Talk:Political positions of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidates/Archive 1

Archive 1

Variety of stances

I changed the lead which had said, "The Democratic candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election hold a wide variety of stances on issues related to domestic and foreign policy and their political ideological views", because it isn't supported by the content so far. There are 27 issues covered in this article, but there are only 3 issues where any candidate is presented as disagreeing with any other candidate's position. No doubt there are more issues where the candidates actually disagree with each other, but they aren't listed here yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Good move, indeed. Despite the individual "branding" of each candidate, the positions they actually express are remarkably similar. — JFG ^talk 08:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Majority of Donations Over $200

For this section, should we do it by donations to their presidential campaigns or just the sum of whatever information we can find from the past? Recording might have been inconsistent across different candidates, I would guess that some might not have this information available. Doing it strictly by donations to their current presidential campaign seems like the most consistent way to go. I won't change it until someone else does though. Just adding my thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.133.42 (talk) 16:32, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that we should just look at their 2020 presidential campaign. I am waiting until March 20, a deadline for campaign finance before updating the information in the article. Ndietzenbach (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:58, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Net Neutrality Section

The current source for the candidates’ stance on Net Neutrality (the linked Daily Dot article) only refers to proposed legislation. This has the effect of excluding the position of former Congressman Beto O’Rourke, who was a cosponsor of H.R.4585: Save Net Neutrality Act of 2017 https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/4585/cosponsors?pageSort=lastToFirst — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.56.116.28 (talk) 07:03, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, the point is moot now. Someone added a reference to a recent statement O’Rourke made on Facebook.

104.56.116.28 (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Joe Biden "on the issues"

Most of his recorded positions were sourced by a quote from before 2012 (Ex: His official marijuana position is sourced by a 2010 quote). We should use positions stated from after the 2016 election, because people's policies chance in 10 years. Quvuq0737 (talk) 01:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Should he even be on this list at all? He hasn't stated that he's running. ParadiseDesertOasis8888 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Healthcare

I think we should replace the column about single-payer healthcare with two columns indicating support for either "Medicare for America" or "Medicare for All" as those are the two main positions that seem to be dividing the field. Thoughts on this suggestion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.133.16 (talk) 01:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I’m not sure what the best solution is but I feel like multiple columns for multitudes of different healthcare systems would be a confusing mess. Having people that support a more comprehensive healthcare system listed as "No" under a fairly nondescript header like "Supports Medicare for America" seems like a bad idea. I would support adding a Note for those who support a public option but want to keep for-profit health insurance companies. redsparta ••• talk to me 09:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

There's also an inaccuracy in Pete Buttigieg's listed position on healthcare. He supports the Medicare for America proposal, which is not single-payer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.132.62 (talk) 03:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done redsparta ••• talk to me 09:34, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Electoral Reform - Abolishing the Senate?

Is abolishing the senate a hot button issue? I know that many Democratic candidates are testing the waters for various progressive positions, but the only candidate I've seen mention anything of that nature is Gravel, and considering he is running only to expand the conversation leftward it seems like a fairly unimportant category. In the same vein, is abolishing the filibuster really an electoral reform? That seems like it should be in a different category, though I can't figure what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.131.156 (talk) 10:22, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

Drone strikes under foreign policy

There seems to be some disagreement as to where support for drone strikes should go. I believe it should remain under foreign policy. I think that simply removing the category is the wrong way to go. Is there a reason it should not remain under foreign policy? Hamhock666 (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Added basic income...

Added basic income which is the core idea and political platform for Yang but also central to some others. Please help with good references. I have found some but Im not sure how to add references properly...--Mats33 (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! It seems like basic income already had a column under Labor Issues, but this added a bunch of positions that were previously unknown. It's a bit confusing to have basic income under Labor Issues since it also would fall under Economics, but Labor Issues is more specific and is where raising the minimum wage column is. Hamhock666 (talk) 05:37, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

I think I would prefer a separate part for "basic income", "job guarantee" and "expanded EITC" (earned income tax credit). Kamala Harris proposal is to radically expand the EITC-system and that should be seen as instead of basic income. Perhaps there are also other candidates who are along that line. Basic income vs job guarantee is a topic in the debate... --Mats33 (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Decriminalization of sex work

Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren are all classified as opposing sex work decriminalization, because of their "Yes" vote on the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act. However, Tulsi Gabbard and Kamala Harris also voted in support of that act. In fact, the article even mentions Kamala Harris. (Also, Michael Bennet, John Delaney, Seth Moulton, Beto O'Rourke, Tim Ryan, and Eric Swalwell all voted for the act). --Numberguy6 (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, even though the bill affects sex workers, the target of the bill is sex trafficking so it is unclear that any of those votes were because they opposed sex work. I think it would make sense to not use that as a source for positions on legality of sex work, unless they were quoted as saying that in reference to the bill. Hamhock666 (talk) 18:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ideological affiliation section

I personally believe this should be in the article as it was in the 2016 article. Maybe limit it too self-declared affiliations. --FPSTurkey (talk) 17:22, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment

Should their positions on the impeachment of Donald Trump be added?--Pokelova (talk) 08:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think that could certainly be useful. SCC California (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment of Donald Trump is irrelevant to a candidate's platform, because if they become President, Trump will be out of office. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:42, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

There are many things on this article that are outside of the president's official role (eg. constitutional amendments), but I think it can still be helpful to people to see which candidates agree with them on various issues. SCC California (talk) 21:54, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

"Partial"

Joe Biden is not "partial" on the death penalty. Either you oppose it for everyone, or not at all.AHC300 (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Tom Steyer

Steyer is only candidate listed as a major candidate on the Democratic primary article, and the Presidential election article, not to be listed here. Please can he be added.

Also, I think that Swalwell, and Ojeda, should be listed separately to the 25 active major candidates. Don't exclude them, but list them separately, for example at the bottom of each table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.228.54 (talk) 13:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Gun control—Manditory Buyback

With how many of the 2020 Democratic candidates support a voluntary buyback program, I feel like this section of the gun control positions table would be clearer and more concise if it had the header "Gun buyback program" instead of "Mandatory buyback". Could then list the candidates' positions as: Manditory, Voluntary, unclear, n/a, or no. Athunin (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Position on appointing campaign donors as U.S. Ambassadors

In foreign policy, it would be a good idea to add candidates' positions on the appointment of campaign donors as U.S. ambassadors. So far Warren has come out against it, and the rest are unknowns. Could someone more capable than I help make this change? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.158.89.129 (talk) 22:36, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Abolishing the filibuster

The current table re the filibuster is not consistent with Washington Post Research on the subject: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/policy-2020/voting-changes/eliminate-senate-filibuster/. According to the WP, positions on the filibuster are as follows:

Support: Bullock, Inslee, Messam, Moulton, Swalwell & Warren.

Open to it: Booker, Buttigieg, Castro, Gabbard, Gillibrand, Harris, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, O'Rourke, Sanders, Williamson & Yang.

Oppose: Bennet, Delaney, de Blasio, Ryan, Sestak.

Unclear: Biden

I think that the table should be updated to reflect the above positions.--Mrodowicz (talk) 04:07, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Proposal re ordering of columns

Propose that any column for which the entries are either the same or unknown for all candidates still running be moved to the right of other columns as these do not provide any basis for distinction. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Withdrawn Candidates

I think it is of value - especially later in the race when more candidates dropped out - to show the positions of the withdrawn candidates to compare. Maybe they could be written in grey instead of black or hidden as foldout table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.51.118.184 (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with this. When more significant candidates drop out later in the race, many will still want to research what they stood for on the campaign trail and compare it with ongoing candidates. I've WP:BOLDLY restored Swalwell to the table and I'm thinking we should also bring back Ojeda's columns, which were removed a long time ago. - EditDude (talk) 11:52, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it makes more sense to list them at the bottom of tables? It strikes me as strange to include them in a page about "candidates" when they are no longer candidates. The volume of candidates compounds that problem, in my opinion. WMSR (talk) 22:07, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Keep them all on the same tables. The fact that they withdrew their candidacy doesn't negate the fact that they were candidates in this race. — Guarapiranga (talk) 04:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Revamped style

Those small fonts were really hurting my eyes! (and were probably infringing on MOS:FONTSIZE too) Enjoy! — Guarapiranga (talk) 02:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Didn't like the checkmarks, Numberguy6? — Guarapiranga (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't like the checkmarks because the table is not compact enough. It feels like there is too much empty space in the new style. I plan on reverting it completely to the old style. --Numberguy6 (talk) 03:54, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Noooooo…

1. Now cell contents are centralised and symmetrical.

2. Previous MOS:FONTSIZE was not compliant.

3. Now people with ageing eyes (or any other visual impairment) can actually read it.

— Guarapiranga (talk) 04:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I have decided to stick with the current format. --Numberguy6 (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Richard Ojeda

There is currently a dispute going on on the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries page over whether or not Richard Ojeda is a major candidate. Should he be included here? --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Trade?

Im not really sure how to lay it out and break it down. but trade and tariffs are a very relevant issue and some Democrats disagree on policy in this area. I think it would be neat to include a trade stance somewhere. ~~Graveyjones5~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graveyjones5 (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Unanimous positions

Unanimous means that there is no opposition, not that some positions are unknown. If it is worth to note unanimous positions, this can be done without the use of a table which is completely unnecessary. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yet, you did eliminate columns in which some of the candidates' positions were unknown, Onetwothreeip. Maybe you have in mind a more succinct way of presenting that information, but you didn't move any of it to a different part of the article; it was simply gone (along with all their sources, which are of course different for each of the candidates positions, even when unanimous). Guarapiranga (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

I most certainly did, as the positions were unanimous. If you like, you could simply add a statement somewhere that all the candidates support a certain policy. "Unknown" simply means that it is unknown to Wikipedia editors, which is not notable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, unknown means no WP editor has provided a RS to the candidate's position. Whether editors believe they know something or not is immaterial to WP, as editors are not RS. Therefore, if some of the candidates' positions are unknown, you cannot reliably claim they are unanimous. And, even in the cases that you can, in which none of them is unknown, that still needs to be noted with all the citations for each candidate. If you can think of a way of presenting that information clearer than a table, go ahead. I can't. Guarapiranga (talk) 06:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

That's what I said. We certainly can't be publishing as content when Wikipedia editors are unaware of something. The article has clearly become too long and it's time to scale back. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Per the removal of policy questions where there hasn't been disagreement among any candidate, I want to raise it now for discussion what prose to use to describe these instances, where necessary. Does anybody have any suggestions of their own? Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I undid your removal, Onetwothreeip. You don't have consensus. If you want to remove columns with NO information, in which ALL cells say Unknown, I'll agree to it. There's absolutely NO good reason to remove issues that have been broached by some candidates and not others. Your insistence in doing this without WP:consensus amounts to WP:editwarring. Guarapiranga (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, unless ALL of the positions are known, one candidate could have a position that would make the candidates' positions on the issue non-unanimous. I think that "unanimous" should mean that all of the candidates' positions are known. --Numberguy6 (talk) 21:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

And even if they're all known—and sourced!—that's still valuable information, not to be discarded simply bc someone is only looking at this page to choose a candidate. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Numberguy6, unanimous means there isn't disagreement. Just because we don't have evidence to the contrary, does not mean we include the possibility in articles. That would be a completely untenable position for an encyclopaedia.

Guarapiranga, I am not against displaying unanimous positions. What I am against is the size that it currently takes to display this information. The tables are used to compare differences between candidates. When there are not differences, they should be displayed by means other than by a table, which is a considerably heavy way to display that information. No matter what way you look at it, this article is far too large. This isn't simply because of how much information is here, but the way that information is shown. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:: The tables are used to compare differences between candidates.

Nope, this article is about Political positions of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primary candidates. WP content policy requires that all WP:notable issues be presented, even if candidates don't differ on them.

@Onetwothreeip:: When there are not differences…

Moreover, you're ERASING columns in which you have NO evidence that indeed there are no differences, as many of the positions are yet Unknown (to editors).

@Onetwothreeip:: No matter what way you look at it, this article is far too large. This isn't simply because of how much information is here, but the way that information is shown.

As I said before, if you have a more succinct and as clear way of presenting this info than a table, I'm all for it. Guarapiranga (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you read what I said? I was specifically addressing the confusion between the tables and the article, which you are again misconstruing. It's fine for issues where there are no differences between candidates to be described in this article, they just shouldn't be done through a table how they are now.

The burden of proof is clearly on those who wish to add content, not to remove. If something is unknown to the editors of this article, that is certainly not notable.

As I have said many times, prose can be used rather than tables. When I remove content from tables, that does not mean those issues cannot be discussed at all here, it just means they should be discussed in some other form. The best way would probably be for a sentence to be written that describes what the candidates agree on, and would require one or few references. What is completely unjustified is columns where so much source code is taken to describe something as benign as unanimity on an issue, or where the positions of candidates are mostly unknown to editors. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip:: The burden of proof is clearly on those who wish to add content, not to remove.

Nope, the burden of proof, rather of attaining WP:consensus, is on whomever edits the article, regardless of whether s/he's adding, subtracting, multiplying or dividing (if the edit is opposed, of course).

@Onetwothreeip:: What is completely unjustified is columns where so much source code is taken to describe something as benign as unanimity on an issue, or where the positions of candidates are mostly unknown to editors.

That source code is simply the references substantiating what is summarised here with a very succinct Yes, No, Partial or Unclear. Again, if you know of an even more succinct way of summarising that info, I'm all for it. Guarapiranga (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the order of the edits, to which you refer, I'm talking about the content of the edit. We don't add content about when Wikipedia editors don't know something. That's not what readers are here for. The information can be far more succinct by not being in a table when the values are the same. This article is blatantly not succinct. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes or No are clearly not the same as Unknown. As both Numberguy6 and myself have clearly stated, unless ALL of the positions are known, one cannot say they are unanimous. And even if they are, and all the same, indeed unanimous, that unanimity ought to be represented here, as long as it is notable. Guarapiranga (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I completely agree, it just doesn't have to be, and shouldn't be, in the form of a table. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Page size

Please eliminate all candidate entries for anyone that is no longer running! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.229.23 (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

This page currently has 430,181 bytes of markup; it's far too big. What's the best way to divide it up? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

There, reduced it below 390Kb. There are 71 other pages bigger than this one for you to worry about, Pigsonthewing. Guarapiranga (talk) 11:41, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

390Kb is still far too large. And cut the snark. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Now below 370Kb, behind 136 other pages larger than this one. Guarapiranga (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

And the navbox is back! (thanks to ditching deprecated {{sn}}). Guarapiranga (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to removing candidates who are no longer running. That information seems less than relevant, especially since they dropped out before any votes occurred. --WMSR (talk) 20:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Michael Bloomberg

Should we add him? Joe Biden was in this article for months before he officially declared, because all the evidence was pointing to him declaring. Bloomberg is in the same situation. --Numberguy6 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Now that Mike Bloomberg has been added, is it possible to add additional information regarding this candidate (there are lots of Question Marks for him)? A lot of the citations are very old (back to 2015 on the Iran Nuclear Deal). What is Mike's Current View on this? There is additional information regarding Health Care on Mike Bloomberg's website. I have found this page very useful, but do not have the skills for Wikipedia article edits (no GUI editing?), nor do I feel that it is right for me to edit the content of this page. Perhaps the original authors can help with this. Thank You JSNC~enwiki (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Andrew Yang and Michael Bennet

Recently, these candidates were removed from the list. However, they clearly withdrew after the primaries began. Should they be put back on the list? --Numberguy6 (talk) 17:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

• They’ve been added back, since their removal wasn’t discussed. We’ve agreed on this talk page that this page can show every candidate who was in the race during the primaries (i.e. in it during Iowa or any time afterward), while not including candidates who dropped out before Iowa (for page size purposes) but including those who dropped out during primaries. So yes. Paintspot Infez (talk) 18:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)