Talk:2028 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

More candidates

Hello, In my sandbox page I've been working on a 2028 election page for my own enjoyment. In it, there are further articles and sources for the same and some other potential candidates. That may help with this draft. Thanks! Colin.1678 (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

If Trump gets reelected, he cant be a candidate in this election. If Joseph Biden gets reelected he also cant be a candidate in this election. If hie dies of old age before his term is over, (of old age FFS), Kamala Harris will have some months/years experience as POTUS when she camapains for reelection. This election could turn out to be a real thriller. 2A01:799:32A:D100:5CC3:AEC0:2C55:3881 (talk) 19:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Dan Edward Knight Sr.

I found on the Federal Election Commission website that Dan Edward Knight Sr. has a "2028 PRESIDENT" committee. His filing (FEC PDF here) lists his party affiliation as other and his state as Illinois. A quick Google Search says that he is an author. He should be added under "other potentional candidates" as "declared intent to run". AmericanBaath (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Election map

When do you want to start on the map for this election? We are currently using the 2024 one, which as soon as that election starts, will not look the same as a blank one. I already have made 51 draft articles for the election in each state that are currently unfinished. So if any of you want to make the map for the 2028 election, please do, possibly before November. ^Wiinter_U 22:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

When will this be officially submitted?

The 2024 election has pretty much ended and I wonder when this will be officially posted as an article. I have been working on a draft of the 2028 election in my sandbox, User:Vlklng/sandbox. I want to ask if there's anything good from my sandbox that can be added to this article, I just began it a few hours ago. Vlklng (talk) 23:02, 7 November 2024 (EST)

You can edit this draft and add what you like inshaAllah, it is open for editing TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Move to the Main namespace?

It gives me no pleasure to ask this, but given that it's the 7th and Trump won the 2024 election, is it about time we move the draft election article to the Main namespace? ItsABlackHole (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually maybe they should wait until President Trump is inaugurated inshaAllah, since the article refers to him as president multiple times. but this is not what happened for the 2024 election page, which was created in 2015. TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Never mind we can just add in parenthesis that he is president elect inshaAllah TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:38, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Lets establish a consensus, then I will move it into the main namespace inshaAllah. TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The article "2028 United States presidential election" already exists as a redirect, so I will just put the article on there inshaAllah since it won't let me move the draft because the name already exists. TopVat19sEver (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 November 2024

== 2028 United States presidential election ==



{{Infobox election
| election_name = 2028 United States presidential election
| country = United States 
| type = presidential
| opinion_polls =
| ongoing = yes
| previous_election = 2024 United States presidential election
| previous_year = ''2024''
| next_election = 2032 United States presidential election
| next_year = ''2032''
| election_date = November 7, 2028
| flag_year = 
| votes_for_election = 
| needed_votes =
| image1 =
| nominee1 =
| party1 = 
| home_state1 =
| popular_vote1 =
| percentage1 =
| image2 = 
| nominee2 =
| party2 = 
| home_state2 =
| popular_vote2 =
| percentage2 =
| map_image = {{2024 United States presidential election imagemap}}
| map_size = 
| map_caption = 2024 electoral map, based on the results of the [[2020 United States census|2020 census]]
| image_size = 200x200px
| title = [[President of the United States|President]]
| before_election = TBD
| before_party = 
| after_election = TBD
| after_party = 
}}
{{US 2028 presidential elections series}}

The '''2028 United States presidential election''' will be the 61st quadrennial U.S. presidential election. 

If Republican [[Donald Trump]] is elected President in [[2024 United States presidential election|2024]] to a second, nonconsecutive term, then he would be ineligible to seek a third term due to the restrictions of the [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-second Amendment]], as he won in 2016, and in this case, would've won in 2024. If Democrat [[Kamala Harris]] wins instead, she would then be eligible to seek a second term.

[[United States presidential election|U.S. presidential elections]] are scheduled on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. Following that schedule, the 2028 elections are to be held on Tuesday, November 7, 2028.<ref name="va">{{cite web|title=Election Planning Calendar|url=http://www.essex-virginia.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_62876/File/Voter%20Registration/Election%20Planning%20Calendar%20Through%202024%20%28ESSEX%29.pdf|website=essex-virginia.org|publisher=[[Essex County, Virginia]]|accessdate=6 February 2016}}</ref> 

The winner of the 2028 presidential election is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2029.

==Nominations== 

===Republican Party===
{{further information|2028 Republican Party presidential primaries}}


====Potential candidates====

===Democratic Party===
{{further information|2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries}}


====Potential candidates====

==See also==
*[[2028 United States elections]]
*[[2028 United States gubernatorial elections]]
*[[2028 United States House of Representatives elections]]
*[[2028 United States Senate elections]]

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

==References==
{{reflist}}

==External links==
{{Wikiquote}}

{{2028 United States presidential election}}
{{2028 United States elections}}
{{United States presidential elections}}
{{Authority control}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:United States presidential election, 2020}}

2W10 (talk) 01:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please wait at least until the 2024 election happens and the protection expires? This draft still contains nothing but boilerplate as it stands. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 06:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we also avoid screwing the Table of Contents? Talk pages are not sandboxes, and the above code should have been put in draftspace, e.g. at Draft:2028 United States presidential election - which already exists and, whilst highly speculative, does have significantly more sourced conten than what has been given above. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:09, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

When will these edit wars stop?

Important edits including mines have been reverted due to the outcomes of these edit wars, they need to stop desperately or consequence will be asserted. Vlklng (talk) 00:55, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Donald Trump

Currently, President Donald Trump is listed under an "Ineligible" section among potential 2028 Republican candidates. This listing is a relic of pre-2024 speculation. For consistency, it would be more appropriate to remove him, as similar listings were not made for Barack Obama in 2016 or George W. Bush in 2008. 174.247.187.75 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, this time it is confusing some people due to the fact that he has had non-consecutive terms. I think it would be better to keep him on for simple clarification. Lukt64 (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

Re-add the potential candidate and polling sections removed without consensus. This is article is not in draft-space anymore, editors need consensus for removing almost the entire prose of the article. 72.0.191.77 (talk) 18:13, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the Talk:2028 United States presidential election#What should the criteria be for inclusion? section above.David O. Johnson (talk) 18:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024 (2)

Add Joe biden to the potencial candidates because he did not say he would retire 177.71.1.118 (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Biden did not confirm his retirement in any point, a 2028 run cannot get ruled out 177.71.1.118 (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of politicians have "not ruled out" a run in 2028. If that was the only metric for including someone on the potential candidates list, we could flood the page with hundreds of potential candidates.

There is absolutely nothing to suggest Biden will run in 2028. He'll be 85, for one thing, but also I don't think anyone would back him if he tried and he hasn't said anything about it at all. AxioChrono (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done per comment above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Add ALL presidents who've been 22nd

Shouldn't it list the other living presidents, in addition to Trump, who have been term-limited?. _pbp 00:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Role for Donald Trump

I say we should start referring to Donald Trump as “President” rather than “President-elect”, this makes us avoid the hassle of changing all these words after he’s inaugurated in January, which by then this article will be more complex. And also, this is a 2028 election, he’ll already be POTUS by then and preparing to leave office. Vlklng (talk) 03:38, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. He's the president-elect until January 20. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

We should look at the time of this article, by then he’ll already be president. Vlklng (talk) 11:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The article is talking about an event in 2028, however. At the time of the event of the article, Donald Trump would be "President of the United States" (assuming there is no removal from office or tragedy) and not "President-elect of the United States". AmericanBaath (talk) 12:20, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

This article is public not a draft anymore and as of November 10th he’s the president elect of we put him as president it would break WP policies John Bois (talk) 06:22, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Ineligible

If you list trump as ineligible, you should also list Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, and George Bush as ineligible. 200.12.168.35 (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The incumbent on their final term has been listed as ineligible on all election pages John Bois (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Lara Trump and Donald Trump Jr for Republicans

Might be worth adding them as i have heard rumors they are considering running 71.241.134.156 (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Have any sources? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Candidates

Should we be using sources from before the last election as citations for speculation about this one? We have eight D candidates - including Kamala Harris, who I hesitatingly suggest is unlikely to give it another go - listed with a source from 2023 with Joe Biden's name in the headline. Should we not refrain from including politicians as candidates until after we have a reliable source talking about them from after Trump's victory? OZOO (t) (c) 12:15, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree. This is why there has been a "in the past six months" rules for similar candidate listings. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct. Ideally all sources will be after the 2024 election, but within the last 6 months is also appropriate. Reywas92^Talk 15:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I support the idea of only using sources from after the 2024 election, for purposes of context. I may be mistaken, but I believe we have done it this way in previous election articles. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking of pruning the 2028 Democratic Party presidential primaries section (probably using the up-to-date refs that are currently in this article) and just transcluding it to this article. It'd make maintenance easier (plus it's been done that way before in the 2024 United States presidential election article). Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Why isn't Vice President Harris in the Democratic candidates section if she is the first candidate referenced in the intro paragraphs as a possible Democratic candidate for 2028? There have been multiple news pieces referencing the possibility of her running again. 128.164.171.31 (talk) 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I removed Harris from the intro, since it wasn't sourced. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

What should the criteria be for inclusion?

Since there's been an edit war over who to include, there should probably be a discussion so we can discuss what the inclusion criteria should be for the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Same as always: two recent substantial sources. I will keep removing the whole list if it's just sourced to 2022 and 2023 and kitchen sink lists rather than recent substance. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Reywas92: It appears as though nearly all of the candidates should be removed under this criteria, which I agree with. Arguably, I would go so far as to claim that candidates in either list need to have at least three articles from "generally reliable" sources at WP:RSP to be included. In order of issues:

• Ted Cruz, Nikki Haley, Brian Kemp, Vivek Ramaswamy, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Tim Scott, and Glenn Youngkin are cited only to an NBC News article.
• Ron DeSantis is cited to NBC News and The Floridian, though there is a source from The New York Times that could replace it.
• JD Vance is cited to NBC News and Newsweek, which is not a reliable source for politics.
• Andy Beshear is cited to WHAS-TV twice, which should be considered once, especially given that one of the citations is about a betting website that lists Dwayne Johnson's chances alongside Beshear.
• Pete Buttigieg, Ruben Gallego, Wes Moore, Gavin Newsom, Josh Shapiro, Raphael Warnock, and Gretchen Whitmer are cited to Newsweek or the Washington Examiner, which cannot be used to substantiate WP:EXCEPTIONAL claims. I may be able to find citations for Newsom and Whitmer. Gallego is particularly exceptional given that he has not even been sworn in as senator yet.

I have removed all of these individuals and linked to this section. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 23:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

More Potential Democratic Candidates too.

According to Newsweek, here is some. Who Will Run in 2028? Seven Potential Democratic Candidates - Newsweek

Wes Moore, JB Pritzker, and Pete Buttgieg.

Harris Concession Speech: Who Will Be America's First Woman President? - Newsweek

Michelle Obama, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Cori Bush Says She Wants to See Arms Embargo Placed on Israel, Regrets Not Running for President

Cori Bush stated she should have run as well. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 17:52, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Any yes to my recommendations? 50.91.26.176 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek is marginally reliable per WP:NEWSWEEK. Honestly, I don't see why the article is currently using Newsweek without a discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That is because it is post-2013 when pre-2013 is the one you want to avoid. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez IS one of the potential candidates. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 17:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Not true. Newsweek was acquired by IBT Media in 2013 and it has not returned to the quality that it once had since then. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 22:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For some reason, this article uses Newsweek. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 23:21, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

For some reason indeed, hence my "I don't see why the article is currently using Newsweek without a discussion." Thankfully, this issue has been resolved. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What does that mean when issues has been resolved. Did they remove Newsweek.  50.91.26.176 (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Add Jimmy Carter running for a second term 67.0.238.151 (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

That's laughable. You can't be serious. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @David O. Johnson because Jimmy Carter might not make it since he IS 100 YEARS OLD. Even if it is impressive, he is not going to run again. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 20:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2024

The "Redfield & Wilton Strategies/Newsweek" poll should be categorized under a hypothetical polling section, as it surveyed voters on their support in the scenario where Donald Trump loses the 2024 election. Anopisthograph (talk) 06:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Potential Republican candidates

I find it strange that nobody has added for the Republican Party under potential candidates. I think it would be fair to add JD Vance and Vivek Ramaswamy at this time. AmericanBaath (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Nikki Haley should be added as well. She had lots of momentum during the initial primary and there's no doubt she'll seek to run again in 2028 Sendbobspicspls (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Newsweek

I removed a segment sourced to Newsweek. Per WP:NEWSWEEK, the site tends to prefer sensationalist headlines and claims over true fact-checking. Other claims cited to Newsweek should probably be removed if not reported by any other source, especially considering such a contentious topic. 🐔 Chicdat  ^{Bawk to me!} 12:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Joe Manchin

@Reywas92 and RickStrate2029: As per the criteria, Manchin should technically not qualify as no sources have discussed him being a potential candidate; the CNN reference in the last sentence does not even mention him running for president at all. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 06:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Even the Fox News ref doesn't support Manchin's inclusion; at around 5:30 of the the interview, he says "I don't have any desire to be in administration."David O. Johnson (talk) 06:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox News is not allowed to be used as sources. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources - Wikipedia

ctrl F and then type in Fox News. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 15:31, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For better navigation, the link your probably looking for is WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. — BerryForPerpetuity (talk) 17:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! 50.91.26.176 (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Fox News may be used here because this is a primary source of Manchin that happens to be on Fox News. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 15:22, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

That's true, I'll bring back the independents' section than RickStrate2029 (talk) 01:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

It still needs to be *two* sources that should be specifically about the 2028 presidential election. The Fox interview does not point to that, so I don't understand why you think this needs to be here. Reywas92^Talk 17:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, aA generic openness to running for office again does not make a likely 2028 candidate. This guy, who will be 81, jerked everyone around this year, don't put him in the article without something specific. That's only one source anyway. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I've now improved the section with better sources, and given specific explanations in the editing why they qualify in this case. Feel free to add more potential candidates to the independent section though. RickStrate2029 (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You still have no sources specifically saying he is considering running for president in 2028. Vague nonsense that he wants to stay active or could run for something is not adequate here, it's the kind of synthesis and speculation we have to avoid. Reywas92^Talk 21:13, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

We're currently building a page of "potential candidates", if he said he was considering running for President he'd be in the "publicly expressed interest" section. Like it or not, we're four years out and running entirely on speculation.

To prevent any edit warring though, I won't undo your revert until we have additional perspectives on how we should develop the independents section. RickStrate2029 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

And we should have good, in-depth speculation specifically about this particular election, not merely hazy insinuations that one hasn't retired from politics completely. I'm sure there will be many more folks participating in the invisible primary over the next few years, and we should focus on what's most talked about rather than being overly broad to be unhelpful. Reywas92^Talk 21:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I will leave Manchin out of the potential candidates section until better information comes out about his intentions for 2028. In the meantime though, other potential candidates should be added to the independents section. RickStrate2029 (talk) 22:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It's too vague to mean anything. I agree with Reywas; we need more substantive sourcing for a potential run. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:49, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Map name

Asking here because it's more likely to get a response:

Currently, Electoral College maps are named as ElectoralCollegeXXXX.svg, eg w:File:ElectoralCollege2008.svg. However, for the 2028 map this name is already taken by this image:

So instead I've used w:File:Electoral College 2028.svg, but this isn't great for consistency (e.g. w:File:Electoral College 2008.svg is not a file). So my question is should anything be done, and if so, what? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

You can overwrite that image with another one, reupload it. It isn't used anywhere. Reywas92^Talk 14:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Reywas92 I've moved the file (instead of overwriting it), but there's still a redirect DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:33, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

I have taken a look and it seems like this was resolved by replacing the redirect, correct? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Include betting markets?

If we're including opinion polls, should we also include the current odds implied by political betting markets (Kalshi Democratic nominee, Republican nominee, and so on)? Especially since there have been a lot of assertions that prediction markets are more accurate than opinion polls. ypn^2 19:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

No. Betting markets are not based on the population and can be influenced, e.g. the Trump whale. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

First election since 1976 in which Biden, Bush, Clinton or Trump will not appear on the major party's ticket.

This is a premature assumption that should be removed. JFM01 (talk) 17:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I've removed it. OZOO (t) (c) 17:29, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 November 2024

RealLooktea (talk) 21:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit the opening to say "this is expected to be the first presidential election since 1984 without a Biden, Bush, Clinton or Trump on the ballot"

Not done, per WP:CRYSTALBALL... - Adolphus79 (talk) 21:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

AOC 2028

Don’t know if Slate counts as a “reliable source” but just to start this conversation: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/11/2028-democrats-presidential-primary-election-aoc-ocasio-cortez.html Exietee66 (talk) 13:35, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Slate is a reliable source at WP:RSP, but this article appears to argue that she should run, not that she will. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:24, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

What @ElijahPepe meant that EVEN if slate has her name potential for 2028. The article CANNOT be argue that she should be, it has to be shown that she could have the potential. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 02:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

You know, I still think it is also good sources at the same time. 50.91.26.176 (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

What does potential mean here? We've had two 2028 polls since the election and AOC polls higher than multiple Democrats listed on the page in both of them. That combined with Slate and others speculating on a possible 2028 run seems to signify she should be listed if people like Pritzker are? 2601:586:500:E280:71DF:D388:DAD2:20B4 (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

See #Including potential candidates. Pritzker is included because there are two reliable sources, the Chicago Sun-Times and Axios, that have discussed his potential for running in 2028, though I am skeptical of including him and others on that list. I have looked at the crosstabs for those polls. The issue is that the only mention of her running at all in 2028 is from a Slate article that cannot be used because it is effectively an opinion that suggests that she should run, not that she is going to. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 14:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Bolding in the lead

Seeing as the bolding intro has been removed from the other US presidential election pages (1788 to 2024), today. Should the same be done for this page? GoodDay (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. For the same reason the bolding was removed from the other election articles. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I've been planning on doing this for several days. I wrote a sample introductory sentence that can be seen here. I noticed that the 2024 article uses "Presidential elections" rather than "A presidential election", which I believe should be amended. Consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Presidents#Presidential election articles lead sentences determined that this was appropriate, so I will boldly apply this here. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

Add Elizabeth Warren to the list of candidates who have declined to run in 2028, in the "Declined to be candidates" subsection of the "Democratic Party" section.

SOURCES CONFIRMING ELIZABETH WARREN WILL NOT RUN IN 2028:

SCRIPPS reporter

TIME article Aemitt (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

References

 Maybe — This is not a bad-faith proposal, and I believe Nathaniel Reed's reporting. However, tweets are best avoided as citations, and the Time article does not suggest she will not run. As soon as a better citation can be found, this can be completed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done for now: Per ElijahPepe. Once a better citation is found, this edit request can be reopened. Bowler the Carmine | talk 17:05, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Emerson college poll

This should be added to the primary polling section

https://emersoncollegepolling.com/november-2024-national-poll-trump-favorability-jumps-post-election-2028-election-kicks-off-with-harris-and-vance-leading-primaries/ TW929 (talk) 02:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for sharing. LV ^{✉ ✎} 03:26, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Polling by Demographics or Evangelicals

I was wondering, Once polling starts being placed on this page and the expend party presidential primaries pages, I was hoping for people started placing polling based on Demographics (White American- Hispanic- African-Asian American) and Evangelicals.Muaza Husni (talk) 13:10, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 November 2024

I would like to add to the Kamala Harris section under "Democratic candidates" that 3 early 2028 Democratic primary polls indicated that she would be a frontrunner for the nomination if she decided to run again. Furthermore, they show her leading her other fellow Democrats by decisive multiple digits, even outpacing the percent that are undecided in the new poll that came out. Nate12346 (talk) 21:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide sources for that statement? Where the polls were published, or a published article about them? - Adolphus79 (talk) 02:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

the polls are already on the page in the opinion polling section. TW929 (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The "if" in this case is about 2 years' time... Presidential candidates typically don't declare until after the midterms, so early polling isn't too useful in this case. Harris is just as likely to run for governor. LV ^{✉ ✎} 19:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 December 2024

Hi, in the potential democratic candidates for the election, you should change J. B. Pritzker‘s name to just JB Pritzker. FreddieBlackman (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Politico article listing Walz and Cooper as potential 2028 candidates

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/07/demogratic-governors-trump-2028-00193169 TW929 (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

New R nom poll

https://x.com/PollTracker2024/status/1866244733002990026 TW929 (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for sharing. LV ^{✉ ✎} 00:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi why are Vance and Trump Jr yellow in this poll? shouldn't they be red? 136.242.8.16 (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It's just personal preference; I typically use yellow for ties. If there's opposition, I can change it. LV ^{✉ ✎} 02:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I dont have any opposition but the historical precedent that I saw was in R primary polls for 2024 in a tie they were both bold but in white. This is the OnMessage national poll from Jan30-Feb5 2023 TW929 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Including Tulsi Gabbard for the republicans

She will likely be one of the most popular choices, since we’re still early and all things considered, she should be definitely considered as a potential candidate, especially considering she will be part of Trumps cabinet. Could very well run and become a running mate later on. Please include her. 2804:18:150:84DE:91E8:2261:7FD2:6A77 (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources to support adding her as a potential candidate? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Betting odds have her above Glenn youngkin and kemp at the moment, as the 4th most likely Republican. Here’s the link. Very highly respected market. Remember markets got this election right on the nose.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2028/winner

this source also lists her in a very strong position: https://www.northjersey.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/11/06/us-presidential-betting-odds-2028-jd-vance-michelle-obama/76092648007/

and the nypost has also used betting odds as a source, so at this point, I think it’s fair to use this as a reference point, considering she already ran for office once. Here’s the link

https://nypost.com/2024/11/06/us-news/betting-odds-revealed-for-2028-presidential-election/

Of course Vance is the front runner by far, but there has been speculation that she could run vying for a vp spot maybe. 2804:14C:183:8E77:50C6:2523:5C4E:42D6 (talk) 00:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Neither is a reliable source. Do you have any reliable sources that name Gabbard? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

No I don’t, only online betting and speculation that points to a lot of people wanting her. It’s still 2024 so I don’t imagine there would be much reliable sources on that yet, I do believe she has the potential to be one, and according to betting and public sentiment and the polls that have gotten released for a hypothetical 2028 primary, I’m not the only one. She’s above youngkin, kemp and behind only DeSantis and Vance in every single one. But if that’s what the criteria is, fine. 2804:14C:183:8E77:51EB:E88D:A520:4DD1 (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 December 2024

Why do people keep removing Kamala Harris as a "potential contender" from the first part of this page? You guys do know that if she runs again, she will be considered the frontrunner, right? Andy Beshear, on the other hand, has his name scattered all over this page, and on the last poll they took, he got only 2%. Nate12346 (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why she was removed, but I've added Harris back to that part of the lede. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

What makes me feel a bit uneasy is that Andy Beshear is the first person in the contender's list when it should be Kamala Harris. Somebody told me it was supposed to be in "alphabetical order" but I don't see that it's in that order at all. I would appreciate it if you guys could either fix the alphabetical order, or list her first since she is the (current) highest-rated Democratic contender for 2028. Thank you. Nate12346

(talk) 20:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s not in order of who’s the front runner. Vance should be above DeSantis if that were the case. 2804:14C:183:8E77:A97A:E903:F2EC:8443 (talk) 05:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

The following individuals stated that they would not run for president

This declined section is going further than what has been said by these candidates. These candidates (Fetterman and Cuban) were asked if they had an interest in running for president and replied 'nah' or 'no', Cuban has since entertained the prospect of running with Charles Barkley as his running mate.

There's plenty of reliable sources in which the other potential candidates also say they (currently) have no interest in seeking the presidency, some referring to 2024 but some more generally. However, I'm not going to move them because denying they have an interest in running is not the same as stating they wont run, especially this far out. 80.44.147.119 (talk) 11:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

What are these sources you are referring to? elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to post them because some overzealous editor could move most potential candidates to the declined section.

But here is a (unreliable source) Whitmer interview clip headlined Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer: No interest in ever running for president to show what I mean.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOR1GlgJUUg&t=5s

IMV these are standard non-committal responses from Whitmer, Cuban and Fetterman and not the same as someone stating they will not run. 80.44.147.119 (talk) 23:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That video was made two years ago. The "Declined candidates" section should only include candidates who said they will not run at least four years before the election. "I don't foresee [running for president]" is different from a direct no. Quite frankly, every candidate of either party should be discussed on this talk page. I have attempted to do that with Ocasio-Cortez, but the editor who added her did not appear amenable or wanted to have a discussion. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't foresee it... it has never lured my interest, it's hard to distinguish a meaningful difference between that and Fetterman and Cuban responding no when asked if they have an interest in running.

I guess we could go with declines within 4 years of the election, this would mean listing Michelle Obama as a potential until she rules it out again though. (she has a solo article for a 2028 run in The Independent, and is discussed in the NYT, Newsweek, The London Evening Standard, and probably a lot more sources.) 80.44.147.119 (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Greg Abbott to possible Republican candidates

There are a few articles saying that he could run for president in 2028, I chose Ballotpedia and Silive.com articles that list Abbott as a potential candidates. I don't know if these count as the articles that are needed for the potential candidates, but here are the articles.

After Trump: here are the Republicans who could run for president in 2028 - silive.com, at the bottom of the actual list of names.

Presidential election, 2028 - Ballotpedia, first person mentioned under the Republicans.

He is running for governor again in 2026, so he can run for president if he wants to. Edward of York (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

New primary polls

https://mclaughlinonline.com/pols/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/National-December-Presentation-RELEASE-12-17-24.pdf TW929 (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Tim Walz to possible Democrat canidates.

a VerseWiki (talk) 01:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have two sources within the past six months? David O. Johnson (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not Tim Walz, but I got AOC beside The Hill. There are some other articles,

AOC Eyed as Potential 2028 Presidential Candidate Yahoo

AOC for prez talk begins again - POLITICO

50.91.26.176 (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Rahm Emanuel

Any objections to listing him?

Sources; Politico[1] New York Post [2] 80.44.147.119 (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard is showing up on every poll. Get almost as much as Nikki Haley. Time we add her to the list.

Add Tulsi Gabbard, she has literally appeared in most 2028 polls at nearly 3-4% 2804:14C:183:8E77:6407:7192:A5B:C378 (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Add some reliable sources and maybe we can add her. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Nikki Haley

Please someone fix whatevers going on in the Haley and Youngkin sections TW929 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the previous editor accidentally removed a bunch of text from the Youngkin section when they added Haley, but I fixed it. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I overlooked that the ref was older than six months, so I reverted the edits which added her. There need to be two reliable sources within the past six months. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Last poll typo

MCLaughin Republican poll should be JD Vance at 25% not 35%. 80.44.147.119 (talk) 01:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

please someone fix this TW929 (talk) 21:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

 Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

A lot of the polls listed add up to 104%+, maybe the total percentage should be listed so it gives an understanding of rounding or input error.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.147.119 (talk) 01:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Premature

I think this article might be too premature. Is there relevant rules as to why it’s up so early?(Aricmfergie (talk) 16:08, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

This article is specifically listed in WP:CRYSTAL as an example of an appropriate article for scheduled or expected future events. This example has been in that policy since 2021. On January 1, 2025, the policy will automatically update to use the 2032 election as its example. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Primaries polling tables

I think the opinion polling tables on the primaries should be moved to their respective party section since, to my assumption, the "Opinion polling" section is for polls directly about the 2028 election, not for polls about the preceding primaries Punker85 (talk) 00:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

2028 first election

2028 Could and will (likely) be the first election sense 1976 with no Trumps, Bushes, Bidens, Obamas, Clintons. I think that's pretty notable. All 5 of which are considered major political dynasties and historic figures in modern American politics. The Bushes have been in 7! political contests recently, (1980, 1984, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004,2016). The Clintons have been in 4 (1992, 1996,2008,2016). Obama have been in 2, (2008,2012) while also being notable in one (2004). Biden has been in 6 (1984,1988, 2008, 2012, 2016, 2020). 4 of them have been known as the "war on terror presidents" Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump. And 2 of them will likely be known as the "pandemic"/"ai" presidents, Biden, Trump. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 11:55, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a semi-interesting fact, but it's not mentioned in any reliable sources. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

2028 Timeline

Hi, Should someone add the timeline to the article TW929 (talk) 4:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ultraodan (talk) 11:15, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

Pete Buttigieg and Tim Walz should be included as democratic candidates Vicketsticket00 (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Ultraodan (talk) 11:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Ro Khanna

There's enough material to add him if the powers that be choose.

Two reliable sources in the last 6 months; NBC Politico.

Notable points, successor to the Sanders 2020 campaign[3], debate with Ramaswamy [4],frequent trips to New Hampshire [5] 80.44.147.119 (talk) 14:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

New Politico Article

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/27/democrats-harris-2028-primary-roundtable-00195423 Not sure if this gets anyone to two sources, it mentioned a lot of potential candidates. TW929 (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

another politico article too. mentions AOC, Walz, Khanna & more TW929 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391 TW929 (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Add Raphael Warnock to possible Democrat candidates

I have two articles since the election mentioning Warnock as a potential candidate in 2028. He's won in a moderately red state, so he could be a strong candidate in the primary.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/politics/2024/11/15/possible-2028-democratic-presidential-candidates 2600:1700:36E0:D120:4500:D649:61D:DC86 (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Support - These Guardian and NBC articles also discuss Warnock, there's consensus that The Guardian and NBC (and Politico) are reliable sources.

Murphy, Booker, and Gallego likely meet the criteria too. I've already posted 2 solo articles from reliable sources discussing Ro Khanna and Michelle Obama as potential candidates, so they meet the criteria too. There seems to be some reluctance to add people but the 2024 page had Perry Johnson, Ryan Binkley, Marianne Williamson etc so adding household names shouldn't be controversial, especially when the others listed don't seem to be any better sourced. 80.44.147.119 (talk) 00:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I haven't found two articles mentioning Murphy and Booker yet (though they probably exist), but the Politico article I cited and the NBC article you cited both mention Gallego as a candidate so he should be added as well. 2600:1700:36E0:D120:4500:D649:61D:DC86 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Is Ted Cruz eligible to run?

He was born in Canada. There should be at least a note talking about this. Clayton Odom Jr. (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

He's eligible, as his mother was a natural born US citizen. Note that he ran for the Republican presidential nomination, in 2016. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You should add here:

" Elections may be held earlier in the event of the president's death or resignation." IgnacyPL (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Elections are not held if the president dies or resigns, the VP would become president TW929 (talk) 15:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

And to add, a new VP would be approved via Congress. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

TW929 and Super Goku V are correct. See United States presidential line of succession. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Capitalization

Hi Smobes,

Please review WP:JOBTITLES.

To wit,

"They are capitalized only in the following cases: When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e., when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon; Pope John XXIII, not pope John XXIII."

The capitalization of the job titles (e.g. "Senator Ted Cruz" was already correct.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 06:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I reverted the edit to the correct capitalization of the job titles. Smobes (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 January 2025

The Republican candidates' offices have all been changed to lowercase, please fix TrentBrownlee (talk) 02:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding Ron De Santis as potential candidate

Hello, Ron DeSantis in fourth place in 2028 GOP field according the echelon survey of november. And there is more than two reliable sources. https://floridapolitics.com/archives/708624-poll-ron-desantis-in-fourth-place-in-2028-gop-field/ https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/26/politics/ron-desantis-2028/index.html https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/11/ron-desantis-political-future-00172482 there are plenty more. I suggest we had him. Ludwig di Mugnano (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

He's been added. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

thanks. Ludwig di Mugnano (talk) 14:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Why has Pete Buttigieg been removed from potential Democrats?

There's nothing saying that he's declined on the wiki but has randomly been removed from the Democratic lists Edward of York (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Im not sure, on the edit it says one of the sources was an opinion but there are several others too TW929 (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Jon Ossoff and Tim Walz could be added to the Democrat section. Leikstjórinn (talk) 15:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

They have both been added. Ossoff didn't have an image in the gallery, but I added one. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 January 2025

Ted Cruz' office listed has only one period in 'U.S. Senator' as 'U.S Senator.' This is inconsistent with John Fetterman's declining to run. Clayton Odom Jr. (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Rather than adding a period, I remove one per the recommendation at MOS:US. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Changed my mind; I added periods for consistency after looking at the rest of the article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Trump JR & Ramaswamy

They only have 1 source listed TW929 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I took a look at other Republican listings and:

Haley has Fox and Politico refs (so only one RS)

Noem only has one (Politico)

Ramaswamy only has one (Politico)

Sanders has Fox and Politico refs (only one RS).

Should we maybe hide them so it's easier to add them back once two reliable sources are found? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and hid them, and Rubio. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson Ramaswamy, Rubio, and Haley had AP and Politico. Those are considered two WP:RS, you may have missed that. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 22:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If the timeframe is too long, then Gretchen Whitmer has 0 sources and should be removed. Rochambeau1783 (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Done.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Desantis' most recent ref is around a year old. Jan 2024 TW929 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Good catch. I'll remove the refs and hide the gallery and DeSantis. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

also moore should be removed from the lede as he has declined TW929 (talk) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Too optimistic

Shouldn't the article mention that these election might not even be held, and if they are, are very likely to be rigged? After all, Trump has on numerous occasions said that he wants to rule the country autocratically. He even said to his supporters: "if you vote for me now, you don't have to vote in four years." The article seems to be blissfully ignorant of his dictatorial statements. Shouldn't this at the very least be mentioned? Steinbach (talk) 22:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Going by your reasoning, this article should be deleted. Anyways, why wouldn't they be held? AFAIK, the US Constitution hasn't been amended to cancel future US presidential elections. I doubt we'll take everything Trump states, as certain to happen. GoodDay (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources

Can somebody make a list of reliable sources so that I and other people know what sources can be used? Edward of York (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. While not an exhaustive list of reliable sources, it is a helpful reference for sourcing guidelines. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

thank you! Edward of York (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Jon Stewart

while his name may seem far streched he has been called to run before and is exccedingly popular(pact act and the daily show). Furthermore while he had rejcted a 2024 run he has not rejected a run in 2028 and might pull a trump as an unlikley candidate. 110.226.182.59 (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

are there any sources mentoning him as a possible candidate TW929 (talk) 19:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

I see Michelle Obama has been added as a potential candidate for the 2028 Democratic presidential nomination. Honestly, how many times does she have to say she's not interested in running for president? PS - Is she going to be added as a potential candidate every four years? GoodDay (talk) GoodDay (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Michelle Obama has been saying for years now that she's not interested in running, and she's only ever added to presidential lists either out of sensationalism or circle-jerking. It makes it much harder to treat this article seriously when she's on the list of potential contenders, unless and until she does something to strongly indicate she's changed her mind.

I move to remove her from the "potential candidates" list. Catjerine (talk) 16:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I second this TW929 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. With all due respect, Joe Rogan saying she would be a good candidate doesn't mean much. Plus, of course, she has consistently said she will never, ever, run. TheHonorable6324 (talk) 21:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I've removed her. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

She meets and exceeds the standards of inclusion ("... mentioned as potential 2028 presidential candidates in at least two reliable media sources in the last six months."), to wit: The Daily Beast [6], The Independent [7], The Evening Standard [8]. She has not publicly made a statement declining to be a candidate in 2028, her statements all related to past elections. To remove her, therefore, is the arbitrary and subjective conclusion of editors that she doesn't "feel" like a good fit. To be honest, a lot of these don't "feel" realistic, which is why we have objective criteria in the first place. Chetsford (talk) 22:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

https://www.cnn.com/2016/07/26/politics/michelle-obama-run-for-president/index.html

bit of an old article but shes said many times that she would never run for president TW929 (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

A political figure saying they'll "never run for president" ... nine years ago is, to be honest, not something that passes the laugh test. I affirm my observation that "she has not publicly made a statement declining to be a candidate in 2028". Again, she meets the consensus, objective criteria for inclusion. She is being excluded based on an original political analysis undertaken by editors. As WP editors, we are not qualified to use our personal analytical skills to override what is published in WP:RS. Chetsford (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Additional Candidates for Democratic Primary

Can someone add Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Raphael Warnock of Georgia to the list of Democrats who might run for the nomination. I have two article mentioning both Murphy and Warnock. Murphy: https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5058031-democratic-leaders-watch-2028/, https://www.foxnews.com/politics/2028-watch-here-democrats-who-may-eventually-jump-next-white-house-race. Warnock: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/democratic-jockeying-2028-presidential-election-already-underway-rcna179653. Chet cristiansen922 (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Warnock has been added previously, but Murphy needs another source, since Fox News isn't a reliable source. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Why hasn't Donald Trump Jr. been added as a potential GOP candidate?

DJT Jr was included in a recent Politico article on the topic (https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391), where President-elect Trump seems to be supportive of the possibility.

Additionally, Trump Jr was recently included in a Morning Consult poll - where he tied with Vice President-elect Vance. (https://pro.morningconsult.com/analysis/2028-gop-primary-polling-december-2024) Historyjk19 (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Another reliable source.

[9]https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/12/12/takeaways-trump-time-person-of-the-year/76943063007/ 80.44.147.119 (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added DJT. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Vivek Ramaswamy, Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Greg Abbott should be added as potential GOP candidates. I guess Byron Donalds and Matt Gaetz could be added too but i think they are more focused on 2026 Florida gubernatioral. Leikstjórinn (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Abbot and Sanders are doable if they have an additional ref, but for the others, YouTube and Fox News aren't reliable sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Candidate guidelines

Rochambeau1783, when adding a potential candidate, please note that a few guidelines have to be met: (the wikicode is usually hidden, in the article, but I'm mentioning it here for visibility):

1. Potential candidates must have at least TWO separate references from reliable sources from the past six months. 2. Sources should provide substantive discussion of individuals, not a "kitchen sink" listing of numerous people. 3. Per WP:NEWSWEEK, Newsweek is not a reliable source and should not be used to substantiate potential candidates.

That AP source [10] is two days past six months, so it won't work.

Please ensure that candidates have two sources listed, and not just one.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Gallery layout for Dems

The way it's currently set up, there are 12 candidates on the top row, and just one on the bottom. A symmetrical layout would be more visually appealing, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Jimmy Donaldson/MrBeast for independent/fhird party

He has expressed multiple times that he plans to run for President at some point in this life. https://tribune.com.pk/story/2513826/mrbeast-doubles-down-on-presidential-run-during-theo-von-podcast?amp=1 Harry sisson (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In order to be eligible for the Presidency you must be 35 years of age, Mr Beast is 26. He won't be eligible until 2036. TheFellaVB (talk) 18:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgot, guess he will need to be added to the 2036 page one day or he could wait longer to run. Harry sisson (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion: Should a "Michelle Obama Exception" be added to the inclusion criteria?

Regardless of the results of the above RfC, should a "Michelle Obama Exception" be added to the candidate inclusion criteria?
The inclusion criteria are very straightforward and, currently, Michelle Obama meets those criteria. Some editors believe, however, that the criteria should be suspended in the case of Michelle Obama (meaning, in other words, she should be omitted from the article even if she meets the objective criteria) which would have the effect of creating an informal "Michelle Obama Exception" anyway.
The problem with informal exceptions, generally, is it creates old boys clubs of article owners who are steeped in the lore and mythology of the article and makes participation by new editors difficult.
To avoid future confusion and provide a more welcoming space for new editors who come to this article seeking to participate, should the de facto "Michelle Obama Exception" some editors claim exists be formalized and scrivened into the inclusion criteria currently on the article? Chetsford (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

"Regardless of the results of the above RFC result". You're devaluing the very RFC you've started? GoodDay (talk) 05:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so? The RfC does not ask if Obama should be included, it merely asks if she meets the current criteria (she does).
Regardless as to what the community affirms, editors may still feel she needs to be excluded. And, if so, that should be formalized and the criteria, as recorded on the main page, modified accordingly.
Our Community Culture Statement directs we incorporate openness and inclusivity into our work. Playing Inside Baseball on popular articles is antithetical to that spirit.
If we want to exclude Obama in contravention of the written criteria, that should be formalized; it should not be a rule that resides only in the minds of the most active editors -- inaccessible to new editors but always enforceable upon them. Chetsford (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

OMG! "Regardless of the results of the above RfC". This is Hey! I started the RFC asking questions. Concerning if Obama meets the criteria I have decided "(she does)". "Regardless as to what the community affirms"!

I have decided this is an improper, biased, and otherwise screwed up RFC. Since a vote of one is now a quorum/consensus, I !vote we end it on technical reasons and surely archive it, for preservation of course. Otr500 (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Huh? Chetsford (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

“to give a third term” isn’t correct

It would not give a third term, rather it would allow a third term to be voted for. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 04:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 January 2025

The Democratic portraits of candidates are helpfully in alphabetical order, while the Republicans are not. Please change the order from Doug Burgum, Ted Cruz, JD Vance, Brian Kemp, Ron DeSantis to Doug Burgum, Ted Cruz, Ron DeSantis, Brian Kemp, JD Vance. 47.16.133.245 (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Hi,

The ordering is fixed now.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

In what section(s) should RFK Jr. be included as a potential candidate?

There was a video back in September of RFK hinting at a potential run in 2028, before he's added as a potential independent candidate, does anyone think he merits inclusion in the Democratic and/or Republican sections? (given that he was a lifelong Democrat and candidate of the party primary in 2024, but is also serving in the incumbent Republican administration).

Here's the link for later inclusion: https://www.instagram.com/americanvalues.pac/reel/C_vUV7luAFf/) RickStrate2029 (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe within independent, but also if he is going tae he wud run for GOP Nominee, as it’s his best shot. ToadGuy101 (talk) 10:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Why so many democrat candidates, but no Bernie Sanders?

I think Bernie sanders is going to run for president, as he has in 2020 and 2016, and had high chances in those races ToadGuy101 (talk) 10:32, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sanders has already filed to run for re-election to the Senate in 2030. I personally haven't seen any pieces floating Sanders as a presidential candidate for 2028 right now. LV ^{✉ ✎} 13:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

returning vice presidents

technically a vice president gets two terms, and there are several one term vice presidents, so they might be running mates in 2028 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.14.116 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 February 2025

Duosdebs01 (talk) 12:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Julian Castro to ,,Potential Democratic candidates who have expressed an interest in running section because he stated in 2020 ,,"¡Ganaremos un día!" in Spanish, which translates to "One day we'll win!". You can see it on two sources: https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2020/01/02/texan-julian-castro-withdraws-from-democratic-presidential-race/ and Julian Castro.

• Not done saying "one day we'll win" does not constitute interest in running for president in 2028. There needs to be two sources explicitly saying that he has interest in running in 2028 for him to be added to the page. Also, a Wikipedia article cannot be used as a source. Jbvann05 18:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Opinion polling

The article currently has Republican and Democratic primary polling in their respective sections, then a separate Opinion polling section for the general election. Shouldn't they all be in the same spot? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:56, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

In fact, they should be at the same spot. It's so convoluted now. Theofunny (talk) 11:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

They're all in the dedicated "Opinion polling" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:32, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead

My goodness, the lead in this article has gotten beyond readable. The 'potential' candidates shouldn't be included & their home states don't need to be linked. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It runs afoul of WP:DUE and WP:LEAD to have the potential candidates featured so prominently in the lead. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I could support including Stephen Smith, since he's actually spoken about running, but I agree the lede is way too bloated as it currently is. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I think Stephen A. Smith's primary residence is in New Jersey, not New York. So may it should say from New Jersey? Unsure. Dyl1G (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted them from the lead, per WP:LEAD & WP:DUE. GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding Ro Khanna

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5058031-democratic-leaders-watch-2028/

Also there are multiple pieces where he openly states his presidential ambitions but doesn't mention 2028. Theofunny (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ro Khanna Wants to Be the Future of the Democratic Party The Atlantic

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/democratic-jockeying-2028-presidential-election-already-underway-rcna179653

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/progressive-democrat-ro-khanna-2028-election-steel-rust-belt-rcna163737

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/11/11/2028-shadow-primary-underway-democratic-00188626

The Nation: Ro Khanna Isn’t Running for President, Yet (in 2023) Theofunny (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

He's been added. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump 3rd term

Can someone remove that part about trump running for vp and having the president retire to get a 3rd term? This seems really farfetched. TW929 (talk) 14:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the speculation. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Gina Raimondo should be added as potential Dem candidate.

There's been speculation about Gina Raimondo running in 2028 https://www.wpri.com/news/politics/raimondo-60-minutes-interview-fuels-new-speculation-about-run-for-president/ https://www.coloradopolitics.com/rising-republican-and-democratic-stars-who-could-be-2028-presidential-contenders/article_bf7bc21e-fc6a-5b26-801c-52608f4e4f90.html https://www.golocalprov.com/politics/new-raimondo-joins-council-on-foreign-relations-poised-for-next-political-m https://www.golocalprov.com/politics/yes-the-2028-race-for-the-white-house-is-on-the-sunday-political-brunch-nov Realflyingpenguin43 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

done Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 03:54, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Pritzker gone

Plenty of sources.

[11]https://www.politico.com/news/2025/01/31/jb-pritzker-january-6-hiring-00201753

[12]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-28/pritzker-steers-resistance-to-trump-as-ice-raids-blitz-chicago

[13]https://news.wttw.com/2024/12/11/democratic-governors-including-pritzker-are-quietly-preparing-extensive-plans-counter

[14]https://chicago.suntimes.com/elections/2024/11/08/pritzker-presidential-run-2028-donald-trump-project-2025

[15]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/gov-jb-pritzker-accelerates-abortion-advocacy-ahead-election-rcna177468

[16]https://www.axios.com/local/chicago/2024/12/06/former-chicago-mayor-rahm-emanuel-political-future

Plus the many sources that list a bunch of candidates. 78.148.243.109 (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

I've added Pritzker back. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Is Raphael Warnock a potential candidate or not?

Warnock has been under the list of names for potential candidates for a few weeks but y'all got rid of his portrait like a week ago. He's the only one without a picture and it's not like he's some lesser known figure. His official US senate portrait is on his wikipedia page. Math-pi314 (talk) 00:18, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added Warnock to the lede and added his info and image to the gallery of potential Democratic candidates. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Chris Murphy and Ro Khanna should be added as potential Dem candidates.

Both Sen. Chris Murphy and Rep. Ro Khanna seem to be making a play for the progressive vote in 2028. Chris Murphy criticized the democrat's 2024 strategy on twitter and has shifted his rhetoric to the left. Khanna has embarked on listening tours throughout the country including in early primary states like New Hampshire. Both men are named as potential candidates in the NBC article, "Democratic jockeying for the 2028 presidential election is already underway."[17]https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/democratic-jockeying-2028-presidential-election-already-underway-rcna179653 They are both named in the article, "7 rising Democratic leaders to watch" by The Hill. [18]https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5058031-democratic-leaders-watch-2028/ Chris Murphy is named in the article, "Who are the rising stars in the Democratic party?" by The guardian. [19]https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/dec/26/democratic-party-leaders Khanna is named as a potential candidate by Politico in their article, "The Democrats and Republicans Best Positioned — Right Now — for 2028"https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391

It seems to me like both men are taking the necessary steps to set up a campaign in 2028, both are seeking the Sanders-Warren progressive vote. Both men are also listed in a number of sources. In fact they have been mentioned by more sources than others who have already been named potential candidates, for example, Rahm Emmanuel. MatthyzLourenz (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I've added Chris Murphy. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:08, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Buttigieg US Senate speculation

The section on Buttigieg's potential candidacy covers a potential gubernatorial run. Since Gary Peters' retirement announcement, several outlets have also covered Buttigieg as a potential US Senate candidate. Can this be edited into the article?

https://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/elections/2025/01/28/buttigieg-michigan-us-senate-seat-gary-peters/77997946007/ https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/us/politics/michigan-senate-gretchen-whitmer.html Sjedits (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Rahm Emmanuel

He only has one source, should he be removed? TW929 (talk) 13:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 January 2025

Donald Trump is not the incumbent president for the 2028 U.S. Presidential Election. Please remove any claims, statements, or references to the same from this page and any such from across Wikipedia. It is unacceptable. 2600:100B:B13F:9AD3:0:35:7CE2:7F01 (talk) 20:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

He is. "Incumbent" refers to the president in office at time of the election. (3OpenEyes' communication receptacle) | (PS: Have a good day) (acer was here) 20:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Including potential candidates

Currently, it appears as though there is a divergence in what is considered a "potential" candidate. The definition that closely aligns with Wikipedia's policies is a candidate who has received sustained, non-trivial coverage. The standard for that as it applies here is two separate references that discuss the candidate in detail. Gavin Newsom clearly qualifies, as does Kamala Harris and JD Vance. The second definition is any candidate who has received a measure of discussion, such as Pete Buttigieg and Wes Moore. It appears as though editors—many of them through IP addresses—have sought to include potential candidates on the basis that their name appears repeatedly in sources. I was recently source-gathering the other day when I found a video that seems to describe this, in which NBC News reporter Allan Smith says that there are numerous Democrats vying for the nomination—nearly two dozen, according to his article. I am proposing that new candidates be discussed from here on out. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

This was the main issue I had with the article, but it has improved since the start of the AfD. I will agree that a restriction on inclusion without a discussion is a good idea. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

You should also add Raphael Warnock, Jon Ossoff, and Chris Murphy. They appear to be rising stars in the Democratic Party and seem likely to run for the nomination in 2028. 2600:1700:36E0:D120:6538:A428:FE62:E527 (talk) 21:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Both Jon Ossof and Warnock would only run if they democrats win the governor race in 2026 as they would just lose their senate seats if they win so I think its premature to list them just because they are rising stars, we will wait if there is any sources on it and if that happens ShortlegPenins (talk) 22:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of the whole "potential candidates" idea. IMHO, we shouldn't be adding anybody to this & future pages, until an candidacy is announced. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

@Personisinsterest: I believe that Ocasio-Cortez should not be included in this list. The only citations to support her run are from The Hill, which briefly mentions her as a name that reappears in discussions, and a Slate article that suggests that opposite—that the Democratic Party is not considering her and that she should run. I will leave this discussion to determine whether or not she stays in the article. For now, the status quo is to keep her included. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I have commented out Ocasio-Cortez given that there are no sources that suggest she will run other than The Hill. The Vanity Fair citation is to an article that is similar in topic to the Slate article that was previously discussed. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 00:03, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

There are some other articles, not just The Hills. 

AOC Eyed as Potential 2028 Presidential Candidate Yahoo

AOC for prez talk begins again - POLITICO 50.91.26.176 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree in adding AOC back on there as there's now 3 total reliable sources. Clayton Odom Jr. (talk) 04:50, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

can someone add her back now that she has several articles? TW929 (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Yahoo is not reliable because it is syndicated content from a website that is not at WP:RSP. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 21:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

more AOC sources

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/democratic-jockeying-2028-presidential-election-already-underway-rcna179653

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/12/30/2028-presidential-candidates-analysis-00195391

https://www.politico.com/news/2024/12/27/democrats-harris-2028-primary-roundtable-00195423 TW929 (talk) 22:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Another article from a reliable source dedicated solely to her candidacy.

[20]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-democrats-2028-election-b2656624.html 80.44.147.119 (talk) 03:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The first article does not mention Ocasio-Cortez as a presidential candidate and the third is effectively an opinion piece. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 03:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Request to add candidate to not running on Democrat

Per this refrence https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/othersports/article-14348691/amp/Stephen-Smith-breaks-silence-2028-presidential-chances.html, please add potential candidate Stephen A. Smith to not running section for Democrats as in this ref he said he doubts he will ever run and said he does not want his life ruined by politics. 174.199.32.148 (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The Daily Mail is not a WP:Reliable Source. Please see [21]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/stephen-smith-weighs-presidential-run-174418536.html

Found a better source by checkmarked Yahoo! News 174.199.32.148 (talk) 00:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yahoo is not a reliable source as it does not publish it’s own material, however I have added him with sources from 4 reliable organizations. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, he said he would still consider it. Therefore, potential candidate Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 15:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

As I mentioned elsewhere. We'd be better off deleting potential candidates from this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Sarah Huckabee Sanders

The Hill Fox News MSN Newsweek The Washington Post SiliveFox 10 app. plenty of sources. Edward of York (talk) 08:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

JL Partners poll

https://www.tiktok.com/@jamesjohnsonpollster/video/7468010314596945194

I know the link is TikTok, but it's the link 538 used. Theres also a dem poll but i dont have the link yet TW929 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Changing the Standard for Potential Candidates

I think it goes without saying that the "potential candidates" section of this article is a disaster, and that given that we're still four years out from the actual election that a new standard should be implemented. Here's what I'm proposing,

To be considered a potential candidate, someone must do one of three things: publicly express openness to running for President, poll at 1% in 3 or more reputable polls, or poll at 2% or higher in one reputable poll.

Feel free to comment on whether you agree, disagree, or have another idea about how to fix this section.

RickStrate2029 (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete the "potential candidates" subsections from this article. They're based on speculation & create edit-spats. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)) 18:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support with additional 2+ articles in reliable sources for each candidate Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 17:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  Generally I disagree with the two articles requirement because it's purely speculative at this point (even if it comes from a reliable source), simply because we're four years out. Polls are public data, they and direct statements from the potential candidates should be the determining factors. RickStrate2029 (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  It would then seem strange to have a candidate who was mentioned in a poll to be included when there is no mention of any intent, or even being floated as a potential candidate. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

  If the people who meet the polling requirements I mentioned above publicly state that they aren't interested in running for office, they can be moved to the declined section. If not, than that's indicative of them having significant support for a potential candidacy. RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• Comment - FWIW, there's an RFC taking place on this talkpage, concerning "potential candidates". GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There are quite a few potential candidates widely reported to be interested but not given any attention by Polling orgs. Theofunny (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Third term

Should we actually be mentioning the third term amendment proposed to the 22nd amendment, in the article's lead? It's basically impossible for it to be adopted, given it would require a 2/3 majority in both Houses of Congress, then a 3/4 majority (38) of states to ratify. GoodDay (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Also, if it is to be mentioned, it should be added that it is only intended to apply for those who served two non-consecutive terms. That would seem to mean that while it includes Donald Trump, it does not include Barack Obama. Infrequentediting (talk) 16:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It is UNDUE for this article. The only reason we are mentioning Trump in the lede is to explain why he is not shown as a candidate. If he is a candidate, he should be listed in that section. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

It is Undue for this article which would never pass. Theofunny (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Notice: RfC regarding Michelle Obama is also about the inclusion or exclusion of Potential candidates list

Same as above. Theofunny (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Dean Phillips for both Dem and Indie

Dean Phillips is currently listed as a potential candidate for both democrats and independents. I think it doesnt make sense for him to be listed as both, for the same reason that RFK jr is no longer listed for Dem GOP and Indie. It has the same sources, and the same descriptions. TW929 (talk) 19:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

ADD OBAMA NOW

OBAMA DECLARES RUNNING FOR THIRD NONCONSECITIVE TERM ADD OBAMA NIW NOW NOW NOW 2601:2C7:8E82:5BC0:3299:8A5:ECD7:C850 (talk) 05:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have reliable source reporting this? David O. Johnson (talk) 06:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/obama-vs-trump-social-media-users-react-to-rep-introducing-proposed-change-to-allow-third-term-in-office/articleshow/117524705.cms

listerally a one second google search. Obama is in. Either add him yourself or add me to your super special club that allows people to edit this page. STOP GATEKEEPING INFO 2600:1700:F56:FE10:2C62:A08E:1A63:BFB1 (talk) 15:57, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Your source does not say he's running at all, and at any rate the Times of India is of questionable reliability. — Czello ^(music) 15:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no evidence for this, the least I can find is a YouTube Video talking about this being "possible" if President Trump repeals the 22nd Amendment which is very unlikely. 50.207.249.202 (talk) 15:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Make The Candidate Pictures The Same Size

It is confusing when the pictures are bigger than others. It could make one think that those who have bigger pictures have a better chance of running when that is not true. 50.207.249.202 (talk) 14:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

True. Theofunny (talk) 18:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme

I think Vermin Supreme deserves inclusion in this article as he has run in every presidential campaign since 2004. 49.97.10.156 (talk) 00:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe if he had reliable coverage of a possible 2028 run, since he is a notable person. For now at least, no mention in news sources Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:37, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I've never even heard of him and there is no coverage for 2028. Theofunny (talk) 10:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Rosa DeLauro

Can she be added as a potential democratic candidate? Harry sisson (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Harry sisson I don't see any news coverage of her as a potential candidate, so no. Let me know if you know of any sources that mention her. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 04:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Jon stewart

Jon stewart is linked with a possible run in 2028 for the Democratic Party 2A02:C7C:FE2B:5C00:7512:250C:BB17:397A (talk) 16:36, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source to cite for this addition? - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:23, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

These are social media rumors which have no place in Wikipedia... Theofunny (talk) 10:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Dannel Malloy potential candidacy

I personally think that Dannel P. Malloy, the former governor of CT, should be added to the potential candidates for 2028 list. There is someone starting some memes of him and trying to hype him up so it’s honestly possible that he runs eventually just because of memeing. I really do think he should be added as he would be a great socially centrist economically right wing candidate for dems HalogramX (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources discussing his potential candidacy? David O. Johnson (talk) 18:44, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Sadly, there are no reliable sources reporting this as of now as it’s a relatively novel thing and does not have guaranteed staying power. I acknowledge that the chances of him running are incredibly slim but this meme candidacy has some potential to take off IMO. I am half begging on my knees for him to be added to the list HalogramX (talk) 19:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Just because you (or someone else) created a meme, does not mean he is running (or even a potential candidate). Has he made any published (or tweeted, etc.) comments about possibly running? Have any newspapers said he is possibly running? Otherwise, this would be original research. - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:28, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah there have been no sources at all about his potential candidacy but I guess I just wanted to attempt it. Would having a reputable pollster include him in one of their polls count or is that not good enough reason (I’d assume not) HalogramX (talk) 19:38, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

If it was published in a reliable source. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper or social media. Otherwise, we could list everyone that someone else wanted to run, and that doesn't make sense, does it? - Adolphus79 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I only see some sub called Yapms with his memes on it and he has been called the least popular governor. Is this a troll? Theofunny (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Removal of sources +6 months

@David O. Johnson, you removed sources from Gina Raimondo that are >6 months old, and I was wondering if that should be the general consensus, because sources older than 6 months can still be helpful to readers, just wouldn't contribute to that candidate requirement of 2+ sources in the last 6 months. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I was a little quick on that revert.

I'll go ahead and revert my edit since I seem to have misunderstood that guideline. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:59, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Alright- I don't think anything was set in stone with that, just my opinion they should be kept. If anyone else has something to say I would be fine with removal. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 23:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Sources older than 6 should only be used for short description of prior aspirations or background like the case at hand according to me not for inclusion. Theofunny (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Musk

Why is he listed as declined to run, he's not an american born citizen so he cant run TW929 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete him. GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete , Seems like trolling. Theofunny (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

He can run but taking up the office is another matter. See Cenk Uygur who was listed as a candidate in 2024. 78.148.243.109 (talk) 07:05, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

With at least 2 RS discussing solely his potential candidacy he is noteworthy enough to be addressed in the article, he should be added with a note (as was the case with Cenk), or moved to declined if there are sources saying he has declined (I've personally not seen those). 78.148.243.109 (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Rodgers and Johnson to independent section please.

Reliable sources;

[22]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/2028-presidential-election-favorite-candidates-odds-b2643530.html

[23]https://www.mediaite.com/sports/oddsmakers-give-ny-jets-qb-aaron-rodgers-a-3-chance-of-winning-the-presidency-in-2028/ 78.148.243.109 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Not Done, we are using articles where candidates are substantially discussed not betting odds. Theofunny (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 February 2025

Adding "Main Article:United States Electoral College" to the section titled "Electoral system", and a shortening of the explanation of the electoral system, as the article for it already exists and simply clutters up this article. MiclTehPicl (talk) 15:52, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done I shortened it where I felt I could. Please feel free to rewrite the sections and include them in a more specific edit request if you have further suggested changes. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 February 2025

Jon Stewart, the comedian/talk show host should be added to the list of potential democratic candidates rumored in the media. Quite a few articles have been written about a potential Stewart candidacy, as well as lots of social media interaction. Sources:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DailyShow/comments/1gnkarv/jon_stewart_for_president/

https://www.tiktok.com/@davidpakmanshow/video/7437948649818066206

https://www.buzzfeed.com/aronawriting/2028-presidential-candidates-wishlist

https://x.com/Stewart_2028 JJD0330 (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done, none of these sources would qualify, with 3 of them being social media posts, and the Buzzfeed one being an opinion piece. You would need two reliable sources that mention it Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 22:55, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Add Lara Trump

Two solid green reliable sources in The Times and Axios, probably other sources too.

[24]https://www.thetimes.com/world/us-world/article/lara-trump-senate-rubio-desantis-family-rfd9n90p2

[25]https://www.axios.com/2024/12/12/trump-lara-political-dynasty-time-magazine 78.148.243.109 (talk) 05:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

This could be done. Theofunny (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I've added her. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

She was removed with reason given being The Times only mentions that she could run for the presidency if she was named to the Senate, which did not occur.

The Times doesn't make that explicit stipulation at all as I read it, but even if it did it would be no different to the Axios source used for some other candidates reporting that Trump didn't want them in his cabinet because it would help them make a run in 2028.

From the times source...Now, with Donald Trump heading back to the White House, Lara Trump, 42, is tipped to rise even further. A campaign is building to hand her a seat in the Senate that would position her for a tilt at the presidency when her father-in-law steps down in four years.....Lara Trump’s ambitions apparently have no limits. Asked before the election in an interview with Time magazine whether she would ever consider a run for the top job in future, she said wryly: “Never say never with a Trump. I would never say never to anything.”

And here is another reliable source dedicated soley to Lara Trump. How refreshing to have multiple source's discussing a candidate in depth instead of kitchen sink sources naming half a dozen.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/us/politics/2024/11/17/the-ivanka-fication-of-lara-trump/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.243.109 (talk) 22:56, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Sky News (Australia)

However, when asked if they might consider a joint ticket with Lara as president and Eric as vice president, the couple responded enthusiastically.

“Oh, gosh, I would absolutely love that, 100 per cent,” Eric said.

Lara added: “(The people) would love nothing more than two Trumps on a ticket. Could you imagine? People's heads would fully explode.”

[26]https://www.skynews.com.au/world-news/united-states/never-say-never-eric-and-lara-trump-hint-at-potential-future-in-politics-to-continue-the-trump-legacy-in-the-white-house/news-story/b0308f784772ea8cfa25d8a67a51ebdb

While Sky News Australia is only marginally reliable, with the other reliable sources and the Time interview there is enough weight to move Lara to the Expressed interest section. 80.44.146.69 (talk) 02:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 February 2025

Can You Teach Me How To Do Picture Mr Man (Press That) SpongeBobEzra777 (talk) 02:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

You Should Add Mike Pence (R):Possibly Doug Burgum (R):You Deleted Him Off Ivanka Trump (R):Daughter Of Trump Joe Biden (D):Possibly Nicholas W Brown (D):Possibly Dwayne Johnson (D):He Has Talked About It Chase Oliver (L):Possibly Jo Jorgenson (L):Possibly Jill Stein (G):Has Talked About It Cynthia McKinney (G):Possibly

SpongeBobEzra777 (talk) 02:00, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done, no reliable sources listed for these additions Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Adding Donald Trump

I think Trump should be added ONLY IF the 22nd amendment is repealed because President Trump has expressed interest publicly in running. Empirejack182 (talk) 21:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Politico has speculated that he can run as a vice president and ask the president to resign if elected. Should that be included? Theofunny (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think an exception should be made to keep Trump off the page. Cenk Uygur is ineligible but he was and still is listed as a candidate on the 2024 page. 78.148.243.109 (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I've deleted Trump, as he's not eligible to run for president 'again'. Please, unless the 22nd amendment is repealed or something is worked out that he can run again? let's not include him in the sections-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

If we're including candidates purely based on media speculation then Trump should definitely be included in the article with a comment about the legal situation, as there's more than enough citations plus he was even included in a poll. It's not like it's unheard of for constitutionally ineligible candidates to end up successfully running for office (cf Gibran Rakabuming Raka) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 21:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I just said. Empirejack182 (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I added Trump but it was subsequently reverted by @TDKR Chicago 101:. I think Donald Trump should be added because this article lists potential candidates based on media speculation, and numerous RS have discussed Trump running for a third term in 2028. Trump and his allies have also hinted at him running in 2028 on several occasions. Furthermore, a House Representative has introduced a bill with this express purpose. At CPAC there is a "Third Term Project" currently handing out stickers and giving speeches calling for a third Trump term. To avoid adding Donald Trump to this list is just avoiding the elephant in the room. He should be included, and the blatantly unconstitutional nature of any potential run made clear. Marincyclist (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Oppose and per Good Day, unless the 22nd amendment is repealed or something is worked out that he can run again, he shouldn't be added. By virtue, should we add Obama? Bush? Obama once said he believed he could win again if the U.S. Constitution, which limits presidents to two terms, allowed him to run for a third term, but did we add this in the 2024 or into this article? No. Jimmy Carter, which was constitutionally eligible to run, was not added in 2016, 2020 and 2024 because it wasn't going to happen. Same thing, the 22nd amendment will not be revoked/repealed hence the chances of Trump being constitutionally eligible in 2028 is extremely far-fetched. Adding Trump is simply speculation at best, but not the sort of speculation we would add to election articles (normally we'd add speculated candidates who are eligible to run/have a shot at running a campaign) --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

This is why I've been pushing for the deletion of the potential candidates. We're going to get these kinds of disputes, right up until the 2028 campaign. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think there should be a section or paragraph noting that some are advocating repeal of the Amendment to allow a potential third Trump term _pbp 03:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Mark Kelly

Would it make sense to add Mark Kelly? 82.147.226.185 (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The criteria for inclusion is that he needs to be mentioned as potential 2028 presidential candidates in at least two reliable media sources in the last six months. I can't see any sources for that but if you find then submit an edit request. Yeshivish613 (talk) 14:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump JR gone

He has two reliable sources just this month and sits second in polling.

[27]https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-vance-successor-republican-party-b2700184.html

[28]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/02/10/vance-2028-donald-trump-endorsement/78245504007/ 78.148.243.109 (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

It definitely should be added back. Theofunny (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add it later. Theofunny (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

No don't add him in. PS - Shall we also add Bert & Ernie, if there's a source? GoodDay (talk) 17:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

We might have to, if we follow our own rules. _pbp 17:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Why shouldn't we? He is quite politically involved, has 2 sources and is definitely a potential candidate unlike Obama and Trump Sr. Theofunny (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Theofunny Trump Jr should be added Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 00:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's bizarre to have him polling at 26% but not addressed in either the potential or declined section. Sectsjumpy (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

CPAC Straw poll

If someone could add it please. It's one of the most notable and historically preserved records.

Conservative Political Action Conference#:~:text=The annual CPAC straw poll,on a variety of issues.

[29]https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5159257-trump-successor-vance-maga-poll/ Sectsjumpy (talk) 01:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2025

I would like to add more polls to the Democratic primary section. M767 (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

Same. 24hours now since SurveyUSA came out.

I'm surprised it's not possible to at least automatically update the aggregate numbers from Race To the WH, without having to manually edit the numbers in. 78.148.243.109 (talk) 14:58, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

SurveyUSA News Poll #27500 Theofunny (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson Can you add this? I am not good at formatting polls.... Theofunny (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with adding polls, either. But I'll give it a try later today. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The poll has been added. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Should Stephen A. Smith be listed as a potential candidate ?

Many Democrats want him to run in 2028. I do think it is possible but Wikipedia isn't for original research and idk if there's any reliable sources that say he's going to run RealNoceda (talk) 17:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

He's already listed in the "Declined to be candidates" section. [30]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:43, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

It's a bit ambiguous because he is saying he would like to be president, would beat all the other candidates, but he doesn't want to do the laborious task of running for it, raising donations etc.

He has been listed as potential, then expressed interest and now declined. A case can be made to list him in any category tbh. Sectsjumpy (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Question about sources

If a source isn't listed at the Perennial sources list: [31], does that "disqualify" that source from being a WP:Reliable source? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:17, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. This is further explained at WP:RSPMISSING. ("If your source is not listed here, it only means that it has not been the subject of repeated community discussion....") --Spiffy sperry (talk) 06:57, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Does Michelle Obama meet the consensus criteria for inclusion in this article?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is a consensus that Michelle Obama should not be included in the potential candidates list.
One editor provides sources that meet the threshold established in a previous discussion. Another editor provides sources that Michelle Obama has explicitly ruled out running and suggests using similar statements as an exclusion criteria generally. Nine (9) editors replied indicating that the provided sources were inadequate or that the entire section should be deleted.
Because the entire section was not the subject of the RfC, consensus cannot be assessed on that question. An RfC on that question has been opened at: Removing potential candidates section Dw31415 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC) non-admin closure

---

Which is correct?

• A Michelle Obama meets the community's criteria for inclusion in the list of potential candidates [32] ("mentioned as potential 2028 presidential candidates in at least two reliable media sources in the last six months").
  
• B Michelle Obama fails the community's criteria for inclusion in the list of potential candidates [33] ("mentioned as potential 2028 presidential candidates in at least two reliable media sources in the last six months").
• C Whether Michelle Obama meets or fails the criteria is irrelevant, speculation in the absence of an announcement by or on behalf of the candidate should not qualify a person for inclusion in the list of potential candidates.
• D Other

Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: The construction of the RfC was amended one day after it was opened, based on clear indication that the two options offered did not represent the broadest range of possible responses. At the time of amendment, Chetsford, Some1, and GoodDay had !voted. Chetsford (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Survey

• AYes She meets and exceeds the criteria. (Probably also okay with C as a second choice.) She is:
  • The sole subject of a November 2024 article in The Independent titled "Michelle Obama already facing calls to run in 2028" [34];
  • The cover story of a November 2024 article in The Evening Standard [35] that describes her as one of the "names already rumoured for the 2028 US presidential election";
  • The focus of 23% of the wordcount of a November 2024 The Daily Beast [36] story about 2028 frontrunners.
  She has not specifically declined to run in 2028 (her past demurrals have been specific to 2016, 2020, and 2024) so cannot be included in the "declined to run" section without an WP:IAR no-WP:PROOF claim. (This [37] Daily Telegraph article claims she's specifically rejected a 2028 run but is the only RS to do so, provides no direct quote, and no link otherwise proving that claim, so is almost certainly an erroneous conflation of her 2024 demurral.) Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC); edited 23:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC); edited 22:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
• C No - Until we hear the contrary? She's repeated over & over, she's not interested & never will be. We can't keep adding her, every four years. GoodDay (talk) 04:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• No Rumors about a BLP shouldn't be included. I'd say leave her off the list until she herself has made any statements that she's considering running. (Summoned by bot) Some1 (talk) 12:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just to be clear, leaving a candidate off the list until they've made an announcement means we'll have to remove 10 of the 12 candidates currently in the list of "potential candidates" at the article. Could you clarify if you are !voting for this "formal announcement standard" to be applied uniquely to Michelle Obama? Or is this a !vote to apply it to all candidates? Chetsford (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  we'll have to remove 10 of the 12 candidates Yes, that's fine. We don't need to include speculations in this article. If an RS says "Taylor Swift is already facing calls to run in 2028!" or "John Cena is one of the names already rumoured for the 2028 US presidential election!", that doesn't mean they should be added to the list of "potential candidates" in this article. Some1 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

  That makes sense. Based on this, and because only three editors have !voted, I've boldly modified the construction of the RfC to make this option clearer for the benefit of the eventual closer. I hope no one minds. Pinging you and GoodDay for awareness. Chetsford (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

• B: She fails the community's criteria for inclusion in the list of potential candidates. Smobes (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• C: Speculation is not article worthy. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• C or D - IMHO, we should delete entirely, the "potential candidates" section, as it's only a source for content disputes. The recent edit spats over Joe Manchin & Rahm Emanuel are examples. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
• C: Speculations have no place in Wikipedia. As User:GoodDay said, the entire potential candidates should be deleted due to potentially constant content disputes and because they can just drop out of the race like Biden. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 11:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
• C. Nothing but speculation. Onikaburgers (talk) 4:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
• C:I agree with GoodDay's comment above. The potential candidates section is too early and too speculative.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

D I think that Michelle Obama is a different case since she has no intentions to run for any political office according to her biographer. Nearly, every election article on Wikipedia has a list of potential candidates due to convention and as per WP:RS and WP:V. Removing everyone by calling it speculation seems to be a bit excessive as we are only listing it as "Potential" not "Declared". We could tighten the requirements to be mentioned in 3,4 or 5 articles. Theofunny (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Also, she herself states in 2017 that she would not run for office.

Michelle Obama: 'I won't run for office' for my children (BBC)

Michelle Obama won’t run for president, says biographer

"Michelle Obama has continually reiterated her disinterest in running."

Also, I propose deleting anyone who has declined to run despite the number of articles that indicate them as potential candidates.

Theofunny (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• D per Theofunny. She has explicitly declined and potential candidates are the norm across most Wikipedia election articles. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 19:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

• The question is simply if she meets the community's objective standards for inclusion, not whether we think she'll probably run.
  While it seems unlikely Obama will run in 2028, the same is true for several of the candidates we're currently including. Which is why we've long held to these objective standards, rather than overriding what RS publish with our gut feelings. Chetsford (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
• Like I've asked before. How many times does she have to say she's never going to run for US prez, before we stop adding her to these pages every four years? GoodDay (talk) 03:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you have a WP:RS that says she declined to run in 2028, you should definitely add her to the Declined to be candidates section. Problem solved. Chetsford (talk) 04:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is there a source out there, that she's said she'll consider running in 2028? GoodDay (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Is that the criteria for inclusion? It is not.
  Many of those currently listed (e.g. Rahm Emanuel, J.B. Pritzker, Jon Ossoff, etc.) have not made overt statements of candidacy. Do you support removing them? Or has the community created a "Michelle Obama Exception" to its objective criteria I missed? I'm confused! Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not changing my stance on this, unless the former first lady changes her stance. GoodDay (talk) 05:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are absolutely entitled to express an arbitrary, personal preference that is out of alignment with the community's consensus criteria for inclusion in this article. You cannot be forced to provide a rationale for your !vote based in our policies or guidelines. Chetsford (talk) 05:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Believe what you want. GoodDay (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• IMHO, all potential candidates should be deleted from this page. It would be best just to wait until candidacies are announced. Speculations only create content disputes. GoodDay (talk) 22:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, Michelle Obama has no intentions to not run for a political office unlike the others according to her biographer and apparently doesn't like electoral politics. [[38]]Theofunny (talk) 18:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• PS - The recent edit-dispute over if/where Joe Manchin belongs, is another example that we should delete the 'potential candidates' section. GoodDay (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Media still has to earn revenue so sometimes even reliable sources puts things out there. Trump did not place his hand on the Bible, Michelle was not at the inauguration. Maybe she was on an extended vacation in Hawaii, preparing for a 2028 run. Josh Shapiro? Gavin Newsom? Another Kamala Harris run? Gretchen Whitmer, Pete Buttigieg, JB Pritzker, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez have been mentioned.

  Will Trump lead us down a rabbit hole and destroy the Republicans? The Democrats need a "cream that rises to the top" and likely Harris has been skimmed. She is still a top choice at 41%. The next contender is at what 8%? She won't have Trump to worry about and will certainly need to right great wrongs. Bernie Sanders will only be about 87 so he is surely on a list somewhere.

  Wikipedia still wants to be a top breaking news source as all encyclopedias should, so what is the harm with speculation and surmising? Maybe that is why many espouse "multiple, reliable, and independent sources". A source where a potential candidate actually gives input concerning their name on the list would probably be un-newsworthy as really really fake news.

  One can throw crap on a fire, one more can join, do we have a third? Maybe Bugs Bunny: the presidential candidate that we deserve will be on the list? We have a source so should we add it? Great campaign slogan: "What's up Doc". -- Otr500 (talk) 12:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  We should keep the potential candidate section because compiling the names of politicians and public figures expected to consider a presidential run or discussed as a potential contender in 2028 based on reliable sources can help people stay engaged and informed about the ongoing political process in a time where many people are apathetic about it. Smobes (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Oh! (Summoned by bot): For future reference: You might know that an RFC, in many instances (with few exceptions like policies) and like a Louisiana Constitutional referendum, can take on a mind of its own. Once it is passes the line of voluntary withdrawal consensus (like in all of Wikipedia) rules the day. If you don't believe that try to make any change (maybe even a decent one) trumpeting "Ignore All Rules", against consensus, and see how long before you are considered not a net plus. If the more broad consensus decides the potential candidate section is not needed, oops. This is a reason RFC's sometimes are generally better "NOT" used as a first option. An article issue, usually between involved editors on the article, becomes a community affair. Good luck, but as a reminder and like it or not, it is better not to go against consensus. Have a great day, -- Otr500 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay I respect the consensus made if it is already agreed on. Sorry I was just under the impression before that this was where we would develop the consensus and it was still open for discussion. Thank you for the insightful explanation. Smobes (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

• Media speculation should be disregarded. Only prominent politicians who have actively declared their intent to run in 2028 should be included in the list. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 21:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note - @ElijahPepe and Pbsouthwood: from other RFC. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use of betting odds as a source or information

I don't see how betting odds are a reliable source, or even important to the topic. All betting odds are entirely biases and speculative. We should probably remove references to betting odds (i.e Doug Burgum portion of article), to avoid bias/speculation. User:Jkitch503 (talk) 4:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Add Andrew Cuomo (better sources)

For the ABC one, ABC6 describes his 17.5 minute video as a hint towards a broader political future and a potential "political comeback," and since he'll be NYC mayor by then (which they usually all typically run for president (ala Bloomberg and de Blasio), he'll probably run.

https://6abc.com/amp/post/andrew-cuomo-mayor-run-former-new-york-gov-enters-race-city/15966638/ https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/5165904-cuomo-2028-presidential/amp/ 174.199.97.46 (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Here's a source from Yahoo! also

https://www.yahoo.com/news/andrew-cuomo-makes-political-comeback-195949342.html 174.199.38.171 (talk) 03:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

• Not done one source is good, the other two do not work as sources. Yahoo republishes other content, it is not a reliable independent source, and the ABC 6 article only focuses on his mayoral run, anything else is speculation. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  I posted a legitimate second source from the NYT in the Add Andrew Cuomo section, I didn't realize there was two topics discussing him.

  [39]https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/03/nyregion/cuomos-in-and-its-a-whole-new-mayors-race.html

  By running as someone who can stand up to Trump, is Cuomo trying to position himself to run for president in 2028?

  There is already speculation about that. The mayor of New York City is often a national figure, but no New York City mayor has ever become president. Many have tried, including Michael Bloomberg, Bill de Blasio, Rudolph Giuliani and John Lindsay.

  For now, it’s safe to say that Cuomo’s focus will be on winning a competitive Democratic primary in June — and, if hes successful, winning the general election in November.

  Also a third reliable source with the WSJ.

  [40]https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/andrew-cuomo-new-york-city-mayor-candidate-be8043cd

  “I know we’re getting ahead of ourselves, but there are many people who think he is going to be our mayor and then run for president in 2028,” Arzt said. Sectsjumpy (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Tim Walz publicly expressed interest

In this refrence https://www.startribune.com/minnesota-gov-tim-walz-says-he-would-certainly-consider-running-for-president-in-2028/601230315, Tim Walz said he will run for president if he feels "fit to serve" and said he’s considering it. Bluppyt789 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Closed, edit has been done by another editor Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 14:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 March 2025

I know who will run for president in 2028 President Fan257 (talk) 01:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

• Closed as joke request. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 01:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a joke President Fan257 (talk) 01:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

  It's JD Vance and Kamala Harris President Fan257 (talk) 01:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Unless you have reliable sources, it's not going to be added to this article. You "know[ing]" isn't a reliable source. --Hammersoft (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)