Talk:2020 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:20, 11 February 2019

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30: 15 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies

The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:

You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances)
Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Further information

Enforcement procedures:

Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.

With respect to the WP:1RR restriction:

Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions.
Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism.
In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion.
Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance.
Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established.

The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions.

If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics: American High‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).

United States: Presidential elections / Government Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance).

2020 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 2, 2006	Articles for deletion	Deleted
October 30, 2015	Articles for deletion	Kept
November 1, 2015	Good article nominee	Not listed
March 1, 2017	Articles for deletion	Kept
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 22, 2015. The text of the entry was: Did you know that potential candidates in the United States presidential election of 2020* include Tom Cotton, Hillary Clinton, and Kanye West?*
Current status: Former good article nominee

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

Consensus on the order of candidates in the infobox:

Parties that got at least one electoral vote in the 2016 election will be the first to appear in the infobox and will be ordered by how many electoral votes they got in 2016. Since the Republicans Party got 306 electoral votes and the Democratic Party got 232, the Republican Party will be the first to appear in the infobox and the Democratic Party will be the second.
Some political parties that are qualified to appear in the infobox did not get any electoral votes in 2016. They will be ordered by the total amount of electoral votes in the states that have ballot access. Write-in access counts too.
- If two or more parties have access to the same amount of electoral votes, they will be sorted by how many popular votes they got in 2016. If one of the parties did not participate in the 2016 election, they will be be ordered after the parties (with the access to the same amount of electoral votes) that did. If two or more parties both have access to the same amount of electoral votes and did not participate in the 2016 election, they will be sorted alphabetically by the candidates' names.

Consensus on the criteria for a potential candidate to be included in the article:

The "Publicly expressed interest" section requires only one source from the last six months where the individual is quoted as being interested in running in 2020. Social media posts do not count as public expressions of interest.
The "Potential candidates" section requires at least two sources speculating that an individual may run or where an individual talks about the 2020 election from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). The sources must not be a list of several potential candidates nor a persuasive article about why a candidate should run.
The "Declined candidates" section requires at least two sources from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). One source must be speculative in the same vain as the "Potential candidates" section, while the second must be a quoted denial from the individual in question.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 United States presidential election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30: 15 days

Update of libertarian candidates

There are a couple missing declared libertarian candidates missing. Tekbredus (talk) 03:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readability issue

This article is hard to scroll through on a mobile device, the polls and big images of non-candidates take up the majority of the space. They should be expandable. Tekbredus (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there was consensus not to have those galleries. I support removing them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2020/Archive_6#Proposal:_Remove_all_photos_of_people_who_are_not_declared_candidates_from_the_article is consensus enough for me to remove these now. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ty -tekbredus

The page when viewed from any device could include dropdown sections for each party instead of the current insanity that it is. This section should also include a table outlining all existing candidates rather than making choices to ignore a fact of this election. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a speculative or persuasive source of future events. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.196.86 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other candidate inclusion

After reading this section, it has come to my attention that Myself (William J Hurst (libertarian)) and Ryan Farber (democrat), with possibly a few other candidates, are considered as not "noteworthy" for inclusion, even if we are federally recognized candidates with active campaigns. Our candidacies are matters of provable fact on this topic specifically. Tekbredus (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something being a fact doesn't make it noteworthy. I walked my dog this morning, but I'm not going to write a wikipedia article about it. Your candidacy is not noteworthy because it hasn't met the criteria for being noteworthy.Closeclouds (talk) 14:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a consensus that people who are not sufficiently notable to have a Wikipedia article shouldn't be included on this page. Is there coverage from at least two independent news sources of these candidacies? Your own website and FEC filings are not sufficient. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Tekbredus here. One can make the argument that not all candidates that have declared and filed are notable enough to be relevant to the election. However, even if that is the case and is agreed upon, how can one argue that others that have barely expressed passing interest in running are more relevant to the election than actual, declared candidates? I propose that declared candidates should be considered at least as relevant to the election as others who have expressed passing interest. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I come to this Wikipedia article to find out about what candidates there are. Declared and filed sounds like a good enough reason to list candidates, PARTICULARLY when there are no other candidates in the ring for their party. I wanted specifically to know who's running for the Green Party, and there's NO ONE listed, although I find on this talk page that Ian Schlakman has declared and filed. Why not be accurate? If he's the only one (I do not know this to be so.) then Greens and those leaning Green should be made aware of that. The only one must be sufficiently noteworthy. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Hillary Clinton

Clinton did not say she was thinking about running in 2020. All she said is that she wants to be president, and that she won't decide anything about 2020 until after the midterms (probably regarding whom to support in primaries) Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be discussed on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 (that list is transcluded from the other page). It's not entirely clear to me how that should be handled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One of her top aides has stated in the press she will be a candidate.104.169.18.0 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Goodbye Hillary Clinton! Could you delete her from the election page? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:512F:A7EC:822F:C41 (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

She should be back on the expressed interest side. She never declined anything. Your source is someone's opinion at the moment. Just because you people don't want her to run, doesn't mean she isn't considering it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjjd226 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Al Sharpton

Didn't Al Sharpton also express interest in a potential run for the Democratic Party? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 03:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. This was discussed recently at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020#Al Sharpton. Consensus is to list him as speculative, because there is not sufficient indication that he is interested in making a bid. He only stopped short of declining. — JFG ^talk 12:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party

Jesse Ventura has announced he is interested in running, but as far as I know, nothing concrete has been announced yet. Not sure if it is worth the mention. Also, Jill Stein has announced she is out, and will likely not be a candidate in 2020. Daeseunglim (talk) 02:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Although there have been several references floated with Jesse Ventura's name, in each one he has consistently said that the Green Party has expressed interest in him, but he's never given any indication that he has any interest in running. Those who are listing him are exhibiting wishful thinking, based on the references so far. I believe that he should be removed until something more concrete is announced. Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add Timeline Page

Could you please add a timeline page? Because there are Rebublican and Democratic candidates already. Could you add a timeline page? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C400:357:512F:A7EC:822F:C41 (talk) 22:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing section

Hi,

The section here: [1], is totally missing. Something went wrong with the transclusion, but I don't know how to fix it.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I fixed the transclusion! Somebody kept erasing the necessary tags for some reason. Should be good if it stays as it is. - EditDude (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks again. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2018

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Ian Schlakman as a candidate declaring his candidacy, seeking the Green Party nomination. ^[1] 108.8.4.96 (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Schlakman doesn't have a Wikipedia page. If he can get one, then he can be added. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 07:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.schlakman.com/

I don't know how to set "answered" to NO to reactivate the request. Would someone please do that for me, please? As I have said above, I came to this Wikipedia article to find out who was running as a Green candidate. If Schlakman is the only one (I do not know if this is so.) then he is thereby noteworthy. Greens should know of this void. If there is MORE than one choice, then Greens, who would be voting in the primary, should be aware of this. Likewise all Green-leaning voters should be able to find this out here. 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB (talk) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Minor complaint

Maybe we should put the polling for more likely candidates above the polling for less likely candidates. Dogblock (talk) 23:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Warren Announced she is Running

In December 31st 2018 Elizabeth Warren Declared herself as a candidate for The Presidency under the Democrat party Freedy 31 (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly; she announced she was forming an exploratory committee [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:58, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery for Publicly Expressed Interest/Formally Exploring candidates

Howdy--it seems a bit confusing that we gave a gallery to all the Republican candidates who have expressed an interest in running but only to those Democrats formally exploring. It might be a WP:WEIGHT issue and is also inconsistent. I do not want to take away the Republican gallery so I suggest adding a gallery for Democratic candidates who have publicly expressed interest, even if they are not formally exploring. I know that gallery will be massive (of course, it will shrink in the coming months) but it seems the right way to go. Thoughts? PrairieKid (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are absolutely right about there being a WP:WEIGHT issue. I support your proposal, although I'd also be fine with removing the Republican gallery altogether if other people are strongly against a massive Democrat gallery. Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Inslee

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't Jay Inlsee announced that he is formally exploring a candidacy for the 2020 election? --TwiliAlchemist (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The news reports were a bit confusing. It looks like The Atlantic just published an article saying "Look, Inslee might run!" and all the other sources went crazy. He is interested in running, even has a small PAC behind him but no, he is not formally exploring...yet. All of the articles pointed to the committee as his next natural step. He just has not taken it yet. PrairieKid (talk) 03:30, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 5 January 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Elizabeth Warren to major declared democratic candidates Alebovic (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Elizabeth Warren has started an exploratory committee but has not formally declared. It is kind of a fine line but she has not made a formal declaration to run. PrairieKid (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Tulsi Gabbard announces that she is running for president- move her for Democrats with pending announcement HaysAnthony (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

McAfee

Hey, it looks like John McAfee is running again.

Baconheimian (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Tulsi Gabbard, Official portrait, 114th Congress.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Official Portrait of Governor Jay Inslee.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional eligibility

Am I correct in pointing out that Michael E. Arth is constitutionally ineligible for the presidency, given that he was born in the UK? I thought the Constitution insisted that the President be a ‘natural born citizen of the United States’? I'm not proposing that we remove him, but shouldn't it be stated that he is constitutionally ineligible? Now that I think about it, is Tulsi Gabbard also possibly ineligible? She was born in American Samoa, I believe, which is not a US state, but is, in some fashion, part of the United States. I understand this is a perennial and highly contentious issue, I remember Trump calling into question Ted Cruz's eligibility, given that Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.29.78 (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arth was born on a US air base in the UK, and both his parents were US citizens. I believe this kind of thing has come up with regard to past candidates, and the feeling was that such people are natural born US citizens. (P.S. Yes - John McCain was born in the Canal Zone to US parents, and was determined to be eligible to become president.) Likewise, a person born in Samoa or Puerto Rico or other American dependencies is a natural born US citizen. There is a feeling out there, which I believe is incorrect, that "natural born" means born in an actual state of the U.S. My understanding is that it means you were a US citizen at birth; you did not have to become naturalized or take some other step to become a US citizen. [3] -- MelanieN (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the website www.electoral-vote.com (run by two professors and specific for US federal elections) had a good article explaining this very question a few days ago: https://www.electoral-vote.com//evp2019/Pres/Maps/Jan14.html#item-8 -- fdewaele, 15 January 2019, 19:43 CET.

Fair enough, I was just inquiring. No doubt it’ll become an issue again, American politics being what it is. I think it would still be worth a cursory mention in the article about what the Constitution says (or rather what different intrepreatations of the Constitution say) about the exact rules of eligibility and how it has frequently been contentious (Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, McCain, Goldwater, certainly with Obama, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.133.29.78 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let’s stay reality-based here. Rubio was born in Miami, in the state of Florida; there is no controversy about him. Jindal was born in Baton Rouge, in the state of Louisiana; there is no controversy about him. There was no legitimate controversy about Obama, who was born in Honolulu in the state of Hawaii. There was some discussion about McCain and Goldwater, but they meet the criteria even though they were not born in one of the 50 states; they were born in US jurisdiction and both parents were American, so they were American citizens at birth. There was and is legitimate uncertainty about Cruz, who was born in a foreign country with only one American parent. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link, fdewaele, that's very helpful. It cites Supreme Court decision, 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark. Result: The Court ruled that anyone born in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is automatically granted citizenship and is thus a natural-born citizen. They also say Cruz was a natural borh citizen because "Almost everyone born to an American citizen parent outside the U.S. proper is a citizen at birth." -- MelanieN (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some additional rules for when one is born abroad and only one parent is a US citizen: see the website of the State Department: https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/travel-legal-considerations/us-citizenship/Acquisition-US-Citizenship-Child-Born-Abroad.html -- fdewaele, 16 January 2019, 10:00 CET.

As mentioned in Michael E. Arth, Arth's autobiography on his web site states that he was born in England to two U.S. citizen parents, thus qualifying him as a U.S. citizen from birth. While being born in American Samoa doesn't automatically convey U.S. citizenship -- some people born there are U.S. nationals but not citizens -- that does not appear to be a concern for Tulsi Gabbard, because according to the articles on herself and her father Mike Gabbard, both her parents were U.S. citizens at the time she was born. As long as either of her parents had been continuously present in the U.S., its possessions, or American Samoa, for at least one continuous year any time before she was born, she's a U.S. citizen from birth. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We should not engage in WP:OR about the eligibility of candidates. If WP:RSs mention them then we include them. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tulsi Gabbard

Please move Tulsi Gabbard to the declared section. She has announced her campaign. I do recall her saying she will have an official announcement, however, I do not see any sources that have a scheduled announcement for January 19.^[1]Political Geek (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.tulsi2020.com/?ms=ads_search_190111_us&refcode=ads_search_190111_us&sourceid=1013747&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7IDiBRCLARIsABIPohhxcDKMOunGu4wnc3UpD8YRwN9oCdWXH_orl5Jz9MN0k8JjObh_ny0aAs12EALw_wcB

There's a discussion on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries about this; the content here is transcluded from that page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who removed Jimmy Dore from her endorsements and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.162.228.189 (talk) 19:11, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Declared candidates

Eyes are needed at the BLPs of recently declared candidates, please. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cardi B ??

I think we can remove Cardi B from "Independent or unaffiliated" since she will be 28 years old in 2020 and a candidate must be 35 to be eligible for the Presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.171.38 (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 January 2019

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add Kamala Harris to declared candidates for Democrats https://abc7chicago.com/politics/kamala-harris-2020-california-senator-is-running/5099105/ https://twitter.com/KamalaHarris/status/1087327713277460481 72.71.237.138 (talk) 12:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already done Bradv🍁 04:09, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Schultz

I think that Schultz should be elevated to a higher mention, than Akon And Cuban. He has actually said that he is running for President as an independent and has started a speaking tour. HAL 333 23:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Confused and lost about formatting

Howdy all. I am super confused about what is happening with the formatting in the nominations. I have spent like 30 minutes trying different things and nothing has worked. I know it started with this edit. I have no idea what is causing the problem but it does seem urgent as it is having serious affects on the article. It has been up for a day and a half which means thousands of people have probably looked at the article in this state. Can someone please come take a look at it? PrairieKid (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, I figured it out. It was an issue with the primary page, not the main one. There goes 20 minutes (or more) of my life and a ton of frustration. So happy to have gotten it. So, disregard this. PrairieKid (talk) 01:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link for the broken link 19 under Weld

https://www.wmur.com/article/former-massachusetts-gov-weld-says-hell-discuss-presidential-plans-in-nh-on-feb-15/26102252

Can a mod use that for link 19 under Weld's 15 Feb. announcement to fix the undefined link error? Thanks.129.246.254.12 (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Klobuchar has announced. Could someone take her out of Pending, and put her in Running?

Amy Klobuchar has announced. Could someone take her out of Pending, and put her in Running? 2604:2000:F64D:FC00:2DA9:E336:2722:DAD4 (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

She's been added to that section already.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://www.schlakman.com/

[2] ttps://www.tulsi2020.com/?ms=ads_search_190111_us&refcode=ads_search_190111_us&sourceid=1013747&gclid=Cj0KCQiA7IDiBRCLARIsABIPohhxcDKMOunGu4wnc3UpD8YRwN9oCdWXH_orl5Jz9MN0k8JjObh_ny0aAs12EALw_wcB

[1]

[1]

@@ Line 112: / Line 112: @@
 :Schlakman doesn't have a Wikipedia page. If he can get one, then he can be added. [[User:Vote 4 DJH2036|Vote 4 DJH2036]] ([[User talk:Vote 4 DJH2036|talk]]) 07:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 {{Reflist-talk}}
+I don't know how to set "answered" to NO to reactivate the request. Would someone please do that for me, please? As I have said above, I came to this Wikipedia article to find out who was running as a Green candidate. If Schlakman is the only one (I do not know if this is so.) then he is thereby noteworthy. Greens should know of this void. If there is MORE than one choice, then Greens, who would be voting in the primary, should be aware of this. Likewise all Green-leaning voters should be able to find this out here. [[Special:Contributions/2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB|2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB]] ([[User talk:2604:2000:F64D:FC00:9BB:CF8D:AA94:83CB|talk]]) 02:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 == Minor complaint ==