Talk:2024 Democratic National Convention

Portraits

Shouldn't the official portraits for both Biden and Harris be used? Seems to be protocol to use the official portrait for the candidates if they are the incumbents. Last time it happened for the democrats was the 2012 Convention, and both Obama and Biden are featured in the article with their official portraits from back then. Same for Trump and Pence on the article for the 2020 RNC. LucasBitencourt (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. I am unsure of the context of the current photos used, and doing it the way you suggest would clarify this, especially as there is a precedent. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My reverts

I seriously thought vandalism was occurring. My bad. I will no longer revert. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden drops out

Not sure where to add this. But, I believe Biden is the first incumbent to drop out after the primaries & before the convention. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Brokered convention

Just posting here since I've had to change it twice now, but a convention is not brokered until the first vote fails to reach a majority. The convention is not yet brokered, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. It's bordering on undue to even bring the possibility up in the lead. TheSavageNorwegian 00:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not expected to be open and require multiple rounds of voting... whomever wrote that is simply wrong.. no one expects that. Also, saying "Manchin expects to become a candidate" is definitely CRYSTAL. Spanneraol (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris isn't the presumptive nominee and betting markets give a substantial probability to the chance that she isn't.

Most observers expect challengers. KlayCax (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

:That "open convention" article is pure speculation, not fact. No one is expecting multiple rounds of balloting and Machin is not expected to run. Spanneraol (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the "open convention" material as outdated and now WP:UNDUE; its sources are WP:CRYSTAL and all from July 21, one day before a majority of delegates rallied to Harris. New York Magazine and Axios now call her the "presumptive nominee", with only ABC quibbling. As of July 26, Harris has a >=95% chance of being nominated (per Polymarket). Jade Ten (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Williamson

@Spanneraol:, Williamson is a major candidate.

Looking at older version of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates article, you can see that she qualified as a major candidate, per Wikipedia's standards. [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A wikipedia article is not evidence that she is a "major" candidate.. the source next to her name even calls her a "long shot" candidate, and that was for the general. There are exactly ZERO reliable sources describing her as a major candidate. Spanneraol (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the second Marianne Williamson section in the archives: [2]. It was decided that she was a candidate as she met coverage in reliable sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

She was a candidate yes... but clearly not a major candidate as she never polled above single digits. And that was in relation to the primaries.. calling her "major" in this respect indicates she has an actual chance to get the nomination... no one is even talking about her and the only source listed is her personal twitter account. If she is getting no media coverage at all she is not a major candidate. Spanneraol (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That Williamson is receiving "No media coverage at all" is objectively false. She had an interview with ABC News yesterday. [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Presidential nomination section

@MrJRSmith and Glide08: I am confused by the line, In doing so, Biden freed the DNC delegates bound to him from their pledge to vote for his nomination, though it is unknown whether they are now free to vote for their desired candidate or have their pledge carried over to Harris.

To me, it seems already clear enough that they can vote for someone other than Harris without being a faithless delegate. But in any case, I don't get the "bound to him" part. Biden's delegates were not bound to him, which is why he didn't have to release them. Thus, I was wondering if there were objections from either of you to remove or alter the sentence. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The delegates are no linger pledged to Biden. Because this is an unprecedented situation, it's unknown whether Biden's withdrawal made the delegates unpledged or pledged to Biden's own endorsed replacement (which is Harris). Glide08 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the deal: Once he released his delegates, they became “Uncommitted.” They can technically vote for anyone they wish, however…

In practice, it’s a bit different. Since 1996, it’s been either anyone who’s been nominated or an abstention. In 2004, there was a near riot over Dennis Kucinich, when almost 50 delegates were forbidden to vote for him. (See the article on the matter)

Another 55 WERE allowed. I know, I was there.

In 2008 They cut the Roll Call short, infuriating the Hillary camp to no end. Four years later, The DNC made up some bullshit excuse to exclude four minor candidates who earned delegates in the primaries (the guy sitting in jail in West Virginia got something like 46%). I well remember the aftermath of the literal riot by Bernie Bros, where they totally trashed the press tent (I was there the following day and heard reports) in ‘16. Hillary had tried to do the same thing Obama did and the Bernie people threatened violence.

What the DNC rules committee will do is probably just have Kamela or abstentions. 64.18.11.14 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Massive edits and why i did them

The situation vis-à-vis this article, is thus:

The President’s withdrawal has led to a bifurcation of the Convention into two parts: The virtual one and the TV show. The former is the one that counts obviously, and we have an abbreviated process akin to what happened in the days of yore. This is as much a part of the convention process as the speeches and the balloons. I’m sorry about forgetting the proper procedure for moving a section. But this was totally good faith.

The chart should stay as it is until they announce the results next week. Wowizowie57 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviated campaign section

Would it read better if it was integrated into the other sections? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it should stay as its own section for now. The withdrawal and rallying of delegates to the VP is so remarkable that it should be given due weight with its own section, like the "Email leak" subsection or the "Superdelegate reform" section in the article for the 2016 convention, or like the Obama keynote section in the article for the 2004 convention. Jade Ten (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably be filled out as we get closer to the convention. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)