Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination

This article contains information about one or more living persons. Articles about living people must be handled carefully, because they are more open to legal threats. Reference any contentious allegations solidly; unreferenced allegations should be removed. If legal threats are raised on this page, please direct the potential litigant to RationalWiki:Legal FAQ; do not interact with them.

This page is automatically archived by Archiver

Nomination v. primary

It's called a "primary", friend, "nomination" is what you get from winning it. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

But 2016 Democratic Party presidential nomination? — Dysk (contribs) 16:50, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I now disagree with the past itself. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok but whatever title you decide on will need to be consistent between the past and present. — Dysk (contribs) 17:03, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Format

Instead of putting them in boxes and listing what we think are their advantages and drawbacks, why not just describe their policy positions? Nerd (talk) 15:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm in favor of advantage/disadvantage because there are other things to a candidate besides policies, like people who like/dislike them, prior experience (which we sort of have already but we could go more in depth with), fundraising, national profile, etc.@Nerd ClintWayne (talk) 20:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)ClintWayne

@ClintWayne There is of course more to each candidate than their policy positions. But whether or not such information is relevant is a different story. In-depth coverage can be done on their own RW pages. But here, only policy positions and political views should be included, specifically, what they support or oppose, and whether they have changed their minds. Nerd (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

lol, you could, but half of them just have policy positions of "do good sounding things, not bad sounding things, we're stronger together". ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:38, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, but what constitutes a "good" thing or a "bad" thing depends on who you ask a lot of the times. Politics can be a bit like that Rorschach test; people can and do draw different conclusions even when presented with the same information. Furthermore, different people will choose to emphasize different things (and that is why a collaborative writing project such as this one comes in handy). Nerd (talk) 15:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, sure. But I meant hyper-generic good things "we're going to make the economy better, by increasing bipartisan reform in Washington" or "We're going to build a better tomorrow by applying new innovations to government." Positive buzzwords that mean nothing. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 16:06, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you there. This is when we need to be specific. Nerd (talk) 16:08, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea. — Dysk (contribs) 11:01, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

But, if we’re just going to make a “shopping list” of candidates and their policy positions, why not simply have a redirect to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries? Or, for that matter, to On the Issues or Vote Smart? Not to mention the problem of candidates suddenly taking positions completely at odds with their prior political record; should we then list their “official” stance or highlight the discrepancy? ScepticWombat (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Btw, I’m looking forward to see which (kinds of) perennial/joke candidates and/or one trick ponies will join the Democratic fray this time around. ScepticWombat (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ We could and should mention whenever they change their minds. We have already done that here. Nerd (talk) 15:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

What’s the point of this article, really? As I pointed out in February, I honestly don’t see the point of having an article on the Democratic primaries that consists of nothing but a more or less arbitrary laundry list of policy statements/proposals by the candidates. Who are we writing this for? People can find these lists either at dedicated political sites, such as On the Issues or Vote Smart or get an actual article on the primaries, candidates and campaigns on That Other Wiki.

RW’s “coverage”, such as it was, of the last Elephant & Donkey Show^TM in 2016 at least had the grace to be fairly entertainingly written, while this is just a slog fest of “candidate X claims to support/oppose Y” in some form of bizarre attempt at NPOV.

I really don’t think this format works in terms of either NPOV (since what gets included the list is inherently selective and it is prone to either explicitly or implicitly taking campaign slogans at face value), readability, or even dissemination of knowledge, as the list simply keeps meandering out of control with uninformative snippets of avowed support/opposition presented out of any broader context (e.g. what does it actually mean? Is it coherent/in character? Is it feasible? Is it simply bandwagoning? Etc. etc.). ScepticWombat (talk) 11:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Main space v. draft space

@Dysklyver Why do you keep moving this page around? I don't understand. What's going on? Nerd (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I created the page in mainspace by mistake, moved it to draft, then the page was histmerged with another draft, and moved back to mainspace once finished to a reasonable standard. — Dysk (contribs) 10:45, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Tulsi

She is basically the worst kind of anti-LGBT TERF. I don't think this apology equates to support for the LGBT community one iota. — Dysk (contribs) 10:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Fair fix. Let's wait and see. Nerd (talk) 22:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Hillary 2020?

I thought the consensus after the 2016 election was that she was not running in 2020 (or that she should somehow know better than to), and that she said so herself in 2017. Then about a week ago CNN reported that she had not ruled that out, which other outlets then echoed. Her former campaign chair then went on CNN the next day to remind everyone she's not running. There might not be any hurry to remove her from the list of potential candidates, but are there better reasons to keep her on it? Chrstphrchvz (talk) 09:56, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Lots of people still seem to think she might run. I don't honestly know. — Dysk (contribs) 10:35, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Hillary's apparently just said no. Of course, things change.[1] --Annanoon (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Should the article mention people who're not running? At least the high-profile cases. --Annanoon (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

No, we shouldn't. Only people who are running and who dropped out should be mentioned. Nerd (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

So, should we purge the "Potential candidates" section? RoninMacbeth (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes. I will do that myself. Nerd (talk) 18:18, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Reformatting

I hate to bring this topic up yet again but I think it would be more convenient for readers and editors alike if we were to reformat the table of declared candidates as individual sections, one for each candidate. Each category of information would be written in bold. See the example below.

Candidate X

Age: 66.

Background: Drafted order 66.

Policy positions: Whatever Bernie Sanders supports.

Thoughts? Nerd (talk) 20:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I can do that on a sandbox, and if it works out well I'll copy and paste the whole thing to the article. TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 20:49, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a good idea, not least because tables are fiddly and have accessibility issues. — Dysk (contribs) 22:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This is what I have of the reformatting so far. Any suggestions for improvements? TheUmbilicalCordGuy (talk) 04:07, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@TheUmbilicalCordGuy It looks great. The only problems were that section titles should not be links and that photo captions were missing. I took matters in my own hands. Everything is now easier to navigate. We should wait for a few days. If no one objects, this is the way to go. Nerd (talk) 05:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Na, it looks cool, I will merge it in now. — Dysk (contribs) 18:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. — Dysk (contribs) 18:36, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dysklyver @TheUmbilicalCordGuy Thank you both! Nerd (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Andrew Yang

Supposedly has an anti-Israel stance, but so far only neo-Nazis and /pol/ seem to be spreading this view, based vaguely on sometime he said once about how the US "should be less involved" in supporting Israel. I can't tell if this is accurate or not tbh, with the huge amount of fake news around nowadays. In any case, these people like him. [2] — Dysk (contribs) 10:14, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

This take doesn't help much either. — Dysk (contribs) 00:07, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Maybe not what he wanted. — Dysk (contribs) 23:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

We should steer clear from internet battles and focus on the substance of their political views. He wants certain groups of people to have a higher fertility rate and less addiction? That's something worth mentioning. Memes? Don't bother. Nerd (talk) 03:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Yang as Forbes 2.0?

Yang gives me a sort of flashback to 1996 and 2000 when Forbes tried for the GOP nomination. I think the reason for this déjà vue vibe is due to both styling themselves as sort of a genius outsider entrepreneur technocrat with a brilliant panacea (Forbes’ flat tax, Yang’s basic income) that will fix everything. Both come from a business/venture capitalist background and both seem to me to represent the “Silicon Valley ethos” of scrapping a lot of existing welfare to be replaced with some “simple fix” in order to “prepare the US for the future.” I’ve never been entirely comfortable with these kinds of “messianic technocrats” and I’ve noticed them in other political systems as well.

My uneasiness stems mainly from two factors: The first is “entrepreneurship fetishism” in which The Entrepreneur^TM is revered as the solution to complicated socio-economic problems, because, apparently, if we just replace politicians with entrepreneurs, they will quickly put things right (I’ve seen this in a leftist version where the word “creativity” was used a lot). The second is the way they seem to attract a very particular audience of basically the kind of well off creative class types that seem to be either more or less Randian technocrats or those from a more liberal arts’ish background who are seemly drawn to the “thinking out of the box”-messaging. What these segments have in common seems to be their general quite yuppie background and that they want something “new” and certainly not something that smells of old school workers’ rights, redistribution etc.

This leads me to be rather suspect of these kinds of political programs since they seem to me to be more about fad’ish “tech fixes” and creating engaging spectacles for the “in crowd” and less about genuine, political convictions beyond a bedrock belief in a sort of “creative destruction” view of politics. I also suspect, that if they actually gain power, we would see more of these kinds of theatricals laid on top of what will likely be neoliberal economics on (even more) stereoids as these kinds of candidates don’t even have to pay lip service to more traditional voter bases and mainly speak to those for whom the neoliberal version of economic globalisation has been fairly benign.

Okay, ‘nough ranting for now... ;-) ScepticWombat (talk) 08:49, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Enter Seth Moulton

Seventeen declared candidates the fuck man.. -RipCityLiberal (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

That's eighteen at the time of writing. Let them join the race and let God the voters sort them out. May the best candidate wins. Nerd (talk) 00:39, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Search engine results

I tried typing the name of this article into multiple search engines but in all instances, this Rational Wiki page did not come up. Despite being fairly up-to-date and reliable, we are not even visible. Contrast this with, say, the "childfree movement," where the quoted key words will get our page for it not far from Wikipedia's. Nerd (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

That's expected; we've always had a more niche role of examining crank ideas that most mainstream sources don't bother analyzing. Of course we aren't going to be the top search result in one of the biggest upcoming events in American politics, because several other, larger organizations already do. RoninMacbeth (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh, bugger! We're a bunch of nobody's yelling at the keyboards, then. Nerd (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

In a sense, yes. But hey, maybe someone will notice this page. After all, Wikipedia editors are a bunch of nobodies, but Wikipedia as a whole is a valuable resource. RoninMacbeth (talk) 22:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Bias Against Moderates

Seems to be a bit hyper critical of Biden and Harris as well as giving a whole host of positives for Sanders.--RipCityLiberal (talk) 18:41, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Is Biden a white supremacist?

I've decided to take this issue up with the mob. Biden's section claims he's a white supremacist. I removed that bit, but another user added it back. I still am not convinced Biden is a white supremacist? Thoughts? DuceMoosolini^{Your friendly RW dictator moderator} 13:00, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to have been removed again (and quite correctly so). Basically, unless someone can get a solid source for such a bombastic claim, it shouldn’t be made. While I’m not an obsessive follower of US politics, I’ve seen nothing to suggest that Biden is a white supremacist and his two terms as Obama’s VP certainly argues against it. He doesn’t even seem to have any particular history of courting these kinds of segments among the US voters for tactical reasons, unlike Trump who switches between dog whistling and open pandering. ScepticWombat (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

“Centrist” panic: Deval Patrick’s candidacy and Bloomberg’s (if he runs)

Just as I thought that the donkey field had had its fill of “centrist” also-rans, in came the news that Michael Bloomberg might really throw his hat in and that Deval Patrick has just done so. Swell, because what the Democrats really need to mobilise its voters is either a billionaire who has already switched back and forth between the Dems and the GOP or someone who switched from being a Democratic governor of Massachusetts to become managing director at Bain Capital (yes, that Bain Capital).

If anyone needed a clearer picture of how far the Democrats have drifted towards becoming Reagan Republicans, it would be hard to find a better illustration. Indeed, Deval Patrick was used as exactly that kind of example of “what’s wrong with the Democrats” in Thomas Frank’s 2016 book Listen, Liberal: Or, What Ever Happened to the Party of the People?.

The only good thing (from my very subjective standpoint) is that neither Bloomberg nor Patrick probably has a snowball’s chance in hell of actually winning the nomination and that they’ll likely further fracture the “centrist” vote. They might even give “centrism” an even worse image by their tin eared Panglossian defence of the status quo. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Damn. Not only did Bloomberg decide to run (though Patrick has now joined the rest of the also-ran dropouts like Delaney); he seems to be polling really well and to just be waiting for Super Tuesday and a narrowing of the field of status quo candidates. It does seem likely to end up being a Sanders/Bloomberg contest, unless either Biden manages a miraculous comeback or Buttigieg/Klobuchar are actually be able to convince people outside of small, overwhelmingly white states like Iowa and New Hampshire to vote for them. Tulsi Gabbard’s campaign seems to have been as dead on arrival as Yang’s, so I doubt it’ll be long before she throws in the towel too, Steyer seems to be something like a Bloomberg light/substitute and will probably only do well until the real thing joins the fray, while Warren has been steadily deflating since she tried simultaneously to be both a status quo and a reformist candidate, symbolised by her attack on Sanders. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:18, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

booker

HE dropped out. 184.181.12.189 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Pete Buttigeg notable academic achievements

Almost immediately after I added Pete's academic achievements it was reverted by Oxyaena.[3] I can't think of any good reason why, and it's entirely unreasonable to make no mention of his academic background because it's so impressive. I mean, how many candidates ever ran that were first in their class at Harvard? Undid the revert, chat me up here if you can explain to me why that doesn't belong on advantages. ^{— Unsigned, by: Simonbelmont / talk / contribs}

My two cents worth (and I agree with Oxyena’s deletion): Because it’s CV gloss that has fuck all to do with either his political acumen, positions or ability to either win or get things done. It’s basically somewhere between completely irrelevant and tangential, unless you want to do a puff piece on Buttigieg, in which case it belongs in essayspace (if anywhere).

Note that we don’t tout any of the other candidates’s educational credentials either (again, because such puffery is irrelevant). Hell, Woodrow Wilson was not merely “first in his class” but a bona fide Princeton professor and well-published academic specialising in political science and President of Princeton to boot prior to becoming POTUS and look at where it got him when he took the helm of state. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that we don’t wax lyrical about Elizabeth Warren’s career in academia in our primary election article either (she was actually the Leo Gottlieb Professor of Law at Harvard Law School before entering politics, which I’d say beats “being first in her class”). Again, this is because academic credentials don’t necessarily (if at all) translate into being a smart, good, effective or efficient politician. ScepticWombat (talk) 18:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Preach. Minish (talk) 18:43, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

By contrast, although he had been President of Columbia University immediately before becoming POTUS, Ike had been a mediocre student at West Point (graduating 61^st out of 164, behind Omar Bradley at 44, btw), while Truman famously didn’t even have a college degree (though he is so far the last POTUS without one). Oh, and FDR was no more than an average student at Harvard, and while JFK apparently did well in his BA there, he left his subsequent studies at Stanford to help out his dad, travel and then fight in WWII.

Arguably, the most talented politicians (in terms of efficiency and being able to broker deals), such as LBJ (possibly the most efficient political operative to hold the presidency in the 20^th century and (in)famous for his ability to work Congress) or Tricky Dick (who, despite being a crook and a shit was undeniably a talented politician) were not “first in their class”, though Nixon did well at Duke, whereas Johnson’s academic merits were pretty forgettable. ScepticWombat (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article should not exist. Ask yourselves should any kind of encyclopaedia contain a page listing disadvantages and advantages of political candidates? Are we really listing working as an entry level employee for McKinsey as a disadvantage of a candidate, and then spreading a conspiracy theory about it? And listing not supporting M4A as a disadvantage, even though one has alternative plan to cover those in need? Listing support of free trade, a policy that is e of very few subjects in economics, that has broad consensus of benefits, including being beneficiary for poor people, as a negative? Were you just lazy when thinking negatives about Bernie, but not lazy when listing positives of him? Positives that other people also support, but are not listed as positives for them?

Is this website a space for people to vent their political views, or a place that debuks woo? Is this rational wiki or conservatopedia?

I say, that this page is either (1) deleted, as it has no place to be in an even half serious wiki, or (2) heavily modified and standardised and each candidate is treated the same. I.e. we come up with a couple of themes for the elections (healthcare, gun control, climate. change...) and write a couple of sentences about each for everyone. Unski (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Unski Background reading helps add context. So does critical thinking. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 14:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Sure sure... But this article does not in anyway adhere to any kind of scientific standards. Is spreading unsubstantiated claims part of the ethos of rational wiki? I understand that rational wiki is not neutral, and I do see that I used bad header. I still argue, that this article is far from the mission of rational wiki. It spreads unsubstantiated claims and it goes grossly against scientific consensus in spreading ideologue. Are these ideals that you hold? ^{— Unsigned, by: Unski / talk / contribs}

@Unski Two points that I stress because you originally brought them up but have only acknowledged one. One, RW is not neutral. Two, RW RationalWiki is not an encyclopedia. Now that that is out of the way, what exact parts of the article do you take issue with? Please be specific. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:14, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@GrammarCommie Yes yes... You can say Rational wiki is "not an encyclopedia" all you want, but this site contains many many many articles that are extremely well cited, researched, and contain extreme ammounts of true information. I count that as an encyclopaedia if you have standards, which this site has. And that is also why I said half serious, because this ain't no wikipedia. If you want to went about your political views and your points do not fall within those mission statements that your own link says, start a blog. Please.

As for other things you asked. To start with Buttigiegs history at McKinsey. There is really nothing else than he working as an entry level employee for them, and his list of clients. Connecting the two without evidence is not scientific. It is conpiratorial. Listing opposition of trade agreements as a positive and support of them as a negative is not scientific. Opposition of free trade is not scientific. It goes against empirical research and consensus. It is like saying that climate change is not manmade. How is support for EESA disadvantage? Again, that one was a necessary tool to stabilise the economy. Unless you are an accelerationist, there is no good reason to oppose it. Without it every poor person and every rich person would have go through some pretty bad times comparable to the 20's. It even made an accounting profit. If you want to see this site as a personal blog for everyone to vent their feelings, fine. But I doubt that is inline with those goals of fighting anti-science sentiments. But if that is the way people want this site to be, then what can I do? But do ask yourself that how does this page stack up against the page on Holocaust Denial. A page that I see as the gold standard of RW and its goals. Unski (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

You are deliberately saying lies, whether it's because you're trying to peddle BS or are willingly ignorant because you like P.P. Booty - even ignoring the fucking price fixing of BREAD he was at the absolute goddamn minimum tangentially involved in, he deliberately chose to work for the company called the 'most disliked', 'most reviled' company in the world, the company involved in everything from the opioid crisis, to South African corruption, to the Great Recession. You are pretending he had no importance in the company, that he worked as an 'entry level employee'. This is demonstrably false, and even if it was true it does not vindicate him. Minish (talk) 16:48, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Opposition of free trade is well scientific, the negative effects of it are well documented, and boo hoo the rich who are economically secure against even the worst depression boo hoo. Also yes, raising attention to bread price fixing is not conspiratorial, I agree. — Oxyaena ^Harass 16:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@Oxyaena Though arguably the act of price fixing is inherently conspiratorial in and of itself. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 17:22, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. — Oxyaena ^Harass 17:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not convinced this is a concern troll and the arguments against the user that has brought up the question have not been convincing me. In fact I am convinced that listing a particular policy support as an plus/negative binary is an inappropriate categorization. Who determines if a policy is good? Is the policy good? Okay? Needs improvement? Harmful but has some positives? Undeniably harmful? If there are both advantages and disadvantages, as I think are with most policy, then we really shouldn't try to force it into one side or the other. I think we should scrap that setup and we list a summary of policy per policy a candidate supports or opposes and then include a very short comment on its ramifications. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 19:18, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘This is essentially a rehash if the objections/discussion in the ”Format” section above and my problem with the “neutrality” argument is the same now as then. In short:

• Simply listing stated policy positions is not “neutral” or “scientific” either since (oh shock and horror!) politicians often put out positions that they have no intentions of actually supporting.
• If this article simply becomes a sort of “shopping list”, then why not simply redirect people to 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries,, On the Issues, or Vote Smart?

Also, no single format for this article will satisfy everyone anyway, and if it is at least an entertaining read (and ditto to write), then the article might serve some purpose. As for Buttigieg’s history with McKinsey, the issue is not that he simply worked there, but that he holds up this experience as a model for problem solving (or at least used to do so): “I was looking for a place where I could learn as much as I could by working on interesting problems and challenges in the private sector, the public sector, in the nonprofit sector,” he said. “And that’s what I got to do.” Not to mention that this same Atlantic article points out that Buttigieg used to tout his McKinsey experience as a positive qualification for office back when he ran for Indiana state treasurer (and lost, btw) and has only begun backpedaling and downplaying his time at McKinsey as he began taking flak for it during his presidential run. If anyone thinks that what the public sector and politics is in dire need of is (more) management consultants/consultancy thinking, then I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree. ScepticWombat (talk) 12:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see this article performing any meaningful function other than allowing some editors to LARP as campaign staffers. As this partisan zeal will likely just shit up the rest of the wiki if not given an outlet and focal point, I suggest retitling the advantages and disadvantages sections as "for" and "against" (or similar), and replacing the current content with links to whatever puff or hit pieces they care to create in essayspace.

Let them advocate for their preferred candidates under their own names rather than RW's. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say to just simply list their policy positions. I think we should list a policy position plus very short commentary on it to keep it sufficiently RW, like still show RW's position on those stances, but also not to weigh a position as one or the other. Like instead of listing "Kamala Harris is mixed on the death penalty" as a disadvantage, it should be just a bullet point that's neither an advantage nor disadvantage: "Kamala supports the death penalty only for horrific crimes with undeniable evidence, though such scenario, while easy to conjure in opinion, is difficult to determine in reality, and it still runs into the problem of the death penalty being applied as revenge." --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 22:42, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I preferred the short blurbs we did for the 2016 primaries (Dem and GOP alike), which briefly pointed out pros and cons in terms, not of the current, ever expanding lists of policies, but instead briefly “profiling” the candidates and with much of the (dis)advantages sections focusing on their chances in the election. It was both easier on the eyes, more entertaining and ultimately more useful because it didn’t sprawl out into either “Well, so and so supports/opposes this; and that and that’s terrible/terrific,” or meandering into stuff that you might as well go to other, more specialised, sites for. Basically, keep it short, sharp and sweet and in prose, rather than bullet points. ScepticWombat (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)