Talk:2020 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection

Biden has already confirmed that Abrams, Hassan, Shaheen, and Yates are being actively considered by him. Should we make a separate section to distinguish that these four names are more than just media speculation? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 17:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think that the current setup, which separates out those subject to more recent media speculation from those who have been speculated about earlier in the process, is sufficient for now. I think that we should separate out people who are actively under consideration from those who were merely the subject of media speculation as we get closer to the convention, but for now I think that Biden was just floating a few names out there and I don't take his comments too seriously. Orser67 (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can Obama be VP? He's a two term president so if anything happens to the president it would be hard to Obama to become president due to his fulfillment of the two terms. I'm asking this to see if he should be removed from this page. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 09:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

The Constitution doesn't expressly disallow it, although some would probably argue that it shouldn't be allowed. Regardless, I removed Obama from the list because he hasn't been the subject of media speculation. Orser67 (talk) 17:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is for the actual selection process by the nominee. Who they considered, who they narrowed it down to, and how they made a final selection. It is not for listing anybody any person on the internet thought could be a vice president. It is not for people who people thought would be a good match for Sanders, or Warren, or no one in particular. At the very least, each person listed should have a minimum of two recent sources, the same as was used for the potential presidential candidates. None of this kitchen sink "Our Very First 2020 Vice Presidential Draft" from February 2019, "hur hur hur Michelle Obama should be VP" nonsense. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I do agree with the gist of your point, but this is needlessly combative. Perhaps we could have separate sections, one for people reportedly actually considered by Biden's campaign, and one for people speculated by the media as possible picks. Even though I agree that the campaign's selection process is the central topic of this article, I think there is at least some value in including names seriously suggested by RS, even if they are not being actively considered by the campaign. Jacoby531 (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, this nonsense has been going on on every major election article for years, it's pure WP:SPECULATION that serves no valid purpose. At the absolute minimum is the same criteria we've applied to potential presidential candidates: two sources within six months that provide significant discussion. Not random pundits spouting off their top 10 now or ridiculously in advance or their favorite person without clear reasoning that specific person could be the nominee's choice. Reywas92^Talk 02:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jacoby, yeah my plan was always to have a separate section for who Biden was actually considering, but we really don't know that yet since his campaign hasn't started the formal vetting process. I think dividing candidates into who was actually considered during the vetting process versus who was merely speculated on is the only way to truly separate out the real candidates from the rest. Reywas, I think that your proposal to use two sources is a good idea. My hope with the current Biden section was to try to limit candidates listed to those who received speculation from major, national sources published after 3/15/2020, but some other editors have added candidates with imo some spotty sourcing. Orser67 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

At this point, I don't think aspirational lists really belong in this article alongside actual speculation. An article that says "Biden should consider x, y, and z person" is different than an article that says "Biden is likely considering a, b, and c." --WMSR (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Shouldn't she be placed with all the other current U.S. Reps? I know she was Secretary of HHS under the Clinton administration, but seeing that she's currently seen as a potential VP pick and her current office is Rep shouldn't this article reflect that? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:34, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello again, everyone! As speculation intensifies regarding Joe Biden's choice for VP running mate, some news articles cited in this Wikipedia article about that process indicate that he's looking for someone that will complement and support his priorities and agenda for the nation. So I'm wondering, should we consider noting those on this list who have formally endorsed Biden's run for the White House? I imagine that's one key metric he's considering in that process, so I wanted to put that question up for discussion here. Thoughts? Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I quite agree, but arguably now almost every Democrat has endorsed him; some (for instance Lance Bottoms and Klobuchar) endorsed him when the race was still competitive, while most of them did so after the Super Tuesday primaries, when it became sort of clear that he would be the nominee. Perhaps it should be noted when someone *hasn't* endorsed him. TommasoM (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that the polling section of the article is poor, so I came up with another table that lists every poll I was able to find asking for veepstakes preferences (among those conducted entirely after Biden became the presumptive nominee). Before publishing I wanted to hear someone else's opinion about it; if after a few days I don't receive any replies I think that I'll publish it. Here it is:

TommasoM (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm all for updating the polling, but what about the polls that are already listed in the polling section? Mdewman6 (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The one from the Independent is actually the CBS news/YouGov poll, while the one listed as a Vox poll isn't among the polls that I found, but I think it can be easily added (by the way, my only source was the 538 poll tracker, and I assumed that every survey about veepstakes would also have a presidential preference question and thus be listed among presidential polls, so perhaps I missed something else, too). TommasoM (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Is it time to consider a new section specific to those confirmed to be on the short list/being vetted? Otherwise there seems to be an urge to remove people (like Shaheen) from the media speculation section if they have confirmed they are not being vetted, or have refused vetting. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I agree that a section for a shortlist should be made, but do we have sources explicitly stating who has been shortlisted? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Well, the references at the end of the Selection section discusses who has been confirmed to be being vetted (or in Shaheen's case, to have declined to be vetted). We need to keep in mind the caveat that there are probably those being vetted who haven't made that public. So the question is whether to create a new section and move the confirmed individuals to the new section (or have them in both sections, which I suppose is also possible). Mdewman6 (talk) 22:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Part of me says to just wait. We have bits and pieces of who's being vetted/shortlisted, but we don't have the full picture. In 2016, media outlets began reporting the full shortlist around June, so just waiting a couple weeks until the picture is clearer seems to be the best move in my opinion. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

In the meantime, the fact that Shaheen is no longer in consideration should be somehow noted. --WMSR (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

If we are now going to pull out those who declined to be vetted into a separate section, there should also be a "being vetted" section. Both sections should go on the top, as they represent more recent information as well as a narrower field of candidates who were asked to be vetted rather than just speculation. In response to the above, I fully agree, but it is now nearly June and I feel like the shortlist is taking shape from reports of those confirmed to be being vetted. Mdewman6 (talk) 02:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

I thought Senator Shaheen was removed because she said she didn't want to be vetted? Why is she back on the list? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

Upon thinking things over, I've become to think that it is time to give the article an update. Even though we don't have an explicit shortlist, we do have reliable sources identifying candidates who are being vetted for the role. Especially considering we have two candidates who specifically declined vetting, I think we should make a separate section for the individuals who are being vetted for the role. In addition to this, I would combine the two media speculation sections into one section on candidates speculated by the media. I don't think it really matters whether the speculation began before or after a certain date now that we have individuals who are more than just speculation, and past articles don't make a distinction on who a running mate was rumored for either. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think an update is overdue. It doesn't make sense to me that those who have refused to be vetted are at the bottom of the page; these individuals made it further in the process than most above them. As I said above, now that we have a "declined to be vetted" section, we need a "reported to be being vetted" section (albeit perhaps with better section titles). It makes no sense to pull out one group while leaving the other in the speculation section - both were subject to speculation. Again as I've said above, these new sections should go at the top of the page. I disagree about combining the speculation sections. I think speculation after Biden pledged to select a woman is distinct from all the other general speculation that occurred. It is noteworthy that all of the women that have been reported to be being vetted, or to have declined to be vetted, came from this subsequent list. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

"It is noteworthy that all of the women that have been reported to be being vetted, or to have declined to be vetted, came from this subsequent list." But pretty much all of these women were also subject to media speculation before Biden made his pledge, and there are a number of women in the speculated for Biden section that are not reported to be being vetted. I really don't think the distinction is necessary. But anyways, yes I agree regarding the vetting section and I especially agree about the declined section. I don't like at all that that section is at the bottom of the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I made a little mockup in my sandbox. Very flexible on everything just wanted to see what we'd be working with. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 20:02, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm okay with combining the sections. It will be an improvement over the current format. Since we have been discussing this for over a week without any other input, I think there is sufficient consensus to move forward. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have updated the article. Please note if you have any disagreements with the changes and I'll be happy to discuss. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looks good. I would have kept representatives and senators separate, but am fine with the way it looks now. It's a significant improvement given the current state of affairs. I just moved a couple around that were out of alphabetical order. Mdewman6 (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I only combined them to try to keep it in line with the 2016 article, so I'm not opposed to splitting them up. But anyways, I'm glad we finally gave things an update. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 22:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Aricmfergie: Please discuss the changes you wish to make here first instead of edit warring. @Yeungkahchun: You are also free to join in too. I, for one, am opposed to this change for the time being. The article cited says that "as few as 6" candidates may be left in the running, meaning that it is very possible there are more. They also don't mention anything about Duckworth, Hassan, Klobuchar, or Whitmer being out of the running either. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think for now these articles can be cited in a sentence added to the vetting process section, but let's stop moving people back to the speculation section. Even once a shorter list solidifies, these 10-11 individuals are clearly in a separate category. Mdewman6 :(talk) 23:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I definitely agree with your second point. If the vetting list is to shorten, there should be a subsection for "non-finalists" or something. We know these ten have made it farther than the others, if they don't make the cut they shouldn't be moved back. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think the final 6 in vetting is becoming more of a story now. How should we handle it.

Now that other news outlets are running with the story, I'm more inclined to include the update. However, they all are citing the Associated Press's original story, which leaves the number who made it to further rounds of vetting very open-ended. This is how I'd write the section up. Thoughts? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

The NYT source strongly suggests that Baldwin is still being vetted and remains on the shortlist. --WMSR (talk) 16:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hmmm, then these inconsistencies are leading me to believe that a split is not yet necessary, and they should all be included together. I'm going to revert back to how the article looked previously, with the addition of Baldwin and Raimondo, unless we can agree a separation is necessary. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I think we should still report the AP story with text in the vetting section, since it seems that everyone is running with it and is newsworthy. But, I agree we should keep all 12 in the section until the situation is more clear. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I would include a line including what AP reported (specifically including how their report said there could be others besides the six named), but not split the galleries or anything. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I added back the AP report as it appeared last night. I think this intermediate step is appropriate at the moment. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert and discuss further here. Mdewman6 (talk) 21:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

If I may do so, I'd like to weigh in on this matter. The way I see it, it's clear that at least six individuals have been mentioned by name as being further along in the vetting process, and thus are at a higher probability level of being chosen. We know that there may be others on that further-along list, including from among those who have been vetted. But the inclusion of this material doesn't need to be exactly inclusive or exclusive. Let me explain my suggestion here: We have names of those who have been identified as under more definitive consideration, and we have others who have been vetted, who may not yet be ruled out.

So instead of only listing those 6, and putting others who have been vetted in a downgraded status, would it be problematic to list those specifically named in sources as among the finalists in a new section, and mention others who have been vetted (but not yet specifically ruled out as finalists) in the section about those who have been vetted? There is no need to downgrade those individuals to another section since they haven't been categorically ruled out.

At the same time, those specifically mentioned as further along in the process may deserve their own section. The two groups do not by any means need to be mutually exclusive, and the process is still fluid. If any specifically mentioned are later ruled out, but had still be vetted, they can be moved down to that section, while any who are vetted that are found to be further along in the future than seems to be the case currently can, at that time, be moved up to the specific section for that distinction. The top two sections could thus remain more fluid as more information is made public through reliable sources. As I said, the two are not mutually exclusive, and it's not an all-or-nothing question. This suggestion is based on my experience with other Wikipedia issues where content needed to be more fluid as developments have been in flux. Anyone can take or leave the suggestion as is, or adjust the recommendation to be more reasonable. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jgstokes: I agree with that, my general concern is just that in May, we had the ten names that were supposedly being considered. Then in June, we got these six (at least) names from AP that were moving on to further vetting, while at the same time, we were given two new names from the NYT that were being pulled into the initial vetting process along with the original ten. It was as if one source was saying these six (and maybe some more) were advancing, while the other source was saying these twelve are being vetted and there is no further vetting happening yet. Since AP did say that additional names may be included, then sure the two sources could be supporting each other, but then according to the NYT article that would mean all 12 names were advancing further, which seems like it would make the AP source irrelevant. I had no problem pointing out the six names cited by AP initially, but the NYT article confused me a bit because its language sort of implied (in my opinion) that what the AP article was saying was an exaggeration, and all 12 were on equal footing. I do have this prepared in my sandbox, just to see how other people feel about that layout. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jjj1238: The seemingly-conflicting information in some sources need not make it too difficult. The way I see it, there are 4 levels or so to the final VP selection. At the top are those who have been confirmed to have been vetted and have been named as likely finalists. Under that are people known to have been vetted for the position, who may move into the finalist section further along. The next level are those whose names havt been mentioned, who have not been categorically confirmed as having either been vetted or in consideration as finalists. And the fourth level is for those who would have been considered, had they not declined the opportunity to be vetted for the position. Although any number of women could be and likely are in any of those four phases, including those whose identities have not been disclosed, there's not a lot we can do regarding those who may fit in to that category, since Wikipedia deals with known information in cited sources, rather than speculation. What you have is good so far for being what it is, and you are welcome to take or leave my four-level suggestion as you prefer to do so. Hope these thoughts from me are helpful. Meanwhile, if anyone else has thoughts on this, please feel free to weigh in as well. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

So... now it's down to four candidates? If that's what CNN's claiming, then so be it. GoodDay (talk) 22:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

So we've seen the news that Klobuchar has removed herself from consideration. However, I am strongly against moving her to the section with Cortez Masto and Shaheen. They were not at all in the same boat as Klobuchar. Neither of them were shortlisted and they were never vetted, because they declined to be considered. Klobuchar was shortlisted, vetted, and was considered until she removed herself. It's not the same situation at all in my opinion, and they should not be considered together. I strongly disagree with the idea of removing Klobuchar from the vetting process section, considering she was always on his shortlist and had been vetted. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I definitely agree with you that Klobuchar should not be sorted with Shaheen and Cortez Masto. Maybe there should be two separate sections: "Declined to be considered" for Shaheen and Cortez Masto, and "Withdrew from consideration" from Klobuchar and any future people to take their names out of the running. Jacoby531 (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I wanted to post here that I concur with the assessment that Klobuchar should be in a very different category from Cortez Masto and Shaheen. She definitely withdrew from consideration in the midst of being vetted, rather than declining to even be vetted. This goes back to what I said in the thread above this one: There needs to be multiple sub-categories on this page, because not every candidate will fit in properly to just any of these categories. Adding multiple subcategories would be the best way to differentiate things as more information is made public about this process. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

I still don't feel totally okay with removing Klobuchar from the vetting section. The section is not saying "here's who's currently being vetted," it's a list of who the sources provided said were being shortlisted, and Klobuchar was one of them. Just because she withdrew from consideration doesn't mean that that never happened. I think I still prefer the organization I came up with. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 12:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

"Two people with knowledge of the vetting process say that Duckworth’s early interviews with the Biden campaign were impressive enough to make her a contender", per the NYT's Jennifer Steinhauer. Does that mean she is in the advanced vetting phase? I'm not really sure of what to do with this. Thoughts? --TommasoM (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

TBH, mainstream news media doesn't fully know who is or isn't still being vetted. We'll have to wait until Biden announces a choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

Should Klobuchar be in a sub-section of her own? She's the only one who's removed herself from the vetting. PS - I won't press this too much, as this article's arrangements will change significantly in August, when Biden announces his choice. GoodDay (talk) 22:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I strongly believe she should stay where she is. The section she is currently in is for individuals who were confirmed to be vetting. She was confirmed to be vetted, she just withdrew her name from consideration afterwards. I think keeping her there and denoting that she withdrew is sufficient. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I've seen at various points that this article has listed Susan Rice's as being from Maine and Washington D.C.. Since she's never held an executive or representative office, does anyone know what the criteria are for saying what state she hails from? It sounds like she has connections to both places, but I'm not sure if there're guidelines as to how to choose which place to list. Alternatively, if the "from so and so state" convention is a way of referring to the state where the subject holds public office, perhaps it doesn't apply here? pluma♫ ♯ 23:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good question. She has property in Maine, but according to sources she is also at American University in D.C. and likely has a residence in D.C. or nearby but splits her time in Maine. Her residence does matter for the article - just depends on what her official residency currently is, like where is her driver's license issued or where she is registered to vote. Anyone with some good insight? Mdewman6 (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

After some quick google searching, it definitely appears to be DC and is definitely not Maine, as she is quoted as stating in an interview with the Portland Press Herald. (though she does indeed own her parent's former property there).Mdewman6 (talk) 23:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

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

Biden has merely promised to nominate a woman for VP-ial candidate. We mustn't write the article as though it is confirmed until Biden publicly confirms his choice. Please rewrite the article with ifs (to imply that it is assumed that Biden follows his promise) to avoid WP:CRYSTALBALL. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

PS - While I believe that Biden will keep his promise, I still believe that the fact that this is just a promise justifies my edit request. 45.251.33.198 (talk) 12:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

  Not done. There's enough news coverage in reliable sources for Wikipedia to also reflect this. Also, none of the wording looks too definitive to me. If you still would like to alter some wording, feel free to open another request with the format "change X sentence to Y sentence". ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

We should have the same image, that's being used at the 2020 Democratic National Convention article or the Kamala Harris article's top image. GoodDay (talk) 21:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why? Look at other recent articles about similar topics: 2016 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2016 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2008 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, etc. None of them do, they show the nominee campaigning. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I replaced the top image with her official portrait not because it needs to be the same as other articles, it is simply a much better photo then the existing one. IP75 (talk) 06:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jjj1238: reverted my edit stating 'Oversized image + discuss before change' User:Nojus R originally added the same enlarged version of the existing image after the announcement on August 11.[[1]] @Jjj1238: changed the image without discussion stating 'campaign image' which it is not. It was taken on July 3 at a DNC picnic while she was speaking mid-sentence creating the awkward expression. The article images mentioned above are from conventions or other campaign events. I am restoring the consensus image from this article and Kamala Harris until a good campaign image is available. IP75 (talk) 03:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Kamala Harris's selection marks the first Democratic presidential or vice presidential nominee from California, or, for that matter, anyplace more western than South Dakota. Is this noteworthy enough to merit inclusion? 73.241.189.0 (talk) 23:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Do you have a source specifically stating that? { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jjj1238: I believe the IP address is referencing this article. https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/511601-kamala-harris-makes-history-as-a-westerner - Jon698 talk 21:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Looks good to me, I'll add it into the article. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 13:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Howdy. I'm trying to bring some consistency to these articles, but @Jon698: is opposing me, by restoring the cumbersome election infoboxes to 1944 through 1968 Democratic veep selection articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Know what? I'm not interested in fighting over it. Keep the damn election/nomination infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 12:46, 13 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Now that it's official, has anyone started collecting public reactions to Biden picked Harris? Specifically, since she is the first VP nominee of Indian (as in South Asia) ancestry, the reaction of the Indian press would be worth including. -- llywrch (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

This is the seventh time in a row that a sitting Senator has been picked as a first-time Democratic Vice Presidential candidate and should be noted here.49.3.72.79 (talk) 04:46, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

It's an isolated fantasy op-ed piece. This really belongs here? Drsruli (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2020 (UTC)Reply

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tulsi Gabbard, official portrait, 113th Congress (cropped 3).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)Reply

Why does Barbara Lee need six sources? GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply