 3896:) 3872:) 3853:) 3838:, 3824:no 3758:) 3752:, 3722:) 3638:) 3632:, 3588:no 3530:) 3499:) 3482:) 3432:— 3393:) 3357:) 3334:) 3328:, 3282:) 3259:) 3243:) 3237:, 3156:no 3107:) 3055:) 3049:, 3005:) 2985:no 2927:) 2921:, 2861:) 2816:) 2766:. 2738:. 2710:. 2668:. 2636:. 2390:) 2337:, 2324:, 2209:) 2203:, 2184:) 2169:) 2109:) 2089:no 2034:El 1995:) 1976:no 1934:) 1919:) 1903:) 1884:) 1858:) 1843:) 1827:) 1808:) 1779:) 1765:) 1745:-- 1738:) 1712:) 1688:) 1643:) 1614:) 1598:, 1594:, 1590:, 1586:, 1582:, 1578:, 1574:, 1570:, 1501:-- 1494:) 1462:) 1385:) 1381:• 1349:) 1293:) 1217:) 1201:no 1161:) 1130:) 1106:) 1102:• 991:) 875:, 853:) 780:) 764:) 708:) 689:) 673:) 643:) 608:) 580:) 549:) 521:) 501:, 497:, 485:) 474:, 471:, 468:, 465:, 434:) 426:. 402:) 385:) 364:) 356:. 347:) 328:) 322:, 300:) 281:) 275:, 259:) 229:) 203:) 197:, 179:I 172:) 166:, 156:? 117:. 94:→ 64:← 4969:( 4904:( 4853:( 4691:( 4674:( 4656:( 4619:( 4601:( 4582:) 4580:¤ 4578:| 4574:( 4570:— 4555:( 4538:( 4521:( 4500:( 4481:( 4462:( 4418:( 4386:ν 4380:π 4377:( 4331:ν 4325:π 4322:( 4296:( 4228:( 4222:a 4164:( 4097:. 4045:) 4039:( 4004:( 3934:) 3928:( 3892:( 3868:( 3849:( 3755:ν 3749:π 3746:( 3718:( 3700:♯ 3696:♫ 3635:ν 3629:π 3626:( 3526:( 3495:( 3478:( 3389:( 3353:( 3331:ν 3325:π 3322:( 3278:( 3255:( 3240:ν 3234:π 3231:( 3103:( 3052:ν 3046:π 3043:( 3001:( 2924:ν 2918:π 2915:( 2857:( 2812:( 2777:. 2751:. 2723:. 2681:. 2650:. 2622:. 2531:) 2527:( 2468:) 2464:( 2386:( 2206:ν 2200:π 2197:( 2180:( 2165:( 2105:( 2048:) 2042:( 2028:) 1991:( 1930:( 1915:( 1899:( 1880:( 1854:( 1839:( 1823:( 1819:. 1804:( 1775:( 1761:( 1734:( 1708:( 1684:( 1639:( 1610:( 1490:( 1458:( 1377:( 1345:( 1289:( 1213:( 1157:( 1126:( 1098:( 1037:( 1007:. 987:( 950:( 849:( 795:( 776:( 760:( 704:( 685:( 669:( 665:- 639:( 604:( 576:( 545:( 517:( 481:( 430:( 398:( 381:( 360:( 343:( 325:ν 319:π 316:( 296:( 278:ν 272:π 269:( 255:( 225:( 200:ν 194:π 191:( 169:ν 163:π 160:( 137:— 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index