Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Crime and immigration as two major issues in 2024

In the "Campaign issues" section we forgot to include two major issues - 1) Crime and 2) Immigration. Even ABC says that "Crime and criminal justice are key issues in the 2024 presidential election" - . Another sources- . About immigration issue - , . All sources say that those two issues are important. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 04:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not think crime is a top issue, maybe in 2020 it was. As for immigration, many users have voiced support for the section, but I guess nobody has figured out how to write it while adhering to WP:DUE..? Prcc27 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Prcc27 Sources say Crime is a big issue, it's not about your personal opinion about it. We have to rely on sources. Look to the abovementioned sources please. We included here only things that are good for Democrats (Abortion, LGBT issues, etc.). Where are subjects that are "pushed" by Republicans. Why the section represents Democratic agenda only ?? The section violates both WP:NPOV and WP:RSUW. M.Karelin (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not think WP:DUE has been met here. Many of the campaign issues sections have mounds of sources relating to the 2024 presidential campaign. Crime only has a few sources. If we find more sources on crime, and if it is better written, perhaps it could be re-added. But the way you had it was problematic. Prcc27 (talk) 22:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We could certainly have any editor who is interested in adding an issue section provide a draft here of the language and sources they would propose to use. BD2412 T 23:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Recent polls on issues show that immigration and border security are consistently among the top 5 issues that concern the average American in the 2024 election. See for example [5] and [6]. Crime is also frequently shown in polling to be a major issue. Border security outpolls abortion and education as major issues. So if you are going to argue that immigration and crime are "undue", than the abortion and educaiton sections need to be deleted to render the page NPOV compliant.XavierGreen (talk) 00:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

That's correct. Even the NYT agrees that the immigration is a top issue - [7]. M.Karelin (talk) 04:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: The main takeaway from this conversation is we need to write the sections in a way that complies with WP:DUE. I never said the issues were not top issues, or that there is no way they could be included. If anyone has a proposal with proper sources, I’m all ears. One or two Polls is a start (albeit relying on 1 poll could be undue), but we also need to include how the candidates are campaigning on the issue, and the section needs to largely focus on the 2024 presidential election. Prcc27 (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe Biden will play defensive on the immigration issue so not sure how he will campaign on it. Perhaps it could be said that being tough on immigration has been Trump's brand since 2016 and he has made several comments that suggest that he is attempting to profit from changing views and focus on immigration during Biden's time in office. BoleroGoleador (talk) 05:23, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: the focus needs to be on 2024, not 2016. This is exactly what I mean when I say some of the proposals on how it should be written are WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 02:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

When saying since 2016, that includes the 2024 campaign. BoleroGoleador (talk) 19:52, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27: as I stated above, if you are crying "undue" than the sections on abortion and particularly "LGBT issues" are also plainly "undue". Immigration and border security consistently poll as top issues for the average voter above abortion. Interestingly, "LGBT issues" is apparently not notable enough of an issue to be of much concern for the average American as it doesn't seem to be included in most issue polling and is thus "undue".XavierGreen (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"include how the candidates are campaigning on the issue" This assumes that the candidates are actually campaigning on these issues. The concerns of the voters are often quite different than the topics which the candidates talk about. Dimadick (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I would be interested to see what a section would look like without the candidate stances, but nobody is providing a draft, so I cannot give my full input if all we are going to do is give vague proposals. Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Here is a source about how Trump has been campaigning on the issue: https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-repeats-poisoning-blood-anti-immigrant-remark-2023-12-16/ BoleroGoleador (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Immigration is consistently ranked among the most important issues and for a large double digit proportion of voters (up to 20% in some polls) it is their "main" issue which will sway their vote. Lack of inclusion is beyond ridiculous and biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevolutionizeSeven (talk • contribs) 18:24, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a consensus that immigration should be included. However, there is a lack of consensus on how the section should be written. I would also like to see the immigration section added. But I have yet to see a proposal properly written. Prcc27 (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is certainly movement to make an issue of it. See, e.g., Fortinsky, Sarah (January 25, 2024). "Romney: 'Appalling' Trump wants to kill border bill so he can 'blame Biden'". The Hill.. BD2412 T 03:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I’m surprised we’ve gone this long without a proper section. Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the current immigration section, I made a few tweaks. The only reason I kept the busing information is because Ron DeSantis was a primary election candidate. However, that information may become WP:UNDUE once we hit the general election cycle. Prcc27 (talk) 20:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

The busing is relevant, its a policy that's been promoted by Donald Trump and is a major issue in both the states that are sending the buses (such as New York and Florida) and the states where the migrants are being bused to (such as New York and Illinois). See here for example [8]XavierGreen (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s not relevant to the 2024 presidential election. The background information belongs in the main border “security” page. Prcc27 (talk) 05:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Demograhics

The sentence "According to apparent trends in some recent polling, generational and racial polarization appear to have significantly decreased, with Hispanic, Asian, Arab, and youth voters appearing to trend towards the Republican Party, while voters over the age of 65 and whites are appearing to be increasingly Democratic." is not backed up by its sources. All of the sources cited show erosion for Democratic and Biden support in those communities, but not trends towards the Republican Party. This is misleading and synth. Please change it to "...Hispanic, Asian, Arab, and youth voters appearing to have eroding support for the Democratic Party, while voters over the age of 65 and whites are appearing to be increasingly Democratic. Personisinsterest (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

A larger issue here is attributing the appearance of a shift to Wiki voice, and the counter-argument to "some political analysts." Both sides are political analysts. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:26, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 1 February 2024

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1201432428 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halston"3 (talk • contribs) 01:36, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Can you add this please

this will be the link to the 2028 Presidential Election Halston"3 (talk) 01:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. It is too soon and the 2028 election page does not yet exist in the mainspace. (FYI, there is a draft version. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

can you please add the 2028 it's not visible when you view the 2024 page and i thought I was the only one who made one Halston"3 (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

We have made the deliberate choice to not have a 2028 page yet. This is because reliable sources have not spoken in any specifics about the details of that elections. Think about it: what is there to say about 2028 at this stage that could not also be said about 2032, or 2048? GreatCaesarsGhost 16:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Presumptive Nominee Qualifications

It seems very likely that both Biden and Trump will be their respective party's nominees. If Nikki Haley, Dean Philips, and Marianne Williamson, the remaining major nominees that aren't the front runners, were to drop out, would that put Biden and Trump in the infobox as presumptive nominees, or is it based off something else? Delegate count? 2601:548:C200:EB10:1348:3E98:4E67:FBC7 (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

We usually follow what media does -- if they don't have any serious opponents left in the race, then media would call them the presumptive nominees and we could as well. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Only once they have obtained enough pledged delegates to win the nomination on the first ballot (or, if we reach a consensus, once all other significant candidates drop out).

There is the question of pledged vs. bound delegates (which was more prominent a concern in the era of first-ballot superdelegates in Democratic Party primaries, which ended with reforms ahead of the 2020 election that barred superdelegates from voting on the first ballot). Bound delegates are REQUIRED to vote for a certain candidate, while pledged delegates have only non-bindingly promised that they intend to vote for a certain candidate. Back in 2016, I THINK we counted both of these when we followed the media's lead in calling Clinton the presumptive Democratic nominee after the June 6th primaries when she had enough delegates when you counted pledged superdelegates, but not enough when you subtracted them.

There are unlikely to be many un-pledged first-ballot delegates this election for either major party. New Hampshire will have some for the Democrats, it seems. Also, any delegates bound to withdrawn candidates could be released/un-bound by that candidate ahead of the convention, but at this point only a handful of Republican delegates are currently even bound to withdrawn candidates, and none are on the Democrat side.

The Green Party's lack of media coverage, and occasional failures at self-reporting on their primary process makes it harder to track delegate counts. But if we can tell that someone has reached the number their convention will require to win on the first ballot, then we can label a presumptive nominee just as we would the major parties. For the Libertarian Party, there is NO such thing as a "presumptive nominee", as their conventions do not have any bound delegates (and there is FAR from enough media scrutiny of their nomination to establish pledged numbers). Someone either is their nominee, or they aren't. No presuming there. SecretName101 (talk) 05:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

"Declared major independent candidates"

The word "major" in the "Declared major independent candidates" list heading might be confusing since the two leading American parties are often labeled as the "major parties". Perhaps we use another word/synonymous word? SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

What about "notable" instead? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. Or perhaps "prominent" would work. SecretName101 (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

"Significant" could also work. For the time being, changed it to "prominent". SecretName101 (talk) 06:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

In reference number 153, add title "South Carolina Presidential Primary Election Results 2024: Joe Biden wins". Trasheater Midir (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done Here. For what it's worth this table is actually transcluded into this page from another page. Philipnelson99 (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Electoral College redistribution

A note should be added at the top description of the race, noting that this is the first election in the 2020s with the new EC and House seats redistribution

https://www.npr.org/2021/04/26/983082132/census-to-release-1st-results-that-shift-electoral-college-house-seats

The note should contain information either that: Seven states lost EC votes, while six states gained one, while Texas gained two or; Democrat-won states in 2020 lost 5 EC votes, while Republican-won states lost 2 EC votes, and Democrat-won states gained 2 EC votes, while Republican-won states gained 5 EC votes or; Democrat-won states in 2020 lost a net of 3 electoral college votes, while Republican-won states in 2020 gained a net of 3 electoral college votes or; some note on population movements, akin to "Due to demographic changes and as a result of the 2020 US census, states which voted Democrat in 2020 lost a net of 3 electoral college votes while states which voted Republican gained a net of 3 electoral college votes, with Republican-won Texas gaining the largest share of population increase and netting two new electoral college seats." RevolutionizeSeven (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

We already have a section that mentions this, including a comparison to the 2020 results. Given that every third election is effected by reapportionment, it already seems like overkill to point this out (and I see no reference to this in our articles for 2012 or 2004). Comparing 2020 results to 2024 EC votes is nonsensical. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

In fact, I'm proposing we strike the "Effects of the 2020 census" section entirely. States gain and lose votes in reapportionment, not parties. This section is trying to imply that red states gained votes and blue states lost them, but it is doing so by suggesting the 2020 results will persist in 2024, which has never occurred in American history. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the section can stay, regardless of whether we want to talk about red state vs. blue state. Prcc27 (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think it is informative/encyclopedic to note that a state-by-state/ congressional-district-by-congressional district result identical 2020 would have a different electoral outcome in 2024. SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Of the 13 states that gained or lost seats, 5 split votes over the past four elections. PA and MI voted for Trump, then against him (narrowly both times). To suggest these are "blue" states is arbitrary. Elections are held under the parameters in place at the time. Candidate visits and ad spending is based on these parameters. To suggest the result would be different if the rules were different is a very odd hypothetical leap. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

The section could still discuss which states lost and gained EVs and mention that Texas gained the most. Prcc27 (talk) 04:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Low-performing second-place candidates inclusion in primary infoboxes

This has come-up in the 2024 South Carolina Democratic presidential primary article.

Per this consensus reached in 2017, we list at least two candidates in election infoboxes if there were more than two running A 2020 consensus seemed to affirm that as being the standard treatment, with the allowance for exception if reached by consensus in individual articles' talk pages.

Unless these consensuses have been superseded, I'll edit accordingly.

Under theses consensuses, it would take either consensus for an exception OR a complete project-wide overturning of that consensus for us to exclude low-performing second-place candidates from the infoboxes for state primaries while still respecting consensus. Williamson in South Carolina being the first candidate to illustrate this siutation.

As you can read on that second RFD, I was STRONGLY opposed to including low-placing second-place candidates in infoboxes (and still would stand against it if it were re-discussed). However, it IS the most recent consensus on this question that I am aware of, and I'll edit accordingly. SecretName101 (talk) 05:54, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that we should not make an exception for primaries. We should either overturn the standard treatment project-wide or respect it.

I disagree with the consensus for standard treatment of this, and would support overturning it. However, I oppose the idea of carving out a 2024 primaries-only exception. If we think it stinks for 2024 Democratic primaries, perhaps we should recognize it stinks for all sorts of other elections. SecretName101 (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

I have reviewed the 2017 and 2020 RfCs, and a few of the talk page discussions. To begin with, the comments that close an RfC are not binding. Just as a RfC is meant to read consensus not determine it, the closing comments are meant to summarize the discussion, not pick a winner. ~ The general sentiment in favor of including a second place finisher is to prevent the reader from thinking the race was unopposed. There was a secondary interest in indicating the performance of a national candidate in a local race (such as a Donald Trump running for president in DC), but that does not apply to primaries. With this in mind, we can choose the best option for each election via discussion at the talk page. In consideration of 2024 South Carolina Democratic presidential primary: Williamson reached 2.1%, and Phillips received 1.7%. I do agree that consensus prevents us from listing Biden alone, but listing Williamson without Phillips exaggerates her result. I believe the best solution here is to list all three. I understand that you want a set rule for all the contests, but I think we should let the results speak for that. Perhaps if Williamson doubles Phillips result, we can omit him. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we should only have low performing second place finishers if they a) have at least 5% nationwide or b) have at least 5% in the specific state. Prcc27 (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, but the RfC clearly addresses this exact situation, and says we have to list #2. My argument is that if we have to list #2, listing #3 makes the most sense. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I want to suggest my "other candidates" label as an alternative. See here. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:39, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

That’s a step in the right direction; or even a footnote. We should not be putting someone with 1% of the vote at the same level as the President who is currently winning states in a landslide. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

As indicated above, it appears that in every contest during the 2020 republican primaries (with a similar situation of an incumbent receiving a vast majority of the vote), Bill Weld or another option on the ballot getting second place is always placed in the infobox regardless of %. (see Mississippi [Weld got 0.9%]; see Missouri ["uncommitted" got 1.4%]) These examples indicate that we should put the second place in the infobox for these primaries as well. Yeoutie (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Or, alternatively, that we should change it for 2020 Republican primaries. But being inconsistent between the two would make no sense SecretName101 (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Robert Hur Report Update Needed

After the recent release of the Robert Hur Report, it should probably be mentioned as a major campaign issue, and on the timeline page because as a voter from Ohio it will be impacting the decision I make. It is also important to avoid political bias during this time frame, with this issue in mind consider all legal issues of any candidate worthy of being mentioned. Joshua — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:6D:C000:1001:945:4633:2E15:FE5D (talk) 13:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Hypotheticals don’t belong in the leading paragraph

Honestly, this has kinda bugged me with this article.

Two hypotheticals about Grover Cleveland and the presidential rematch. They don’t belong in the leading article, I don’t know where to put them, if not make a new paragraph relating to the importance and uniqueness of the election.

Does anyone else feel the same? If not, please tell me why you feel it belongs in the leading, I’d love for someone to change my mind. IEditPolitics (talk) 03:58, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree; we should keep trivia out of the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 04:57, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree on both counts. I don't think hypothetical is the right word for something that is almost certain to occur (the rematch) or more likely than not to occur (Trump winning). Short of declaring the nominations complete, it is not CRYSTALBALL to suggest the candidates running virtually unopposed are likely to succeed. I feel less strongly about the Cleveland bit, however Trump is the current front-runner and the first ex-president since Cleveland to land a major party nomination. These are not trivial points; it is unusual in modern presidential politics for the loser to remain such a significant force in the party. Trump's personality cult is more relevant than the "issues" that we are suggesting the election will swing on. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, I was referring to the Cleveland trivia only. Seems premature to mention in lead during the primaries. Trump has not won the GOP nomination and could even be disqualified altogether. Prcc27 (talk) 14:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I would agree to striking Cleveland now and restoring after the nomination. Separately, if Trump is disqualified, that may be after RS/WP have declared him the presumptive nominee, and we should treat him as such until such disqualification occurs. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It could be reworded, but Biden and Trump are almost unanimously expected to get their respective nominations. Biden is basically the de facto nominee of the Democratic Party and Trump has no serious challenge. AmericanBaath (talk) 14:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. Biden has no serious challenge as none of his opponents are winning delegates (so far). Nikki Haley may be very unlikely to become the nominee, but she is winning a significant number of delegates. So I think she meets the threshold of a “serious challenger”. Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Kennedy to the infobox?

Kennedy has consistently polled over 5% and many polls have placed him in the 10%-20% range. Some polls put him over 20% as well. Per Wikipedia:Five percent rule, should Kennedy be added to the infobox with independent politician as his political party? AmericanBaath (talk) 14:19, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully, nobody will be added to the infobox until both the Democratic and Republican nominees are chosen. As for Kennedy.. we should either wait until then or until he gets enough ballot access. This discussion is premature; please search the archives of this talk page for more information on why Kennedy is not being included at this time. Prcc27 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe the sentiment in previous discussions was that if he is added, it should be at least after one of the major party candidates is added (e.g., by receiving enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee). In other words, a third party or independent candidate shouldn't be the only entry in an infobox. Also, sufficient ballot access was mentioned as a possible criteria in an RfC on this topic. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistent description for Kennedy

The description of Kennedy is not the same under the "withdrawn democratic" section and the "independent candidate" section. I recommend harmonizing them. Fryedk (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Agree. I checked over at the Elections project for any RfC or similar for the Experience field. The only thing I found was this exact example (RFK Jr as antivax activist) over at the Dem candidates page. They found that this is not "experience" and I concur. By my observation, the experience column for non-officeholders seems to be a profession followed by major roles held at that position. I've struck antivax activist from the experience. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Deleted sentence

This sentence was removed based on very unexpected reasons. How this is not related to the 2024 elections ? It is based on a few very important sources, including an FBI agent. cc: @Prcc27: , @XavierGreen:, @BoleroGoleador:, @Dimadick:, @BD2412:. M.Karelin (talk) 10:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

The sentence is a synthesis, based on FBI concerns about Venezuelan gangs and an unrelated series of burglaries in Oakland County, Michigan. Dimadick (talk) 10:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Additionally to the above, none of the sources mention it in the context of the election. — Czello ^(music) 10:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Bound Delegate count using acronyms not referred to earlier in article

In the candidate tables, the Republican candidates' bound delegates are given as "AP: XX (XX%), TGP: XX (XX%)". In none of the instances of the table are AP or TGP links. In none of the cases do AP or TGP have a footnote. At no point in the article itself is there text of the form "...the Axxxxx Pxxxxx (AP)..."

Neither AP nor TGP are in the exceptions list on the Manual of Style for abbreviations, either.

I will also point out that I have absolutely zero idea what TGP is. I'm guessing AP is Associated Press but I can't even be sure of that.

Can someone who actually understands where the bound delegate counts come from actually help to make the article explain what the random acronyms are, please? It would really be appreciated. Elpasi (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

AP stands for Associated Press and TGP stands for The Green Papers, a website which tracks the results of primaries. The only discrepancy between AP and TGP involves the NH primary, where TGP apparently used an incorrect method for delegate allocation at the top of the page here (although they use the correct method further down on the page). The correct method is detailed here. I trust AP more for delegate results. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Associated Press delegate counts are here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I removed the delegate counts according to The Green Papers because they were wrong. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

RFK qualifying for debates

I'm striking the following from the debate section "Currently, Kennedy has the polling numbers that would allow him to be on the stage, which could mark the first third-party candidate to be on the stage since Ross Perot in 1992 if his polling trends continue." A) We do not know what polls the debate commission will consider, so we cannot conclude whether RFK is on pace. B) RFK is more often than not below 15% in recent polls. C) Discounting its now-dated mention in an unreliable source (NYPost), it's SYNTH to cherry-pick polls and declare him eligible. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Sonski and American Solidarity Party

I may simply be unaware of a previous discussion, but what is the reason that Peter Sonski and the American Solidarity Party have their own wikitable on this page under the third parties section? The Prohibition Party and Socialism/Liberation Party, as well as the parties without ballot access, are listed in bullet point format immediately below, and I do not see why Sonski and the ASP have been given the extra information that the others do not have. All of them should be under simple bullet points, in my opinion, with Kennedy and West's independent campaigns as exceptions. Kafoxe (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there was discussion. This candidate was listed in bullet point format until this edit. I prefer the bullet point format for this and similar candidates, and briefly considered reverting that edit. (I can't remember why I retreated; probably to let someone else do it.) --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Sonski and the ASP should be returned to the bullet point listing format, for the reasons stated above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Uncommitted draft

In light of recent events I have created a draft for the Uncommitted voting option in Presidential primaries. If anyone wants to assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Draft:Uncommitted (voting option). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Footnote on Trump's residency

The footnote on Trump's change of residency made since in 2020, as never lived in Florida, and "moved" there during his time actually living in the White House. But he has now literally lived in Florida for over three years, so the clarification seems superfluous. Why would anyone need an explanation of his home state? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It may not need to be a footnote. However, I suggest leaving it in as a hidden note as opposed to removing it altogether, to discourage edits by those unaware, since this happens occasionally. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed IEditPolitics (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Low-performing second-place candidates inclusion in primary infoboxes

I'm bringing back the discussion that was archived a month ago after not reaching any consensus. Nevertheless, some users decided to skip the 2017 RfC on the matter and remove all the second-place candidates. It should be the other way around: unless a new policy is decided, the previous consensus applies. Therefore, I'll be WP:BOLD and start restoring the infoboxes. If any user is against, please, don't revert and try to reach a consensus here. Basque mapping (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson withdrawal

Marianne Williamson had withdrawn from the primaries on 7 Feburary, according to this Politico article: [9]] Is it possible y’all can move her to ‘Withdrew during the primaries’? CallMeVbuck (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

She re-entered the race last week. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad. CallMeVbuck (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

clear bias shown

It shows clear bias to show trump's classified document scandal without showing biden's, and trump's stormy daniels scandal without showing biden's corruption investigation regarding china and russia paying the biden family. 198.184.248.250 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like you want WP:FALSEBALANCE. Trump was indicted for his not returning classified documents. Biden cooperated at every step and was not indicted. Trump was indicted for his hush payments to Stormy Daniels. Biden's "corruption investigation" is such a nothingburger that it looks like Republicans are giving up on impeaching him. Hope this helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Get back to us when there are indictments/legal consequences attached to Biden’s. SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Either both parties have a presumptive nominee, or neither do.

Right now, Trump is listed as the presumptive Republican nominee; but the Democrats have no presumptive nominee. I do not know what the Wikipedia standard is, but it's clear the same is not being applied to both. (Generally speaking, an incumbent President serving his first term is the presumptive nominee for that party, unless the President has specifically noted that they either do not intend to run for a second term, or there is a _viable_ challenger for the nomination.

If Haley is not a viable challenger, Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. But then neither are any of the Democratic challengers. Biden should be pictured (by the same standard) as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.

If Haley is a viable challenger, Trump is not yet the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, and both parties should have no presumptive nominee listed. 2600:8801:FB07:7200:95F:EAE9:D462:19A2 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The standard is reliable sources are calling Trump the presumptive nominee (someone should add the citation, but I can see that it is true). I believe that the difference is that there are candidates running campaigns, however hopeless, on the Democratic side. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Representative Dean Philips is still challenging President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe you'll find a policy to support that. Reuters says a presumptive nominee is one where the nominee has not been officially chosen but is "clear"[10]. The AP says the nominee needs to have "captured the number of delegates needed to win a majority vote"[11]. We can choose both or neither today. Frankly, its illogical to set the standard as one quixotic candidate with zero delegates choosing to nominally continue. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think both are the presumptive nominees and should stand. Trump because he is the last remaining candidate, and Biden because he is only 200 off and has no real opposition since 2nd place in the primary is Uncommitted votes rather than a person. And even that 2nd place is far off. Leave both on there. And at worst we add Biden back in a week when he has the 1900 delegates he will need. SDudley (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Associated Press explaining why it is not yet calling Biden or Trump the presumptive nominee: [12]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither candidates should be treated as “presumptive” until they win a majority of delegates. Even if Haley dropped out, other candidates can theoretically win delegates. Did anyone expect Biden to lose American Samoa to a candidate we did not consider “major”..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Barring a huge surprise, both Biden & Trump will have won a majority of their respective parties' delegates for their presidential nominations, by next week. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It’s improbable they won’t secure enough bound and pledged delegates. However, it is not impossible: hence why neither is yet a presumptive nominee. SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Added Joe Biden as presumptive nominee

Hey everyone, I've added Joe Biden to the infobox as the presumptive Democratic nominee. FunIsOptional (talk) (use ping please) 16:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate the BOLD edit, but we already had a thread open today on this subject. Would be better to consolidate similar topics. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

No objections. But hasn't Williamson re-entered the Democratic race? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It's too early to describe him as presumptive nominee per AP and other sources as March 19 is the earliest day that Biden can secure a majority of pledged delegates. Even if Florida and Delaware's pledged delegates (which are expected to be ultimately awarded to Biden, but haven't at this point) are added to the total, that wouldn't be the case before March 12. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Others have described the results as "effectively determin(ing) the Republican and Democratic Party nominations" while declaring "the 2024 general election has kicked off in earnest"[13]. This is not to say that either position is more or less valid, but rather that there is no official standard. We are free to apply common sense. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a meaningful difference between that and the actual term "presumptive nominee" – Biden and Trump have been prohibitive favorites for their party nominations before a single vote was cast, but that doesn't mean that they were presumptive nominees at that time, and it makes most sense to defer to the language of other media sources at a time when the term is actually being used. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You've linked to an article that supports my position and undermines yours - there is no agreed upon definition and it is open to interpretation. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Too early for either Biden or Trump: Neither Biden nor Trump have secured enough delegates to win their party’s nominations on the first ballot on bound and currently-pledged delegates alone. Other candidates and options appear on enough ballots that either Biden or Trump could possibly fail to secure certainty of a nomination on a first-ballot vote (even if that is not remotely probable to happen) SecretName101 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Harris is also a presumptive nominee, since she too won't be nominated until the convention. I've tried to make the edit, but the 'pedia server is having trouble. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Nikki Haley announcing to suspend her campaign today.

This is according to NPR, a US Government source. [14] JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Until she does, my opinion is that we do not add Trump as the presumptive nominee as Trump does not currently have the majority of delegates needed to be the Republican nominee, making Haley still a viable challenger-- even if we know she will not make it at this point in the race. When she does, we can add him back. This is a high frequency article, and while it's common sense to leave him, the facts have not proven her to drop out yet. Feel free to debate me if you disagree, but it just feels up to point of the standard. By the time anyone sees this she might've already announced. Same goes with Biden, Williamson and Phillips haven't dropped out yet, therefore he is not the presumptive nominee yet, as he doesn't have a majority of delegates. --JustAGrook (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

She suspended her campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump should be listed as presumptive now then. But the same still applies with Phillips and Williamson, Biden still needs delegates. JustAGrook (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe Williamson has suspended her campaign as of four weeks ago unless something changed. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

She has since unsuspended Esolo5002 (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Hayley has suspended her campaign at this time, so I'd agree it is reasonable at this time to have Trump listed as the presumptive nominee. AstralNomad (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Trump is running pretty much uncontested now. WorldMappings (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump eligibility lead

Now that SCOTUS ruled that states can not disqualify Trump, should we condense the lead about his eligibility or remove it altogether? Seems WP:UNDUE to keep as is. Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it should be removed from the lead, and the paragraph about it in the Republican Party section should be updated.--Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I would argue for condensed. This story is too big a part of the election. Draft: "Courts in several states had initially ruled that Trump was ineligible for office under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I also am fine with a condensed version. Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I removed it, @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I see you moved it to the "Background - Procedure" section. This is a good choice, although I am tempted to move it into the section just below where it is now. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Haley dropping out

With Nikki Haley reportedly dropping out. I think it’s time to add Trump and Biden to the info box with a “(presumptive” tag. I’m still not sure what to do about Kennedy, his polling is clearly above 5% but not consistently above 15% and he is now on the ballot in ~8 states. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with Trump being added/kept on as the presumptive nominee. Agree with Biden as well, unless the done thing would be to wait until their respective parties refer to them as such? Also with RFK Jr, I know with previous elections the Green/Libertarian parties have been in the infobox - maybe wait until a bit closer to see if RFK qualifies for any debates? Open to discussion on this. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree to add Trump as presumptive nominee when Haley will drop out and disagree to add Biden as presumptive nominee since there is still other major candidates in the race and he haven't won an absolute majority of delegates Punker85 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Haley hasn't dropped out yet, and neither have Williamson nor Phillips. None have a majority of delegates to win the nomination yet, so they shouldn't be added as presumptive until Haley drops out on the Republican side or Williamson & Phillips do on the Democratic side OR if they get a majority of delegates to be presumptive. --JustAGrook (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose: neither candidate has won a majority of delegates, and totally plausible for non-major candidates to win delegates like we saw in American Samoa. Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There's 3 discussions covering this topic. Perhaps there's a way to merge them together. PS - Your 'discussion' tags on the infobox aren't completed, as they're not directing readers to the actual discussion(s). GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose adding Biden Trump is the presumptive nominee because all of his opponents have dropped out. Biden still has major candidates running against him, per Wikipedia's defintion, and has not reached the delegate threshold yet. I don't think our logic is consistent if we include Biden in the infobox at this time. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Williamson is the only 'major' Democratic candidate opposing him now. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is Donald Trump listed in the first paragraph like he’s the Republican nominee?

The Associated Press has a specific policy NOT to identify presidential candidates as presumptive nominees until they’ve either (1) won the necessary number of delegates to be nominated, or (2) their last remaining challenger drops out. Per WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), Donald Trump should not be listed there until he’s the presumptive Republican nominee. 2601:642:4C00:D149:EDCC:5DF2:93C4:BAC7 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Where does it say he is the nominee..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Also, we are not the Associated Press. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

That and let’s be honest he’s going to win it’s not like Jesus Christ is gonna come down and run for the GOP you might as way just say trump vs Biden because that’s what it will be 2600:8801:1187:7F00:25D3:B97C:DDCA:F27C (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Nikki Haley dropped out Burabshurab (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

New Photos?

Could we get new photos of Trump and Biden? To distinguish between 2020 and 2024? I think the 2020 Biden should be pre- White House portrait, and 2024 should be White House portrait. And 2024 should be candidate Trump.

Edit ::: instead we got a photo of President Trump and President Biden for 2024 (Makes no sense) For 2020 we got a photo of President Biden and Trump, (also makes no sense)

Instead it should be

2020 -> Candidate Biden, President Trump

2024 -> President Biden, Candidate Trump

68.189.2.14 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There are already two open threads on this subject. Please weigh in there. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox needs removed

Can an editor remove the infobox from the lead until a consensus is reached about what exactly should be contained within it? Multiple editors, including Prcc27 and myself, think it should be excluded until then.

Per WP: ONUS, it needs removed. Thanks. I've already made one reversion so can't at the moment. Although I will when the 24hr limit expires. KlayCax (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. @Esolo5002: @GoodDay: please seek consensus here before adding it back. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

It's irrelevant to me whether it's included now or not & who's included in it or not. Trump, Biden & Harris will be included after March 12, 2024 anyway. Trump's running mate will be included sometime in July 2024. It's a dispute not worth having, as it'll become moot within a few days. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Infobox

The following discussion 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.

---

I understand that we must wait for the intra-party elections first to add candidates to the infobox, but when that happens would it be reasonable to add Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as an independent candidate to the infobox like done to John B. Anderson in the 1980 United States presidential election article? Titan2456 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2024 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2024

Change “If Trump wins, he would become the second president to achieve nonconsecutive terms after Grover Cleveland.” in the lead paragraph to “If Trump wins, he would join Grover Cleveland as the only presidents to serve non-consecutive terms.”

The current wording is ambiguous enough that the use of “after Grover Cleveland” could imply that there is a first president after Cleveland to serve non-consecutive terms. HidyHoTim (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

“ If Trump wins, he would become the second president to serve a non consecutive term, the first being [[Grover Cleveland]].” I believe that is the most appropriate wording Cannolorosa (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done used User:Cannolorosa's wording. Thanks for your contributions! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Bill was opposed Trump

In the "Border Security and Immigration" section, it said the bill was "opposed by Trump" in 2024. Trump isn't in government, so the statement is at least misleading, as Trump could do absolutely nothing to stop the bill from passing. 207.244.205.106 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

His influence is very large, and massively affected the GOP’s membership voting trends. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer Campaign

The Jason Palmer campaign was an obvious surprise, but I’d like some of your guys’ opinions on this: would a short article on it be good? I mean, he did somehow beat BIDEN in a territory, AS, I know. But isn’t it something to be looked at?

Support it or not support it. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:43, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Palmer's article has a fairly lengthy section on the campaign. The question then is if there are enough additional citable facts to add, such that you would create a BALANCE issue. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:28, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Good point. Not even sure if it’s worth it. I’ll think about doing it and looking into it once Biden has locked up the nomination. IEditPolitics (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Forecast Sources

The five sources for forecasts on this page are CNN, IE, Cook, Sabato, and, bafflingly, CNalysis, whose Wikipedia article describes it as being “launched in 2020 by… a political science student at Virginia Tech” and having “a staff of seven as well as one intern.” It seems to me that there are more established, credible sources to include if the article requires five sources in this section. 2601:42:0:14F:8892:B63C:3675:5E54 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a fair and reasonable point. CNalysis is respected in the community, has a reasonable successful (if short) track record, and demonstrated lack of bias. The size of the staff or age is not particularly relevant to me. All the big boys are more or less one man shops. I think greater inclusion here is important to show that opinion of these close races is mixed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I support including CNAlysis as well. KlayCax (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

I question whether forecasts should be included at all. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course they should be, they've been on every other applicable presidential election article. Why should this be the exception? MagicalFishing (talk) 07:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Biden/Trump/Kennedy

The following discussion 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.

---

Why aren't Trump, Biden, and Kennedy added to the infobox? The primaries are over. Kassing (talk) 17:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The discussions above. Lukt64 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2024 (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.

At what point would we add the election results to the Infobox?

A. As they come in, like what's been done with individual statewide election results.

B. After the media calls the election for either Biden or Trump.

C. Other WorldMappings (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Traditionally A has always been the case TheFellaVB (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That has not always been the consensus, actually. There was a consensus in 2020 to update the popular vote total only periodically, because what’s the point of updating it every 10 minutes? Also, there was initially no consensus on when to color in the states/add their EVs to the infobox, so the infobox was actually blank for the first day or so in 2020. Prcc27 (talk) 04:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

C: Adding popular vote totals periodically in several hour increments seemed to work pretty well in 2020. A state’s electoral college votes should not be added to the infobox until all major media outlets (ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC) make a projection for that state. I support using dark blue/red in the map for states with unanimous projects, while maybe adding a light blue/red shade later in the night (probably 11:30 P.M. EST when there are less states in flux) for states where a majority of media outlets have made a projection. A lot of these sections seem premature, and I think it may be wise to yield on this and other discussions until the Fall, which should actually be RfC discussions. Prcc27 (talk) 04:22, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Image of Joe Biden

This is going to be a topic, so I am choosing 6 candidates :

Current infobox image

• 
  Current (March 2021)

Proposed infobox images

• 
  Option 1 (December 2023)
• 
  Option 2 (November 2023)
• 
  Option 3 (June 2023)
• 
  Option 4 (May 2023)
• 
  Option 5 (August 2022)

Which one should be in the Infobox? Lukt64 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Not opposed to option 4, my vote would be that or his current portrait TheFellaVB (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Personally 5 is the best. Most presidential plus official. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 2: I think Biden picture should the most recent as possible but option 2 looks quite better than option 1, so it have a pass for me Punker85 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Keep current. Best lighting, and not too old to be representative. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I second option 5: though not the most recent, it is the most instantly recognisable, at least to me, he seems to always be smiling/chuckling like that in news reports and photos. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I also second option 5. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

:Option 5 is the best, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

After further consideration, IMO it's best to stick with the current image. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Current image - It's not broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

that’s like a saying to NOT do. Something being not broken doesn’t mean you don’t change it. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The current image is best, with the presidential flag behind him. After all, he's the incumbent in this race. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Does it really matter if the Presidential Flag is/isn’t in the Photo? Qutlooker (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

5 or the current one both look pretty nice. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 5 is an alternative. However the current image is the offical, so works as is. Expoe34 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it’s fair to say that since there is 5 there is relative consensus for option 5 from active members as well. Any opposed, please list. I’ll change it in 12 hours if there is no opposition to it above 3 to show an actual mountable opposition to changing to option 5. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Slow down, The thread was open for 5 hours and the count was three for keep & four for change to opt 5 when you made this comment. That is not consensus. In any case it is now tied. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lukt64 Option 2 is the best so far, with a clear background Segagustin (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 5 or current - Both are front-facing, although I think the official portrait is more appropriate as he is an incumbent. Longestview (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Lukt64 option 4 illustrates the best image. Vuvietanh6204 (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I concur with other editors that option 5 makes the most sense, looking directly at camera, minimal disruption in the background, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Option 1 is the most recent, which should break any tie. I don't see a visual issue with any of the images. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

current or 5 ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There’s a 9-7 consensus here for 5 specifically, 7 is option 4,2,no change. I think that 5 has a lot of support. Once inbox added, I will add the image UNLESS someone comes up with 10 people saying no. IEditPolitics (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My vote would be option 4 or current. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

First, it's not "7 is option 4,2,no change" it's 8 for the current, 2 for option two, and 1 each for one and four. Second, option five has 7 votes, not 9. You are counting Expoe34 & Longestview as option five when they expressed a preference for the current portrait over five. Even if you claim the 9, it's 8-9 and that is not consensus for a change. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

My vote’s on current—Obama’s portrait was used for his re-election, and same with W Bush. But remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, so a simple majority isn’t the right way to view this. Dingers5Days (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't see an issue with the official portrait. In fact, it's what's used for the the prior presidents on the prior election pages for the past 60 years. OCNative (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the official portrait would be the most consistent with past election pages. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 11:49, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Why is Trump listed as his party's presumptive nominee in the primary section, but not in the infobox, and vice versa for Biden?

Shouldn't they both be shown as the presumptive nominee in both places? FiveInParticular (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

The answer is rush to edit. It will be sorted out shortly. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Add RFK

Add Kennedy to the Wiki box with the others as he’s still polling within 10-15% XboxGamer2002! (talk) 23:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)— XboxGamer2002! (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We already got a Discussion on that. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

This will probably have to go to a RFC. In terms of numbers, it's a 55-45% split, and I can see good arguments either way. KlayCax (talk) 02:50, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We could temporarily add Kennedy Jr. in the infobox. If there's significant objections, a RFC could be called, since I don't want the next two months to consist of low-level edit warring. (Which is already happening.) He doesn't have a realistic chance of winning. However, I think it is predominantly likely that he obtains 5% of the vote. (80%+ or greater odds.) That seems enough to warrant an infobox mention.

This is one of the times that I wish that there was a non-subjective, consensus agreement on what to do about candidates in the infobox. KlayCax (talk) 03:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that Kennedy should be added to the infobox at the moment. Lostfan333 (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I made a WP: BOLD edit and included him. For now, there's a narrow majority favoring inclusion, but there was significant evidence of canvassing as well.

However, I'm only doing it as a temporary measure, and I think this will probably have to be a matter where a consensus is reached through RFC. KlayCax (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

someone add Kennedy

thank you! JohnX92 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

he is averaging in polls 15% so he should be included. JohnX92 (talk) 03:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

— JohnX92 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Presumptive Nominees

Both President Biden and Former President Trump have been declared to be the presumptive nominees for their respective parties. At this point in time I feel it is appropriate to list both men as the presumptive nominees of their respective parties Phx3216 (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That's intentional. We're not including them until the Robert F. Kennedy Jr. situation is worked out, @Phx3216:. KlayCax (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

agenda against Kennedy

if kennedy has significant support why is he being hidden in the article?

https://www.realclearpolling.com/polls/president/general/2024/trump-vs-biden-vs-kennedy

as a longtime donor can commentators exclude nominees they don't like because they're "not serious". seems like a principle ripe for abuse. JohnX92 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

JohnX92, comments about your financial donations to the Wikimedia Foundation have precisely zero impact on content decisions. Maybe less than zero, because experienced editors react to such such comments with horror and shock. It would be deeply unethical for any editor to say or even think, "Let's change this content because cash donor JohnX92 says so." If you no longer want to donate to the Wikimedia Foundation, then please stop donating. They are rolling in cash, with net assets of over $240 million and an endowment of over $100 million. Cullen328 (talk) 05:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why were Biden/Trump removed from the Wikibox? + The RFK debate is silly

Both Biden and Trump are the official Dem/Rep presumptive nominees for President. They should be shown in the infobox as such.

Also, we agreed earlier that RFK wouldn’t be added to the infobox for now. Why is this being brought up again? WorldMappings (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

people on here beg to differ Guamaloha (talk) 07:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Guamaloha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

where's Kennedy?

the infographic needs Kennedy someone add it Guamaloha (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Guamaloha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

There are ongoing discussions about his inclusion. Please participate in those. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Kennedy supporter and surprised he's not included in it. where's Kennedy?

RFK pls

don't censor him thx. Guamaloha (talk) 07:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Guamaloha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You made a talk post about this 5 minutes ago. Please stop spamming and creating irrelevant threads and participate in the ongoing discussion. TheFellaVB (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

against RfK

@Lostfan333:

it is dangerous to highlight Kennedy and that is why he shouldn't be in the infobox he spreads anti-vaccine misinformation and if a pandemic occurs the president has to make decisions related to that like president trump did and you saw what happened with that ya know?

it's our role to stir the public towards rational leader not highlighting the crazy ones. Watzenboga (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You could have mentioned your opinion in the original conversation or even in my talk page. Why single me out in a new conversation?? Lostfan333 (talk) 05:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Even if Kennedy gets 99% in polls he's a hard right crackpot who should be barred from the infograph. He won't be added into it, sorry bro, @Lostfan333:. Your suggested changes are already deleted. It will stay that way. Duneatlas (talk) 07:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Duneatlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I've been editing for years now. You created your account just minutes ago. Was it just to start arguments?? I feel so bad for you. Lostfan333 (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a non-biased source. Writings need to be fair on every candidate and truthfully to factually verified information. RFK's controversies relating to his views is listed on his page as well as the election page however if we deem him to be a significant candidate per wikipedia standards he should not be omitted due to his political beliefs. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2024

My request is to add RFK JR as the third candidate, next to biden and trump. He already is on 8 ballots and will likley be on most if not all of them by the time the election is up. For example when I click on arizona, it is a 3 way race and not a 2. My request would to add him on since he has been polling as high as 26 percent in certain polls. Mayala29 (talk) 07:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. see above discussions Cannolis (talk) 07:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

ECP?

Would it be worthwhile to have extended confirmed protection on the article? David O. Johnson (talk) 07:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We need it for the talk page. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Glad that Wikipedia is for rationality

The following discussion 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.

---

(Redacted)

Your opinion is irrelevant. Nice try. Lostfan333 (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Someone already added Trump and Biden back into the infographic. :)

You're attempts to sneak crackpots into elections are doomed! Duneatlas (talk) 07:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Duneatlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

You created your account just minutes ago only to start arguments. That's pretty pathetic. Lostfan333 (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Only to express the facts about Kennedy Jr. there's other new people supporting him so I wanted to provide the view of scientists instead to counteract it. I can't change anything about the article but I have every right to express thoughts. Duneatlas (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Duneatlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

And Trump and Biden have been readded to the infographic, @Lostfan333:. ;) Psuedoscience doesn't pay. Duneatlas (talk) 07:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Duneatlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Don't wink at me. Lostfan333 (talk) 07:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

and yes I agree with other editors that dangerous beliefs shouldn't be promoted to millions, @LostFan333:. Wikipedia isn't neutral and we have no obligation to be so, of course I support any means necessary to damage his bid for the white house. we're not neutral on evolution or global warming and we're not going to be neutral on Kennedy. sorry. Duneatlas (talk) 07:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Duneatlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

"Wikipedia isnt neutral and we have no obligation to be so"

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view.

Wikipedia is neutral and we have an obligation to be so.

Lukt64 (talk) 19:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I do not know where you got this Idea that Wikipedia does not have to be neutral. Lukt74 already put the "Wikipedia:Neutral Point of view" Link. The "so, of course I support any means necessary to damage his bid for the white house" part is very concerning because doing this could get you blocked from editing. So we are going to be neutral with Kennedy. Just like the others. Sorry but that's the truth. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2024 (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.

General?

Should we go ahead and make a general election tab, including endorsements and stuff? Hollkii (talk) 05:26, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox edit-warring

To throw my hat into the wring of this, I firstly think this debate over adding Kennedy or not has become supremely silly, especially with the "consensus" some editors have assumed which means removing both D and R spots until their respective Conventions, when this has never been the consensus. In prior discussions the 5% "rule" continuously gets brought up, and I think certain editors do not understand what that means, that "rule" means 5% of the popular vote, not 5% or more in polls. And people are taking this to an absurd degree, to argue not including Kennedy constitutes a bias or conspiracy on the part of some editors when it (I'd have assumed) clearly does not. So I think the infobox should have Biden and Trump as the presumptive nominees (as they have secured a majority of delegates in their respective primaries needed for nomination), and Kennedy could be considered for inclusion only when he gets the necessary ballot access requirements in addition to retaining his high polling numbers by then. I'm only saying this because I feel the Kennedy/infobox "debate" has just devolved into childish edit-warring and bad faith arguing. Talthiel (talk) 04:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course there's an overwhelming consensus to include Joe Biden and Donald Trump in the infobox, @Talthiel:. The problem is about only including them without mentioning Kennedy Jr. as well.

Lukt64, LostFan333, XboxGamer2002!, JohnX92, Cannolorosa, Roadtruck, Borifjiufchu, and I are just saying that a significant amount of partiality would be introduced into the article if only Biden/Trump are added.

No one (from what I can tell) is saying there's a "conspiracy" against Kennedy Jr. However, most of the arguments against inclusion are premised on the idea that he's not a "serious candidate" (per verbatim statements made from multiple people on the talk page). The problem with this view is that you could state the same about Donald Trump in the 2016 Republican presidential primaries. We all know what happened. KlayCax (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

If anyone else adds any candidate to the infobox without a consensus to do so, I'll request an uninvolved admin fully protect the page. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Also I do now regret getting involved, but I mostly just find it dumb to exclude Biden and Trump because Kennedy would not be included, it just feels very childish. Like I don't find it biased to exclude Kennedy at this point in the campaign since he currently lacks the ballot access to even have a serous impact in regards to the electoral college or the NPV. The problem is Trump as a major party candidate/nominee in 2016 is being compared to RFK Jr. who is a third party candidate with a decent amount of name recognition in 2024. But I will indulge you regarding polling as a pre-requisite, I've seen polls which show polls as high as 20%, but actual voting intention dramatically drops to 1% for Kennedy. But the thing is, I guess, is I think multiple editors don't get that the 5% thing only covers actual results, not polling, and people are getting overly invested in this whole thing.

No one I could see was arguing Kennedy shouldn't be mentioned, or he should never be included, or that we should wait till November, I stand behind the argument that a candidate such as Kennedy should only be included in the infobox once he hits the ballot access in enough states to make an impact, and retains his polling averages by then.

At the end of the day I am probably in over my head, but I just wanted to provide my own two cents. Talthiel (talk) 04:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(I probably could have just replied in the Kennedy in infobox section, so it might be better to continue this, or move it, there) Talthiel (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

No, it's fine @Talthiel:! Don't feel bad. :) I think it's good that you commented! I'm not mad at you. As I said in the thread above: I hope that Wikipedia eventually adopts a uniform, consistent standard for what merits mention in a political infobox. The popular interpretation (as well as mine) is that any candidate/political party who will likely or got in the past election >5% deserves mention. That's generally the WP: PRECEDENT in other articles.

Perhaps a compromise could be reached to avoid a RFC. KlayCax (talk) 04:49, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair, looking above everyone seems to vitriolic and invested, came over from my nice calm corner of wikipedia and this firestorm got a bit overwhelming. I hope things get resolved calmly, cya! Talthiel (talk) 04:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

looking above everyone seems to vitriolic and invested Welcome to the internet @Talthiel:, LOL. Take care. :) KlayCax (talk) 05:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Add Kennedy it won't let me Guamaloha (talk) 07:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC) — Guamaloha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We just had an RFC on this in November. The consensus was to wait for RFK to achieve some reasonable ballot access. Maybe not 50 states, but access to 270 votes. It has nevertheless been raised every few days, because these astroturfers don't know the rules. This is disruptive and we cannot entertain the debate every time. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think people are wanting to remove Biden/Trump, as they have the pledged delegates necessary. But people were including him before they even became the presumptive nominees, which Wikipedia election articles historically don't do (until they hit the pledged delegate threshold), as candidate withdrawals aren't the benchmark that is used.

Although historically candidates that have ballot access are not a good metric for deciding inclusions for reasons I've outlined before, you have people here that are trying to make thresholds based on what a serious candidate is or not, and then you have candidates or party infrastructure holdovers that manage to get ballot access but barely make a .1-.3% dent in the popular vote, which by itself is a metric that is likely to discriminate against independents (which is why you have many of them aligning with various parties to get ballot access).

Doesn't seem very reliable or indicative, and gets you a lot more false positives of what an infobox is supposed to pertain to (to inform). Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Provided there are no objections, I'm going to add Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the infobox once each candidate obtains a majority of delegates, per precedent.

(I think we should hold off until a majority is officially obtained. Not merely Super Tuesday.) Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Who said anything about Super Tuesday..? Sounds like a straw man tactic.. You will not be adding RFKJR anytime soon; there seems to be an early consensus to wait until he gets enough ballot access. We will probably not add any candidates until both the Democratic and Republican races are decided. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait until after the RNC and DNC for that. RFK Jr is irrelevant despite what the polls say. Qutlooker (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the consensus on presumptive nominees being in the infobox? Trump will become presumptive as soon as Haley drops out, which could happen 24 hrs from now. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the candidates are projected to get a majority of delegates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no comment on the broader subject of when/how specifically to highlight the nominees — that being said, RFK Jr. is a relevant national candidate and will very likely affect the election, according to literally all available polling data and news reports.

This entire argument several editors keep harking on is, frankly, strange. The only reason I can think of that people would seem to keep perpetuating this idea is because they don’t appreciate Kennedy’s extremist ideology, and desire to “consign him to irrelevancy” because they believe promoting such ideas is harmful.

This irrelevancy argument is, in fact, wholly illusionary. He is polling at over 15% and has been covered by every major news agency — not just after the announcement of his campaign, but repeatedly and at-length. I’m not sure what more evidence you are seeking to confirm reality. This is the criteria we have used in the past. This seems like patent WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.

Gambitenthusiast99 (talk) 07:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Have to agree. Regardless of my or anyone else's personal feelings toward Kennedy and his campaign, he is polling more than well enough to warrant a spot here and is absolutely relevant, at least as of now. MagicalFishing (talk) 14:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

When do we add Biden and Trump to the infobox?

Media sources have already started using the "P" word[15], and the edit war has begun. Let's nail this down. When do we add Biden and Trump?

A. Now The media has called them presumptive, they have crushed all opposition in actual voting, and any opponents still in the race are garnering trivial support.

B. When they earn the majority of delegates as indicated in reliable sources, not by our own count

C. Some other time during the convention, maybe?

GreatCaesarsGhost 13:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A: Not only Trump is the presumptive nominee, but Biden's "opposition" is nonexistant at this point Segagustin (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A, it’s been called by many reliable sources. I would be ok with B as well. LuxembourgLover (talk) 16:54, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

B: I think this is the best and safest option here. I don't think relying on the media for presumption is a safe or reliable bet, but I can see why it's there for point B. At the very least it already says they are presumptive, and barring some circumstance, they will be generally nominated, hence 'pledged delegates'. Borifjiufchu (talk) 19:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

A But i support adding kennedy as well. Lukt64 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

B If I'm not mistaken the usual practice, once the AP and other sources officially call the race and both have received a majority of delegates. Yeoutie (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A - They're going to be added within a few days anyway. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

B - It makes sense to me, plus we should stick with RSes say. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

B with footnote that the nominees are “presumptive” or C to wait for the nominees to officially be chosen and give RFKJR a chance to be added at the same time as the other candidates (if he has sufficient ballot access by then). Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

B - Although I wouldn't object to A either. However, I'm against adding any independent or third party candidates just yet; there seems to be a casual consensus to do that after the conventions and/or once ballot access has been finalized. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A - Not only has Trump become the presumptive nominee, but President Biden faces little opposition. If anything, I'm okay with Trump being in the infobox because he has no more challengers in the primary, and wait until President Biden either clinches or when Marianne Williamson drops out. Dylansh99 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

NOTA - My understanding is that "presumptive nominee" status is something declared by the respective party Committees. We should go with that. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

B – Conventional usage of term (see Presidential nominee#Presumptive nominee), regardless of whether a candidate is a prohibitive favorite to secure their party's nomination. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

A - For the Reasons above. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

B - this is when the candidates are traditionally considered to be presumptive nominees. It should also be when the media is calling them as such as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

NOTA - Trump can be added now since he has no opponents. Biden should wait until either all major opponents drop out (yes Williamson and the other guy are not "major", but Wikipedia is defining them as major) or he is projected to receive the majority of delegates. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

A with no prejudice to B. Wikipedia is designed to reflect reliable sources, if reliable sources are declaring both Biden and Trump presumptive nominees, which they are [16], [17], [18], [19], then so should Wikipedia. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As an encyclopedia, we should at the very least wait for these candidates to be the projected winner of a majority of delegates. I am not really interested in whom the pundits think is a “presumptive nominee”. Hilary Clinton was once considered a “presumptive nominee” early on, but then Bernie gave her a run for her money. Prcc27 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No point of the actual WP:NOTNEWS policy means that we shouldn't summarize current reliable sources, in fact, the policy says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." None of the above cited sources are "pundits" but news reporting. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS also says “not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia”. If the AP is being conservative about declaring the candidates, why would we as an encyclopedia jump the gun..? If anything, we should be showing more restraint than the media, not less. Prcc27 (talk) 21:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A They probably won’t be able to clinch at the same time, so it would be unfair to add one but not the other purely because of their party’s primary schedule. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Actually, many of us support keeping the infobox completely blank until both candidates clinch the nomination.. Prcc27 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

What is there left to wait for? Our own Polling Sources even say that Trump and Biden are the highest polled candidates in their respective parties. Along with the fact that Super Tuesday has passed and unless a Hail Mary occurs in the next few months, we are seeing a rematch. Qutlooker (talk) 01:50, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

”What is there left to wait for?”

A majority of delegates. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

A Unless something crazy happens and wildly unforeseen happens, both will be their party’s nominee Cannolorosa (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A The purpose of the infobox is to supply the relevant information rapidly. Read any article on this race and it will talk about these two candidates as the very likely or “presumptive” candidates in the election. We don’t need to set up complicated rules or decide what “presumptive” means, just follow the reliable source reporting. —Jfhutson (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Comment: I think we should establish rules on candidates being considered presumptive nominees for the Republican and Democratic parties Punker85 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

A - There is no other major candidates that could primary Biden or Trump. Qutlooker (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

According to this article, there are two other major candidates currently primarying Biden (Williamson and Palmer). If you disagree that they should be considered "major" opponents then that's a different discussion, but we need to keep consistency within our article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A Trump is the defacto Republican nominee at this point in time. If that changes then we can reconsider. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

A The process is a formality, no need to pretend. Sheila1988 (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Waiting until the convention actually votes would be a formality. Waiting for them to secure a majority of delegates just makes sense. The pundits shouldn’t get to arbitrarily declare someone the “presumptive nominee”. Prcc27 (talk) 21:09, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE I'm seeing 10-6 favor for now vs. once the majority of delegates is achieved. While it is somewhat early to close this discussion, Biden will be hitting a majority tomorrow. There is strong consensus that Biden would be added at that point. Trump is about 50-50 to hit his majority tomorrow. I'm going to suggest that we add him at the same time, in consideration of the clear majority of "A" voters in this discussion, the general desire to not list one candidate without the other, and the fact the Trump has no opponents still running. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:01, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump, Biden, and Kennedy should be added by tomorrow. I don't have a position on A or B but C is definitely too late.

The primaries are over. Kassing (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Ha ha, nice try! GreatCaesarsGhost 19:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a sentence in the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries article that currently reads "After Trump's overwhelming victory on Super Tuesday, Haley suspended her campaign on March 6, making Trump the presumptive Republican nominee", but reading the linked source here: [20], it mentions the RNC is calling Trump their presumptive nominee; that's not the same as winning enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee (as Biden did earlier today).

I do realize the point is largely moot, since Trump is something like 40 delegates away from becoming the presumptive nominee, per AP. [21].

In short, let's not put the cart before the horse next time. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no hard rule for when Trump becomes "presumptive" and there is no rule that says we can only add him when he becomes presumptive; nor when the last opposition drops out, nor when he gets 50% of the delegates. We add him when we want, and the consensus was clear. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

In November

Every four years, we tend to have a dispute about how & when to describe an elected or re-elected president, at the bottom of the infobox. This comes about because the general public vote in November, the electors vote in December & the electoral votes are counted & certified in the following early January. Will we be using the same method, like we did in the last prez election? Asking now, so there won't be a repeat of this dispute in November. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I was going to ask the same thing, albeit later in the election cycle (September/October). This is my view on how we should describe the apparent winner on the infobox and in the article: before the electors vote = projected winner/President-Elect (projected)/re-elected (projected), or something along those lines; after the electors vote = President-Elect/re-elected maybe with a footnote that the results are pending certification; after certification = President-Elect/Elected President/re-elected. Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

My inclination is that "Elected President" is used immediately upon the bulk of the big boys (CNN, AP etc.) calling the election. I was curious what the prior dispute looked like. I found this[22] which supports "Elected President" as being the convention. Are there any other prior conversations worth reviewing? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the winner is known as president elect until their Inauguration Day. Hope this is helpful. Cwater1 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

When the electoral college votes (at the earliest). The media do not "call the election." They project it, and until the electoral college votes, there is not a president-elect. In 2024 especially, given the advanced age of the two presumptive nominees and the likelihood of dispute if the result is close, we should avoid predicting any future outcomes to avoid confusing readers. (See also the recent madness in Pakistan, which has turned that article into a mess.)

I don't think we need to wait for counting and certification, though, given the terms of the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, but that could be discussed. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. A projection is a mathematical analysis of the votes, it has no legal effect. Prcc27 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

The link I posted above shows we have always used "Elected President" after the November vote. It has nothing to do with the media "declaring" a winner, but with the near universal conventional understanding that the winner is decided in the November vote. Moving away from that convention because there might be a coup or one of them might drop dead is CRYSTALBALL. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change. For me this has nothing to do with a possible coup. In fact, I also argued for calling Biden the projected winner in 2020 even though I knew he was going to win. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Calling someone a winner before they are certified the winner is sensationalism. Also, projections do end up being wrong in rare instances. At the very least, we need a footnote explaining that the “President-Elect” was declared the winner based on (unofficial) projections. The media outlets do in fact describe the winner as a projected winner (especially when they first make the call); it would be dishonest of us to leave that information out. FWIW, I’m actually a candidate right now; I am about to declare myself the “apparent winner”, but will not officially declare victory until the votes are certified. Prcc27 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Again, you are using words like "projections" and "sensationalism" for the orderly, ordinary and official transfer of power that has happened every election except 2020 (pointing out that you denied the title to Biden in 2020 is a mark against you). It is not just media and pundits that declare a winner in November; it is the federal government as well. Recall the scandal that ensured when the GSA Administrator refused to certify Biden's victory in November of 2020. It is incumbent upon us to maintain an even, neutral voice; conferring upon a rubber-stamp process the status of an inflection point is reflective of and promoting the talking points of those who perpetrated the coup in 2020 and have communicated their intent to do so again. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The transfer of power can absolutely happen when there is a projected winner, even before the win becomes official. Why is it wrong to make a distinction between being the de-facto President-Elect (projected winner) and the de jure President-Elect (elected by the Electoral College)? We should be giving our readers more information, not less. No mark against me, I am more of a de jure kind of guy, but we should absolutely acknowledge a winner when the media makes their projections. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not wrong to make a distinction, but you are wrong in suggesting that the de jure meaning of President-Elect is tied to the December election rather than the November one. Federal law indicates that "the terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect"...shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the (GSA) Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President."[23] (emphasis mine) Again, this is why the GSA administrator's failure to "ascertain" the President-Elect became an issue by November 7th (four days after the election). GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

In that case, “projected President-Elect” before the GSA makes a determination, and “President-Elect” after. Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree, except I would be concerned that the GSA's determination would not make the news, especially if Biden won. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:32, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"Moving away from that convention because there might be a coup or one of them might drop dead is CRYSTALBALL."

The supposed convention itself is CRYSTALBALL and should be abandoned. We should stick strictly to compiling what is factually true, not what is generally anticipated, and we can note with more precision in the body of the article how the electoral process works and to what extent delegates and Congress are bound as of the date of publication. Rising misinformation and misunderstanding of the electoral process is a reason for us to be stricter about violations of CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. (We should likewise drop the bad habit of declaring "projected" winners in state or congressional races before results have been certified.) -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Just to clarify the question here, when you say "bottom of the infobox" are you are referring to the phrase "Elected President" that indicates the winner? And the question is should we use some other phrase between the November popular election and the December Electoral College vote? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Last time around, there was disagreement over how to list the winning candidate under the "Elected President" bit. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Again Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, when reliable sources start calling someone "President-elect" Wikipedia should follow. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. The sources also say that they “project” that so and so is the winner. Omitting this wording is not following the sources. Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

President Biden made a speech celebrating his victory after the media "projected" him President. There is simply no real difference. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

There is absolutely a difference between de facto President-Elect and de jure President-Elect. No doubt Biden was the President-Elect in practice, but whether or not he is legally the President-Elect is also important as well. Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

We must be careful not to get too literal on these matters. I understand & realize the accuracy arguments. But honestly, do we really have to wait until the Electoral College has voted? I highly doubt faithless electors will be allowed to overturn the November result. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

”I highly doubt faithless electors will be allowed to overturn the November result.” That is Original Research. But to answer your question, I think we as an encyclopedia should wait, because people expect encyclopedias to be more accurate and to explain the legal nuances. The media on the other hand, should have more leeway on blurring the lines between de facto and de jure, because readers probably have a different threshold for accuracy for them. If not in the infobox, these nuances should be explained in the body and the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not original research, to state that faithless electors will not be allowed to overturn a presidential election result. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

There is no such thing as “faithless electors overturning a presidential election”. Electors are not bound in some states, and they are entitled to vote for whomever they want. The initial projections do not determine the winner, the actual electoral votes do. Definitely WP:OR, and maybe even throw in WP:CRYSTAL to assume faithless electors are powerless. Prcc27 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, but we won't know if you're correct until it actually happens. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is irrelevant, we must stick to the facts. Prcc27 (talk) 05:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If editors choose to not wait until the Electoral College votes. Then that's how it will be. GoodDay (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

If editors choose to potentially violate Wikipedia policy by engaging in news-making on one of the highest-profile articles on the site, that would be a serious issue, not just "how it will be." I agree that there is room for debate as to whether this is a clear violation of standard policy, but we should seek to err on the side of caution. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't get how this is original research, a lot of places have their own rules and mandates, and precedent that supports that theory, such as the removal of repeated faithless elector attempts, and the fact that the party chooses electors (and typically seats them) in accordance with how they are intended to vote. I don't see the problem with posting the results - and explaining it's not certified yet until mid December. Borifjiufchu (talk) 15:22, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

If nobody does so before me? I'll be opening an RFC on this matter, later this year. It appears that there's two options - The day the public votes & the day the electors vote. GoodDay (talk) 07:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, go for it. I was planning on starting an RfC on this anyways. Probably should wait a few more months though. A third option was to wait for GSA to make the declaration that a candidate is the “President-Elect”; seems like fair compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

You're never going to get the community to sign-off on December. This page will be swamped in the days after the election and the mob will rule. The GSA is an interesting option in terms of timing; it looks like 2016 was certified the day after the general[24], despite a very close result. However, I'm not sure we can rely on the GSA decision becoming public immediately, as it historically has not. Interestingly, the GSA newsroom[25] does not list the 2020 decision in its releases. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

In the infobox there might already be a footnote next to the projected electoral vote totals, explaining that the votes are not yet certified. So I can live with that. But at the very least, I hope we can also compromise on a footnote in the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Roe v. Wade in lead

Is mentioning that this is the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned WP:TRIVIA or WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

There is considerable coverage that indicates that Dobbs has been driving turnout on the left, and it will have an effect on this race. That said, I really like how this year's article gives a list of issues in the lede (and thus gives them prominence) while leaving the prose to the body. Once you start expanding on one issue in the lede, you will inevitably create questions of balance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I support mentioning Roe & Dobbs in the lead in one sentence (with citations)--something like "This is the first presidential election since Roe was overturned in Dobbs"--but discussions/maps of abortion in the United States should go below. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 21:52, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Should Chris Sununu be removed as possible independent candidate?

In the list of potential independent candidates (whose names had been mentioned within a 6-month period as possibly running); New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu is mentioned as a possibility. Since in the past week and a half Sununu has endorsed Donald Trump's candidacy, would it be advisable to comment him out as a possible candidate? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

RFK JR info box in states

He should be in the info box in Nevada New Hampshire and Hawaii because he will get many votes there but in states where he is not yet on the ballot his info box shouldn’t be there 2600:8801:1187:7F00:7DE0:F5D6:A81D:81DD (talk) 09:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

We do not list someone in the infobox merely because they are on the ballot (many tertiary candidates besides RFK will be on the ballot), and we will not predict how many votes someone will get. The standard for infobox access in the states is still up for discussion. I would offer as a starting point for discussion: 1) name is on the ballot (no write-ins) and 2) has polled above 15% in polls of that state from three different pollsters. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The standard should remain 5% in polling, and as such Kennedy Jr. should be still be included in Nevada and New Hampshire. Hawaii is a complicated case since we have no polls listed; I would not include Kennedy pending the decision of the RfC above, since we would then have to include every candidate with ballot access. However, if he's included in the nationwide page, we can include him in Hawaii (and any other state where he has access) without polling. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 22:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The 5% standard is for votes, not polls. There's fairly clear consensus that the tally should be higher for polling, just not how much. Separately, I'm not finding any reliable source indicating ballot access outside of Utah (several articles just quote the campaign). I do agree that if he is on the national page, state polling is moot. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

"There's fairly clear consensus that the tally should be higher for polling, just not how much."

Could you point me to a discussion or record establishing that clear consensus? I have never once seen it followed on other election articles, although I regularly review dozens of them per week. Nor has it been controversial in the past to include such candidates in non-presidential articles, so it would appear from practice that the presumption favors their inclusion. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:12, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

I was responding to someone saying "The standard should remain 5% in polling" which has been rejected several times on this page alone. Several users (Esolo5002, Vuvietanh6204, JUBJUBBB, and myself, without looking too hard) have expressed openness to using poll numbers at a higher level, often in conjunction with another qualifier (like ballot access). Others would accept 5% along with some other qualifier. Perhaps higher "standard" rather than "tally" would be better phrasing. In any case, in my reading of the opinions expressed on this page access to the ballot and 5% is not going to be enough. As to the behavior on non-presidential pages, I cannot speak. It has been addressed in prior US Presidential articles, which is more relevant to this discussion. I would raise the same objection to a third party candidate for governor sitting 30 points back from 2nd place being in the infobox and note that we do not even have actual spoilers from 2000 and 2020 in the infobox, so I don't see why we would list aspirational ones. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:04, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're still responding to the same user. It seems clear there isn't consensus that agrees with you and in fact, in the above RfC, 1a (5% in polling) clearly leads 1b (10%) and 1c (15%). (By your own standard, if there were an infobox of this RfC, only 1a would be included.) One of the users you've cited even voted for 5%.

If someone agrees with you who hasn't contributed, I suggest you inform them so they can be heard on the merits. Until they make such a case, the existence of an overwhelming and rarely disputed practice on elections articles should govern as consensus. (I don't even think this has come up as a possibility in any presidential election since Wikipedia was founded, except 2016, so I don't see how limiting the discussion to presidential elections helps your case. It's simply an admission that you're arguing with one case, which you still haven't actually cited to, against thousands.)

As to why we include candidates who are (in your opinion) "aspirational" but have still met a minimal polling threshold, this is because an infobox's purpose is to summarize the subject of the article, not merely list candidates who (in the opinion of the most recent editor) "could win." This is why we list losing candidates after the election even though they have objectively no chance of winning, and in many cases they never did. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 01:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree with your assessment of the RfC. I think the consensus there strongly supports ballot access (6) in addition to polling. I want you to consider for a moment the practical implications of this. Even if RFK actually meets criteria 6 (a huge if at this point), it would not be until late August. At that point, the conventions will have occurred. His poll numbers likely will have dropped, or those who suggested his polling strength was based on disengagement early in the cycle will be proved wrong. It entirely changes the framework of this conversation to say "we are punting the discussion to August." Now, when August actually comes, and RFK has dropped from 15 to 5 and is claiming "ballot access" by way of "write-in" in 35 states, I will predict that most of the editors here will say "no, no, no; that's not what we meant" and RFK sycophants will cry "BIAS! BIAS!" Which is why I think its dumb to try to weigh consensus now, when we're bound to revisit down the road. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Why shouldn’t write-in access count as ballot access..? Biden won as a write-in in New Hampshire, so it’s not like it’s impossible to win via that route. The 270 threshold was supported by many because a candidate would have a theoretical chance of winning the presidency; you can theoretically win the presidency through a mix of ballot access and write-in access. Prcc27 (talk) 13:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this conversation is getting into much of a conflation of my personal opinion vs. my estimation of what the consensus is now and what it may be in certain future hypothetical situations. *I* believe that ballot access is not about having a theoretical chance of winning, but demonstrating that the campaign is serious by clearing a high hurdle. Write-in access completely removes this hurdle, and thus is not a measure of the seriousness of the campaign. I am guessing that the substantial number of people suggesting ballot access as a metric feel at least similar to this. I don't think most people are saying "we need to see if he has a theoretical chance" because I think most people understand that he does not, and that is not what we are deciding. I could be wrong about that! We will see. But my point is every time we try to approach this question as a hypothetical, you're going to be getting people interpreting it differently. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Also as to "why shouldn’t write-in access count as ballot access?": As our article on the subject notes, "Ballot access are rules and procedures regulating the right to candidacy, the conditions under which a candidate, political party, or ballot measure is entitled to appear on voters' ballots" (emphasis mine). There is an explicitly distinction between the two, even a section called "Write-in status versus ballot access" which notes, "The US Supreme Court has noted that write-in status is not a substitute for being on the ballot." GreatCaesarsGhost 14:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

You’ve mistaken which discussion you’re in here; option 6 (which I voted for) is irrelevant here, because we’re specifically discussing adding RFK to states where he already has ballot access, as was done for Evan McMullin in Utah in 2016. You’ve made no case against adding RFK to New Hampshire and Nevada. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I am okay with adding him to state infoboxes, as long as we can verify that he is on the ballot in those states, and he needs to be consistently polling at least 5%-10%; we should use aggregates if available. Prcc27 (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You brought up the national RfC in your first comment! I'm going to have to check out of this conversation; it is not advancing understanding on the subject for anyone. I'll will augment my original opinion on the subject to "name on the ballot and polling above 10% in most recent polls of that state from three different pollsters OR name on the ballot and listed on the national infobox." GreatCaesarsGhost 23:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I brought up the national RfC because it is the only thing approaching a consensus in the vicinity, and you offered none to support your own position. I think we are okay to go ahead adding Kennedy to the state infoboxes where he is on the ballot, since you expressed no clear objection. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

As no other's have weighed in here, I would concur to adopting the national consensus of 5% and name on the ballot. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with the 5% floor and having Kennedy's name on the state ballot. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Add

Cornell West should be added. Roadtruck (talk) 19:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Where? Lukt64 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Cornel West is located in the third party candidate section if you want to find him. Longestview (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Biden's presumptive VP nominee

Biden in ads has confirmed that Kamala Harris will be his running mate again (As he still uses the BIDENHARRIS campaign motto) Please remove the (presumptive) tag under Harris's name in the infobox 2600:6C4E:12F0:94B0:40D8:A666:970:B06F (talk) 04:47, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. That word belongs there for now because the convention has not happened yet. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Harris is still presumptive in the same sense that Biden is still presumptive. Neither has been officially nominated. AmericanBaath (talk) 20:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Chart request

Now that the major candidates are unambigious, could someone make a graphical representation of the polling data for Biden, Trump, Kennedy, and "other" candidates? RealClearPolitics has polls we should use. Roadtruck (talk) 15:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

If graphs could be used on wikipedia rn, it would already be there. Lukt64 (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

There is, except due to a security vulnerability they have been disabled. Qutlooker (talk) 23:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

The German election page has a graphic. Wouldn't that version work? Roadtruck (talk) 19:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

German Wikipedia has different rules than English Wikipedia. They also use different frameworks also. Qutlooker (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Map

Hello, y'all; I have an excellent idea on how to improve this (and every other US Presidential Election) article: a new map style. Surely, this won't be a can of snakes...right? Frankly, I have no right to comment about the textual content of these articles, but I do make maps, meaning I feel somewhat obliged to give my two cents. The current map style for the Presidential election infoboxes is lacking. This opinion isn't just me rambling. I've seen plenty of other people in a few online places discussing improvements to them. The current maps are the bare minimum, but they pale in comparison to other national electoral maps on other Wiki pages. Currently, the only information they convey is the color of the winning state and its electoral votes. It is perfectly suitable, but there should be more. In my expertise, the infobox maps should contain, in summation, the entirety of an election. The current simple maps aren't bad, but they don't tell the reader much. I've made a proposal sample of what these maps should look like. They include the name of the candidates, the share of the vote, the count of electors, the states shaded by the margin, (as a bonus) clearly defined ME and NE congressional districts to display those results, and either a pie chart showing the turnout, vote share, elector share, or a bar graph showing the difference in electors shaded by state margin, or both. I prefer both, but only one might be necessary. In short, this one map should help a person understand the entire election and results, not the current five maps for just state results. If anything else, I think it's worthwhile starting a discussion over what we include in the infoboxes and the sort of maps we display. Countless people read these articles, and conveying vital information is an important task to which we ought to give high priority. Please, if you have questions, comments, concerns, or suggestions, I'm all ears. Map: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:US_Presidential_Infobox_Map_Template_P(roposal).svg Talleyrand6 (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• I love it. Lostfan333 (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks! Certainly there could be improvements too. I might do a 2nd draft. This took me like an hour on a weekday night. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• Agree that the shading is a good idea, but I don't think the pie chart is – it is far too small to read even when opening as a standalone map, let alone when it will be shown at 300px in size. I think it would also be better to have the key in the caption section (where it would be legible) rather than also being unreadably small (2021 Ugandan general election is a good example of how to make a key legible IMO). And I disagree with the notion that infobox maps should be a summation of the entirety of the election – they are not meant to be standalone images – that might be the case if all we had at the top of the article was a map, but they are shown in the infobox alongside the numeric information, so trying to summarise everything in the map means there is duplication (and in a way that isn't really helpful because most of it is too small). Worth noting a discussion at WT:E&R last year on the issue of bar charts/pie charts in map sections. Number 57 21:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  See, I think something that can be a one-stop-shop for a basic overview for an election has value. Why have three or four maps displaying basically the same info when you can have one. The Brazilian Presidential maps are a great example of this, or what about this Irish Referendum map showing a wonderful example of simplicity and depth of information. I could point to various other such maps currently in use, why can't the US have such wonderful maps as well? I think the US infobox maps do need some extra detail just to begin with. My proposal doesn't need to be accepted, it's there to stir up discussion. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:18, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  It might be good for use elsewhere, but I just think not in the infobox. With the limited space available, the majority of pie charts/bar charts/keys are rendered meaningless by being illegible. Number 57 22:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  And yet plenty of election pages are perfectly fine-nay improved- by the inclusion of a higher quality map. There are ways to convey a lot of information in clear ways which frankly disprove this point about illegibility. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  So how would you make the key and pie chart legible at the scale it is in the infobox?

  Also, it's not really very nice of you to post screenshots of this discussion on your Twitter account (nor to refer to other editors as stupid, particularly given you've been unblocked with a zero tolerance warning for personal attacks). It was borderline canvassing posting the fact that you'd started the discussion in the first place. Number 57 22:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again my point is that map makers (especially the ones who've been doing this much longer than I) generally know what they're doing and I'm appealing to their work, but also to an idea that we should strive for better, right? There are some wonderful high quality detailed maps which do a good job representing relevant data without detracting from the article. That's all we want for the US elections. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Absolutely the higher the quality the better, but illegible things are not high quality IMO. I would say the Ugandan map is high quality because breaks down the result to quite a good level but leaves the key to be added to the article in a way where readers can actually read it. Number 57 22:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Again, quite rude saying this are 'illegible' without properly explaining yourself and ignoring the readily available examples which disprove your point. Much ruder than anyone calling an opinion stupid Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:55, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  As below, I think you are misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying it is illegible because it is badly designed. It is illegible because the size at which it is displayed in the infobox means the text/numbers are too small to read. The numbers on the states are large enough to read. The others (e.g. on the key in the bottom right-hand corner) or above the pie chart) are not. Number 57 23:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly it's condescending to think the general audience can't understand the better maps. There are real people I know who honestly prefer the higher quality work. Wikipedia is a few encyclopedia and I think it's a sign of respect for this website when people sink hours into one of these maps because they want to provide the best experience for people. It's a service they provide on their own time often without much praise, creating these projects for the sake of others. Talleyrand6 (talk) 22:53, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Based on your response, I'm not sure you are understanding my point. I am not saying readers cannot understand your map. My issue is that readers cannot read some of the things on your map because the size at which it will be displayed in the infobox means it is impossible to see certain details, rendering them meaningless. Anyway, I've given my view on the matter, so happy to sit back and see what others think. Number 57 22:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  They could always, y'know, left click on the image and open up the preview? Very common thing to do, even on simple graphics. Talleyrand6 (talk) 23:01, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  They could, but the question is whether they should have to. Personally I don't think readers should be presented with an image they cannot actually read without having to click through to. I'm guessing this will be the crux of this discussion. Number 57 23:03, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that just isn't a convincing argument. I cant comment for other wiki communities but elections wiki is already stuffed full of images that usually require the viewer to open them to see the details. Even on the 2020 US Pres election, for example, pretty much all of those graphics are easier to read once expanded. Like a lot of people read wiki on laptops or phones, not massive monitors. If anything with a map you want to zoom in to see detailed areas. Like with other forms of art, close up viewing to see the details is where the beauty of that work is revealed, not the quick glance at a distance. Talleyrand6 (talk) 23:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

• I think the standard map is fine as is. While I agree shaded maps are good on elections like France's, which are determined by a cumulative popular vote, the popular margin in each state is irrelevant to determining the winner of the presidential election. It's superfluous information and can be kept in the maps section of the article. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

  I agree that we should keep it simple for the infobox, and get more detailed in the actual article. The infobox is supposed to be a snapshot of the results. The proposed map seems like it would be hard to update on election night. Also, I already proposed that on election night, we use lighter shades for states where a majority of major media outlets make a projection, and darker shades for states with unanimous projections from the media. Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  Strongly agree with this comment. I'm not a fan of the color shading, particularly in U.S. elections where the vote share is irrelevant. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 06:35, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump's legal issues should be included in the campaign issues section

I have nothing much to add to that other than the title. Both presumptive nominees and major parties have made Trump's legal issues a major focus of the campaign, and they should be included if the article is to be complete 198.7.223.238 (talk) 15:46, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Remove "potential" issues from the lead

Issues shouldn't be in the lead until the election. It goes against WP: PRECEDENT in other articles, violates WP: CRYSTAL, and doesn't inform the reader, as many of these topics are prominent in every election year.

It should be removed for now. KlayCax (talk) 16:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

• Disagree that issues shouldn't be in the lead until the election. Issues emerge during the campaign, not on election day. The issues are known, well-documented and well-cited. The current presentation gives them the prominence of the lede without giving any particular issue to much weight. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Issues are a Campaign thing, not an Election thing. Qutlooker (talk) 19:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

State infobox order

Which candidate gets listed first as “candidate 1” in the state infoboxes? The current incumbent, or the candidate from the party that won the state in 2020? This is a unique rematch election, so seems even more bizarre to have Biden listed first in say Alabama, when Trump (not even some other Republican) won it in 2020. Prcc27 (talk) 03:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Last week, I changed to order based on the party that won the state in 2020, since that made more sense to me and for some reason though it was the norm. Then, I checked a few articles on previous presidential elections and saw that it wasn't the norm, so I stopped caring about it. I still prefer the edits I made, but don't feel strongly either way. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:18, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

The incumbent party is listed first. While is does appear odd to see President Biden listed first in a state such as Alabama. His party currently holds the presidency. Going back to 2020 you can see in the history then President Trump was listed first in Virginia. You can also see this in the 2022 Maryland gubernatorial election. Delegate Cox was listed first despite Governor Hogan being term limited. His party still held the incumbency going into the election. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the more interesting question, which we should get out in front of, is who will go second when Kennedy is inevitably added to some of these. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 20:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The former president would still be listed second. While Mr. Kennedy would be listed third. Third parties and independents follow the two major parties in alphabetical order by last name. At least, that is how it was decided to be in the 2018 Illinois gubernatorial election where both the Conservative Party and Libertarian Party nominees were polling above the 5% average. Despite the Conservative Party's nominee, Senator McCann, polling higher in the average than the Libertarian nominee, Kash Jackson, Mr. Jackson was placed first since J comes before M. Of course, that became irrelevant after the election since both failed to crack 5% of the vote. -ThisUserIsTaken (talk) 00:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request: "engages in promotion of conspiracy theories"

Why not just say "promotes conspiracy theories"? The current version is slightly difficult to read Woozybydefault (talk) 00:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I went ahead and changed the nominalization. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2024 (UTC)