Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Michelle Obama

Hello.

I found the following highly relevant information, and would greatly appreciate if it can be incorporated into the article in an appropriately structured manner. Thanks in advance for any help.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll among 892 registered voters released on July 2, 2024, Michelle Obama was the only listed Democrat option who would defeat Trump in a confrontation, with 50% of the votes for Obama versus 39% for Trump. 55% of the voters also had a favourable view of Obama versus 42% toward Trump.

References

David A (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Until she declares her candidacy, this would be totally irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

If she is the only available major candidate who would conclusively beat Trump, I think that it seems very relevant for the public to be made aware of. Of course, the poll in question did not ask about Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but nevertheless. David A (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are many candidates like that. But they just haven’t declared candidacy. Qutlooker (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

There are? Can you provide any examples please? David A (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly WP:UNDUE. Michelle Obama is not receiving significant speculation of running. Even if she was, Biden has already said he is not dropping out of the race. Prcc27 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Obama herself has said she is not running for office at all BlackBeauty42! (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

• These results of polling are not so much about Michelle Obama as about the chances of the Democratic Party, and the overall situation in the election. Therefore, such info is relevant and interesting for a casual reader like myself. That's why it was widely published in media at the first place. I think this is OK to include. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I’m not seeing a consensus here for the trivia about Michelle Obama to be included. The onus is on those seeking to include it to get consensus per WP:ONUS. The paragraph in question should be removed; David A should not have re-added their BOLD edit. Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought that we should finish our discussion here first, before removing the information, but maybe I am mistaken. David A (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

I have now undone my revert, but ask all opposed to this to please reconsider, as this seems extremely relevant for a clear perspective regarding the currently only known way that Trump can be defeated. David A (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn’t really concerned with “what if” scenarios (please see WP:CRYSTAL). Biden is going to be the nominee, as long as he wants the nomination. If he does step aside, I can guarantee you Michelle Obama will not be his replacement. The information you seek to include in the article is irrelevant. Prcc27 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

It is relevant, but potentially undue. Indeed, one needs a WP:Consensus for inclusion. I am not sure if we have one here. She could be a fantastic president, maybe better than anyone, but she said she has no such ambitions on several occasions. Unfortunately. My very best wishes (talk)

WP:UNDUE is certainly the issue here. The article is already long, and we don't want it to become unwieldy. There are many facts that are in this vein that are tangential and could be mentioned if readability was not a concern. Also, there is an almost universal phenomenon in polling where approval is higher when someone is not actually running. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. That is very unfortunate. I had hoped that we might have some positive impact here.

Btw: I love your Superman-referencing (or rather Perry White-referencing) username. David A (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Given that Biden has dropped out, and Michelle is the only known Democratic nominee who would overwhelmingly beat Trump, is it fine if we include this information now? I think that it might do a lot of good for western democracy. Also, Barack Obama has not endorsed Kamala Harris yet. David A (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nicole Shanahan Portrait?

Is there a usable Nicole Shanahan Portrait that can be used for the VP spot in the Candidate box for the Kennedy-Shanahan ticket? 216.163.7.201 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I've looked. Haven't found anything with the right license yet. TheSavageNorwegian 20:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Thesavagenorwegian okay

btw, I posted as the IP because I forgot to login Buildershed (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, someone please upload a licensed picture of her ASAP. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Shouldn't we add Kennedy/Shanahan to the main infobox?

Kennedy has emerged as one of the highest polling independent candidates since Perot and he has a very reasonable chance of getting a good percentage of the vote. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put him on the main infobox due to this? Sendbobspicspls (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I have long resisted attempts to add RFK to the infobox prematurely. My key arguments were a) ballot access is hard and should not be assumed, and b) early polls are not indicative because most people are not engaged in the race. The passage of time and recent events (the debate, the shooting, and the RNC) have changed the latter; we are now in the true campaign stage. None of these events have caused his number to recede further from the floor of 8% he hit in March. He now has access to 9 states and 99 EVs[1], including 3 purple states (MI, FL, & NC) where he's polling at more than double the 2020 margin. His claims to additional states (a total of 390 EVs, including purple states like PA, NV, GA and TX) are also now more credible in light of those certified. We have already agreed to add him if he is at 5% when BA hits 270, but that standard was just a way of saying "still relevant when the campaign starts in earnest." In any case, he will get to 270 and he'll be well above 5% when he does it. I think the time to add has come. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy now has ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots. (Which you can see on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.

• California (through American Independent Party)
• Florida (through Reform Party of the United States of America)
• Utah
• Arizona
• Colorado (through state Libertarian party)
• New Mexico
• Mississippi (through state Reform Party)
• Texas (Certified by counties. Hasn't been certified by state yet officially. Seems de facto, however.)
• Georgia (through both signatures and a fusion ticket of third-parties; but challenged.)
• Iowa (through fusion ticket of third-parties)
• South Carolina (through Alliance Party nomination)
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Delaware (through Independent Party of Delaware)
• Michigan (through Natural Law Party)
• Indiana
• Minnesota

He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait". But he has 270 (or slightly less) at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria.

It's over. He has the ballot access and polling numbers. KlayCax (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy is not on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, so it is mathematically impossible for him to win the presidency.

• RFC for infobox requirements
• Kennedy ballot status

LV ^{✉ ✎} 13:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Longestview I'd like to propose that they be an exception to the ballot access portion. Not out of bias but out of practice.

The campaign has been reported to submit double to even quadruple the amount of signatures necessary in states to gain ballot access and this has so far worked.

While I understand WP:CRYSTAL, it seems extremely unlikely he doesn't reach the ballot threshold by the middle of next month, especially September.

He's already totaling almost 400, turn-ins, nominations, certifications included, even if one or two petitions are somehow rejected, the others are extremely likely to get him there.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4689340-rfk-jr-new-york-robert-f-kennedy-jr-donald-trump-joe-biden/

https://tennesseelookout.com/briefs/independent-presidential-candidate-robert-kennedy-jr-submits-tennessee-ballot-petitions/

if you need more examples, I'll provide them Buildershed (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not believe this is a case of WP:IAR. The consensus is clear that it would be premature to add RFKJR to the infobox at this time. Prcc27 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

"Totaling almost 400" what? Accessible electoral votes? That isn't accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu I didn't say accessible now, I said WILL be accessible by mid August or September.

Like I said, I know about WP:CRYSTAL but an exception maybe granted in an additional RFC potentially. Buildershed (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

No. We do not need an additional RfC. We already had an RfC, and multiple attempts afterwards to add RFKJR have failed. It is a waste of time. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the definition of WP:DEADHORSE. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. and Cornel West ticket tables

I propose removing the part of RFK Jr. and Cornel West ticket table header, the "title" of the ticket table, that state that they are in the ballot in some states under their self-created party because they are mostly known as independent candidates and they are in the ballot in other states under different parties, so it would be unfair to only include their self-created party but not other parties Punker85 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm okay with this. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Republican nominee photos

The current photos look a bit mismatched (one candid and one official); how about these published last month? They were taken at different events, but I think they complement each other better. GhulamIslam (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we shouldn't use Vance's official portrait whereas Trump's portrait isn't used. I think it should either be all or nothing (we use both official portraits or we use two candid pictures). I'm personally in favor of using both official portraits. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's official portrait is pretty out of date, though. It's almost seven years old. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Hence why if we're not using Trump's portrait, we shouldn't use Vance's. I agree that it looks weird that one has an official portrait and not the other. The proposed Vance portrait above looks better as they do complement each other IMO. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I am okay with using Vance’s official portrait. Vance is a current elected official; Trump is not. Prcc27 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. There's no need for running mates to match when there is a mix of candids and portraits for the other candidates. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump Portrait

Why aren't we using Trump's official portrait, but still using Biden's? A consistent choice needs to be made (Aricmfergie (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

A consistent choice has been made. We've had multiple discussions about the topic and have decided that a new picture of Trump that better reflects his current appearance is the best choice for the article. Should he win the election and receive a new Presidential portrait it is almost certain it will be changed to that new image. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

the 2020 election page uses his 2017 portrait. so does the 2016 page. same (plus 4 years) for Biden's portraits. But it's been almost 8 years since then. If Trump wins the election then his portrait will be updated to his 2025 Portrait GameCreepr (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Same with Biden or whatever Democrat is the nominee. Whoever wins will get their 2025 portrait in use. SDudley (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Fox News projections?

Should we consider using Fox News projections as one of our news sources we use to update the infobox and map in November? Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is not reliable with regard to politics. I would actually lean in support of using Fox News projections, if the Fox News Decision Desk was 100% free of influence from the network. But in 2020, the network did not allow their Decision Desk to call Nevada for Biden, even though they were ready to make the call. Yes, the Arizona call was bad and was part of the reason the network stepped in; but nevertheless, it is still concerning when a network does not allow their Decision Desk to operate independently. Consequently, I think we should not use Fox News projections when we update our infobox and map, albeit we should give due weight to their projections in the article and lead. Prcc27 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Yes Buildershed (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for possibly continuing to use the Fox News Decision Desk? Prcc27 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They're generally not reliable. But the Decision Desk has substantially more autonomy than, say, WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS so I'm leaning against removing it. (Albeit not entirely.) KlayCax (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to redo how we call states for the purposes of Wikipedia. A "conservative" (in terms of calls) source like Reuters or New York Times seems best. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Associated press is the most basic and longstanding trusted source. 172.58.160.73 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume there are a quantity of sources used? If Fox is unique in holding out for calling a state for Biden, we should absolutely ignore that and proceed. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2020, the criteria for adding a state to the infobox and map was to wait until all major media outlets make a projection for that state. If we adopt the same criteria in 2024 (although that is still TBD), I absolutely agree with you that we should add a state’s electoral votes with or without Fox News’s blessing. Even if we move forward with a less strict criteria, I still think many users and readers will take Fox projections with a grain of salt, so maybe the best course of action is to avoid Fox projections altogether? There are plenty of other networks Wikipedia can rely on for election projections. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone from the city with the proud history of having given Rupert Murdoch to the world, I can say that I trust his media outlets 100% with the football scores. I don't think he has ever let us down there. Beyond that, no. We should stick to policy and ignore anything Fox News say on the election. And before anyone asks, no, we don't want him back thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden drops out

https://x.com/joebiden/status/1815080881981190320

Could someone remove him from the infobox? CoryJosh (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Additionally, in the Democratic Party section, it has him and Harris as presumptive nominee Infobox. Removal should be quick! IEditPolitics (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No one knows who gonna be the Democratic nominee. Plz remove Harris from the info box !! 2600:1011:B07D:8492:9D15:5606:C546:C85B (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

 Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

No one knows who gonna be the Democratic nominee. Plz remove Harris from the info box !! 2600:1011:B07D:8492:9D15:5606:C546:C85B (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris has been removed from the infobox for the time being. I agree that we should wait until she's the presumptive nominee. :) KlayCax (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Has biden even released his delegates? Plutocow (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Gotta love how people are gung-ho to shove Biden into an infobox, but not Kennedy Jr. Lotta bias on Wikipedia it seems. Borifjiufchu (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

He was the presumptive nominee from a major party, and now he's not. Feel free to participate in the next discussion if/when RFK has majority EV ballot access. TheSavageNorwegian 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Gladly will. I remember the 2016 infobox wars, where people were just as pre-emptive. Biggest difference is that here people change the goalposts, but make every level of accommodity for presumptive nominees from major parties and keep finding ways to skew logic around write-in calculus. Borifjiufchu (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

People, please keep the Democratic nominee blank for now. This has never happened before and we do not have confirmation that Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee. Per WP:CRYSTAL, please be patient and not use the page to speculate about what probably will happen. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

UPDATE: Biden has endorsed Harris. We can include that, at least. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to piggyback on this: lots of editors will not be reading the talk page and editing out of turn. If you care enough to be here in the lean times, keep the main page clean and refer the rogue editors here with controversial edits. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah it is too early to include Harris in the infobox. She shouldn't be included until reliable sources refer to her as such. Gust Justice (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost and Gust Justice: I've taken the liberty of adding a note to the infobox. I await the day in which we can remove it and replace it with the presumptive nominee. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

When is the DNC? The article should say. Richard75 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Richard75: It will run from the 19th to the 22nd of August. BOTTO _(T•C) 22:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy on the 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.

---

Most sources consider him to be a major candidate, he is about to hit 270 electoral votes.

Lukt64 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

"Most sources" whom? Plutocow (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

For example, Zogby had him at 22% this month. Thats ross perot levels. Lukt64 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

He hasn't hit 270 possible electoral votes though. When that happens then you can bring it up again TheFellaVB (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Expect it very soon. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Stop bringing this up until he does. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Can we hat this already? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:54, 21 July 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.

Brent Peterson

Where is Brent Peterson? He is Running as a Third party candidate

Evan F (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware of this or at the very least I hope you are but Brent Peterson is not on the ballot in any state, nor has he filled any FEC forms in order to be a candidate. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Awh man, i wish he was! 52Timer (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024 ==

Can we add that former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama has repeatedly refused to enter the race but beats Trump according to polls, and that media reports that senior Democrats and donors have asked Obama to step in? The media shows Obama at 50% against Trump at 39% [2], [3], [4]. Swintonswims (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Swintonswims (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk · contribs).

 Not done for now: This seems to be a duplicate of a similar request above. The general conclusion in that request was that inclusion of such a statement would be WP:UNDUE. Garsh (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump portrait changed

Once again, someone had changed Trump's image in the infobox despite the fact we decided that a more up to date image should be used of him. Would someone be able to undo this change TheFellaVB (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I would, but I've already used up my 1RR for the day.

Maybe we should add a hidden note to dissuade future editors from changing it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have added hidden notes to the two pictures of Trump in this page Punker85 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP: UNDUE section surrounding January 6 and its aftermath

Over the past month or so there's been a massive addition to the "election interference" section talking about Trump's reaction to the 2020 presidential election and January 6. It has grown so much that it composed 1/4th of the article's total content by word count. (2,000 words - depending on how you count it - vs. the ~8,000 or so in the total article.) In total, it has more words given to it than, in total, the combined words given to the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Biden's withdrawal from the race, the 2024 Democratic nomination process, and more. Even worse: a majority of it simply reporting various variations of what came before. All of this could be condensed into this:

Current and former U.S. officials have stated that foreign interference in the 2024 election is likely. Three major factors cited were "America's deepening domestic political crises, the collapse of controversial attempts to control political speech on social media, and the rise of generative AI."[35] Donald Trump has made false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and has continued denying the election results as of June 2024.[36][37] Election security experts have warned that officials who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election may attempt to impede the voting process or refuse to certify the 2024 election results.[38] In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party has made false claims of massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants in an attempt to delegitimize the election if Trump loses.[39][40][41] The claims have been made as part of a larger election denial movement in the United States.

In simply 148 words. It's the definition of WP: UNDUE, in my opinion, as this article is about the 2024 presidential election, not speculation of what might happen in it.

Even purely symbolic elections in authoritarian regimes do not go into this much detail. Tagging @BootsED:. In my view all of this is absolutely an obvious violation of Wikipedia norms surrounding political articles.

I'm fine with perhaps a longer version of the section. Yet it's indisputable that the other is an absolute mess that under no circumstance should be in the article. KlayCax (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Polling has also been inconsistent in whether Democrats or Republicans favor political violence more. Using a single poll, that asked whether "patriots" (red flag) could be violent in X circumstances, could easily bias it against the Republicans.

(As "patriot" could easily be coded to be a right-wing position.) I'm going to be honest, and state that the entire section comes across as an editor trying to convince users to vote for a certain way. It's at least WP: UNDUE; probably WP: NPOV as well.

Open to alternative suggestions than that above. But this article is already long enough to the point where it's breaking for some users. KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely opposed to removing mention of January 6th. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not that, @Prcc27:. It's that the text is 1/4 to 1/3th of the article. That's clearly WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

If anything, I would add a sentence or two more about January 6th and remove the entire “Republican efforts to disrupt election” section (or at least condense it down to a few sentences). Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with some flexibility, or even another sentence or two about it, but it needs trimmed either way. KlayCax (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So there's a couple of points you raised. First, regarding the length of the section I do not think that these concerns are relevant in this instance, as the article is still well under Wikipedia's recommended size of articles. Likewise, a lot of content was recently removed from the page as Biden just dropped out of the election, so the election interference section taking up "1/4 of the page" concerns are a bit misleading and will likely be addressed as information on the new Democratic candidate is added, making the section take up less of the page in the coming days. I do think, however, that the "Republican efforts to disrupt election" subsection should be shortened and have some of its content moved to another page. I know previously there was pushback on creating a separate page for this as there was not enough information to warrant creating one, however, with the amount of RS that have discussed this, the creation of a page called Republican plans to contest the 2024 United States presidential election is likely warranted at this point.

Second, concerns about speculation are addressed by additional sources describing how that speculation has come to pass. For instance, the "Interference by foreign nations" subsection has three sources, two from the NYT and one from NBC News about how foreign nations have already begun using social media to influence the election. As other editors have stated, that section in particular is barely 120 words long. I intentionally did not add the political violence section until after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump to avoid "speculation" concerns.

However, I disagree with your assertion that the section is an "absolute mess" and in violation of NPOV. I am also confused if your NPOV complaint is merely related to the poll, or on the whole section in general. You have added in NPOV templates to the entire election interference section and the political violence subsection, which makes me think your concerns with NPOV is related to the entire section and not just about the poll in question. BootsED (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not just the poll. But I'm just using it as an example of how the citations are either WP: UNDUE or being manipulated. Wanted to avoid a "too long, didn't read" scenario.

At best, it'll still be 1/6th of the article and be vastly longer than an assassination attempt, an unprecedented last-minute drop out, the ongoing 2024 Democratic primary, and other events.

The "interference by foreign nations" section is the least egregious but seems WP: TOOEARLY. Iran reportedly favored a Biden victory and attempted an assassination attempt. There's nothing wrong per se. Yet it seems clearly cherrypicked. I think it would be best to simply leave it to "expected interference" and then we'll see what happens.

The rest is assorted clippings of Republicans saying X or Y that are already conveyed by the previous sentences. It, as others stated above, needs drastically cut. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I recommend moving this into WP: DRAFT while seeing what happens after the election, @BootsED:. In the event of a Trump victory or landslide loss the article will almost certainly be non-notable and fail the 10 year test. Yet it's far too long on an article that is supposed to be primarily about the 2024 United States presidential election. This is a question of WP: WEIGHT and random sayings of X or Y official which speculation surrounding voter ID (for the reasons stated above) fails.

Does that work for you? Some of this could be transferred elsewhere. But we shouldn't have a substantial minority or majority of this article not even relate to the election itself. KlayCax (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

What in particular do you suggest moving into DRAFT? I support trimming the "Republican efforts to disrupt election" section to a few sentences and moving those sentences into the prior subsection. I think, however, the rest of the section is fine and is well-cited. If the poll is really bugging you that can easily be reworded to state what poll said that, or removed outright. I don't think the singular poll is a hill worth dying on. BootsED (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Much of the "Republican efforts to disrupt election" section is what I support moving to WP:DRAFT. If it becomes an issue: it can be reinstated. KlayCax (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It could also be split into a new article. If need be. KlayCax (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Cool. Once I get home from work I will make the changes if no one objects by then. BootsED (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I see Prcc27 went ahead and removed the section ahead of me. I also removed the poll as discussed earlier. BootsED (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Why have you marked the "Interference by foreign nations" section with {{very long}}? It's barely 120 words long. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

The quotations. But that part could be kept. I also think it's too early to summarize what way authoritarian countries are going to swing the election. Best if specific examples are left out until after. KlayCax (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Timing of dropping out

I believe Biden is the first incumbent to drop out after the primaries & before the convention. Perhaps that could be mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree this is a good piece of trivia to include Dkaloger (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Not*, per MOS:TRIV Qutlooker (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

MOS:TRIV explicitly states it’s only providing guidance on style - specifically, recommending against trivia lists. Including a single piece of trivia as part of the rest of the article’s prose is not contrary to the style guide AFAIK. John298 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Are there sources to back this claim? Is it WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

LBJ dropped out just at the beginning of the 1968 Democratic primaries, as did Truman at the beginning of the 1952 Democratic primaries. Indeed primaries only began in 1912 & didn't begin choosing the majority of the delegates, until 1972. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Referencing errors

The recent hasty deletions and incomplete reversions have left behind several referencing problems in this article. I think I've fixed them all, but I've only replaced those that generated undefined referencing errors. Were more references dropped when these edits were made? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Order of campaign issues

Leading campaign issues are expected to be abortion, border security and immigration, healthcare, education, the economy, foreign policy, LGBT rights, climate change, and democracy.

The order of this list of issues should either match opinion polling showing the general order votes say or at the very least be alphabetical. The currently listing is pseudo-random or at more than likely trying to push bias.

The economy is listed sixth here despite economic concerns being by far the #1 issue on voter's minds. NPR poll showing economy overwhelmingly the #1 issue, mirrored by every single other poll on the matter [5] Zaqwert (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have always wanted to see it in alphabetical order, but have been too lazy to make the change myself. Prcc27 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm alright with either, @Prcc27:. I lean towards the priority of voters. Yet it seems likely that many polls were differ on what they poll and how they phrase the question.

Wouldn't be surprised if we see substantial variance on what issues are considered to be the most important. KlayCax (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree on alphabetical order, will make the edit in a sec. It's how we order that section in the body of the article anyway. Maybe we think (for a clear example) the economy is more important than education, but it saves us having to get into spats ranking every single issue compared to each other on more marginal cases. Endwise (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There's been a lot of POV-pushing in this article, @Zaqwert:, unfortunately.

Substantive parts of the article seem written to convince the reader to vote for Biden (and now the generic Democratic candidate) rather than being a neutral recounting of policy. The present "election interference" section being the most egregious example of this. More words are given to it than a recount of the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Biden's withdrawal from the race, the 2024 Democratic nomination process, and more combined, while making statements not agreed upon in reliable sources.

This article is badly in need of a revision. Not only does it have substantial WP: DUE, WP: NPOV, and WP: ADVOCACY issues, its length is now breaking the page for many users. KlayCax (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Dire need for revision. Joecompan (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Joecompan:.

This sentence is also particularly egregious: "Polling has shown increases in Americans supporting the use of violence to achieve political outcomes, with such support greater among Republicans than independents and Democrats"

Based on this October 2023 article from Axios asking whether: "American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country" and then tries to tie it into the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.

The issues with this, needlessly to say, are quite obvious to me, someone who has never majored in economics, politics, history, or international relations.

• Opposition to the government while the opposite party in power is almost always raised. Therefore, one would expect questions like this to be naturally raised for the party outside the White House.
• "American patriots" is almost certainly codeworded in this context to mean "right-wing" Americans. It's not surprising that more Democrats would oppose something like this.
• Public Religion Research Institute is a decent (not on a Siena/NYT level but decently good) but increasingly left-leaning partisan polling institute. Unfortunately, they've become like Rasmussen by asking "leading questions" like the above.
• Implicitly, albeit but said, but it comes across to me as attempting to nudge the reader into believing that the assassination attempt was caused by Trump's words.
• Even if all of these, among other problems, didn't exist: it's still a single poll. And not only that: but it's WP: OR from that poll. Meaning that we're two to three chains of complicating factors for this to ever be put in Wikivoice.

The Marc Elias quote, like two of the present paragraphs, is just speculation that the Republicans will engage in "voter suppression" in order to win the election. I definitely think this is a valid contention 10 years ago. Yet now, due to the Republican base becoming far more racially diverse and far more working-class, there's substantial evidence to conclude that policies such as stricter Voter ID laws now actually help the Democratic Party due to partisan realignment.

A seasoned editor of the website knows better than this. Yes, the vast majority of this needs to be thrown in the garbage can of Wikipedia. I'm frequently accused of having a left-wing bias on here and this is absolutely horrendous writing.

Without getting into the other problems not listed in this... the other sentences in the sections in question are similarly problematic. (To say the least.) KlayCax (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When election articles surrounding Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Rwanda's Paul Kagame seem to have more of a "neutral" and "detached" position than this article...

...Something has gone horrendously wrong. KlayCax (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Literally every single poll on issues has shown the economy and inflation to be the leading issue. That needs to be mentioned first for due weight purposes. All of the other issues are subsidiary pursuant to the reliable sources cited.XavierGreen (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

LEAD

Why is the lead mentioning the conviction of Donald Trump? It seems misplaced and not relevant. 2604:2D80:4307:BE00:F0F1:DB4E:F325:2C5 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

One of the leading candidates for president is a convicted felon, that seems very relevant and unprecedented. Prcc27 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I would argue that it is a key fact that Trump is the first felon to be such a popular candidate, for better or worse. Mittzy (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024 (2)

Add a line or several lines to the lead along the lines of "Biden's withdrawal has resulted in the first Brokered convention since 1952". It's pretty noteworthy SVeach94 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC) SVeach94 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@SVeach94, after some research I have determined that this is false as a brokered convention occurs at the respective parties convention which is yet to occur.

 Not done --Joecompan (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.

This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here.

• California (through American Independent Party)
• Florida (through Reform Party of the United States of America)
• Utah
• Arizona
• Colorado (through state Libertarian party)
• New Mexico
• Mississippi (through state Reform Party)
• Texas (Certified by counties. Hasn't been certified by state yet officially. Seems de facto, however.)
• Georgia (through both signatures and a fusion ticket of third-parties; but challenged.)
• Iowa (through fusion ticket of third-parties)
• South Carolina (through Alliance Party nomination)
• North Carolina
• Tennessee
• Delaware (through Independent Party of Delaware)
• Michigan (through Natural Law Party)
• Indiana
• Minnesota
• Hawaii

He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.)

As @GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong.

For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @David O. Johnson:. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He doesn't.

The Arizona ref you linked says,

"Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval."

They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop? GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1

The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can something be done about KlayCax's recent edits? I believe their push for Kennedy and the constant RFCs have crossed over into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

I'm not sure where would be the best Wikipedia venue.

Any guidance would be appreciated. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I oppose adding Kennedy into the article, per the RFC, until he meets the qualifications specified within it. (270 electoral votes + 5% polling aggregate.) KlayCax (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

All I was pointing out is that we're close enough that it's only a week or two away. It's perfectly reasonable to note that. KlayCax (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Both of you please stop. Please act civil. Thank you. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you and @Lukt64: on him being added... but your post a few hours ago saying "Expect it very soon" comes across as baiting them. Didn't see it until now and didn't realize what I'd be dragged into. KlayCax (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It's definitely something that should be discussed now - so it's good timing, anyway - because I can easily see this spilling into another debate like last time.

The New York Times exempts third-party ballot access. (Such as in Florida) While most representations count that. Even if it's technically unofficial. Was this ever addressed by the RFC? KlayCax (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson WP:ANI is what you want. This user has been disruptive in the past but I haven't looked into their editing recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll let others weigh in first. I appreciate it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson I suggest a report at AE. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:AE is the link, if we go that route. Prcc27 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

After speaking to an admin who has warned KlayCax before for disruptive editing I have been told to do this... One Problem, I don't have those diffs so I don't currently have an open AE request. Qutlooker (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I already warned KlayCax at their talk page, and I think it is time to report their disruptive behavior to an administrator. @Doug Weller: mentioned that Arbitration Enforcement would be the next step if KlayCax continued to disrupt this article (and they have). I think a topic ban is warranted; maybe even a full permanent ban given their disruptions on many other articles as well. Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

The talk page discussion related to adding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the infobox without consensus. I absolutely haven't. GreatCaesarsGhost and many other editors have suggested that it is time to add him as he appears to have achieved or come very close to achieving the requirements of the RFC. This absolutely was not me overriding the RFC. Asking for feedback in the talk page is not disruptive. It's what we're supposed to be doing in a case like this, @Prcc27:.

In no regards is asking for feedback on the talk page disruptive. KlayCax (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

My perspective is that the multiple discussions seem disruptive, but I think you only started the one. I will say I am confused by the RfC part, but I assume it is this one. If so, then why not wait until RSs report that he has 270? (Currently, the Decision Desk HQ-The Hill tracker shows him at 99 confirmed and maybe up to 384.) Using CALC can be fine, but it seems like there are questions on if he made the ballot or not in multiple states. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Because reliable sources are counting the numbers in different ways, @Super Goku V:, with some listing him as almost getting 270 electoral votes and others not even giving him 90.

Several users misinterpreted what I was writing above and interpreted it to mean that I was going to add it into the article without consensus. That's not at all what I was doing. I wanted to make sure that all editors were on the same page before anyone added anything. Lostfan333 wrote "Expect it very soon", which I didn't see until now, and that appears to have stirred up a hornet's nest. The last discussion I made about the topic was two months ago - more than 60 days - and simply asking on the talk page is not "disruptive" and "nothere". (As I've written on dozens of articles on Wikipedia, greatly expanded articles, and made other contributions on here all since then.) And that's correct. I meant that RFC.

The only states I'm counting are:

• 1.) Nominated by a third-party with ballot access (Florida, Delaware, Michigan)
• 2.) Independent ballot access certified by the state in question. (North Carolina) Not merely ballot petitioned states.

GreatCaesarsGhost (who was strongly against adding Kennedy Jr. until the requirements were met) and others thought that the criteria by the RFC were almost met.

So this is certainly something that needs to be addressed before someone adds it in/removes it. Wouldn't have made the section if I knew what a mess this would turn into. KlayCax (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) I agree that their behaviour has crossed over into WP:DISRUPTIVE as well as WP:NOTHERE. GhulamIslam (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Lostfan333 and Lukt64 are not me and you're free to do a checkuser. KlayCax (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I myself haven't had a problem with your contributions, but you definitely should consult the talk page when making major changes. Otherwise, it's unilateral and is like buying a Lexus without consulting your partner. It looks like you've had contention with other editors & administrators for this on other pages, so now is a good time to sit & talk. BOTTO _(T•C) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Please stop blaming me for your disruptive edits. I only made one comment regarding the Kennedy Ballot situation and you're the one who's turned the whole thing into another argument. If you wanna save yourself from any bans, please just WAIT until Kennedy actually reaches 270 Electoral Votes, which yes, could be very soon. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Another user made a personal attack and they were trying to defend themselves from it. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Although I do not know how to make a request for it. A temporarily topic ban may be good for @KlayCax IF their edits are viewed as WP:DISRUPTIVE by an admin, then a topic block should be warranted. Qutlooker (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

TBC - Democratic Party

Good morning or afternoon depending when you are reading this,

I thought Biden endorsed Harris, his vice, as party nominee? It has been confirmed on his social media handles and CNN, or are you all waiting from another official confirmation?

Thanks for the hard work! SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He has endorsed her, but she's not officially the candidate yet – the DNC isn't for another month. — Czello ^(music) 07:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh okay, now I understand

Thank you once again. SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If in November 5 RFK get over 9% in the election while you guys add him in the infobox like Ross perot in 1992 and 1996 .

In 1996 Perot get over 8% of the vote in 1992 he performed better with 16% of the vote and he has his own infobox 5.122.91.198 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He will be added if he gets 5% or wins a state. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2024

2406:3003:2006:2F24:C402:D458:8A34:5C68 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When Biden dropped his reelection bid, he endorsed and gave it to Kamala Harris as Harris is now the candidate with top two selected vice presidents, Andy Beshear and Pete Buttigeg - which one of them will become an running mate for Harris.

 Not done: Harris is not the candidate yet. — Czello ^(music) 10:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris is the presumptive candidate but not official 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

PSL Reaching 270

According to the Claudia-Karina campaign, the Party for Socialism and Liberation has reached at least 270 total available electoral votes for their campaign, per a post on their Instagram page. 71.254.82.230 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting Harris in the infobox as presumed Democratic nominee

Harris has the endorsement of President Biden, and multiple big names in the party. On top of this, she has also secured pledged delegates, furthermore, nobody has challenged her and its unlikely they will.

I am aware some of these factors I have listed can change within a second, but I am proposing that if no challenge appears within the coming days, she is listed in the infobox as presumed nominee, just as Biden was before his withdrawal. Obviously feel free to give your input and start a discussion. Cheers. Aryan Persaud (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When the sources call her the presumptive nominee, then we can add her. Until then, the infobox would have to be blank. Maybe once a majority of delegates say they will vote for her, then we can add her? It will depend on how the sources handle the situation. Prcc27 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree with this. I understand the argument for including her, but it has to be supported by reliable sources. So far, the situation is still being seen as undecided, even if Harris is the clear favorite. Gust Justice (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It looks likely that it will be her, but we don't know that for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Majority of the delegates have just been secured 66.129.217.85 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The ap put something out

https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9 Char3290 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

She does have one challenger, a woman, can’t remember her name. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would wait until the convention, unless there is an actual public commitment made by a number of convention delegates sufficient to guarantee the nomination. Anything can still happen. BD2412 T 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you just expressed the two sides of this argument. We probably WILL see a public commitment of some kind, and there is a question of whether this group will accept it. I would just say we are in unprecedented times (for WP's lifespan), so no one should be invoking tangential precedence. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Aryan Persaud: Thank you for bringing this here - it's a great demonstration of collaboration & respect for consensus. Echoing what others have stated, while it may seem like this nomination is Kamala's to lose, we can't be for certain. There's still the possibility the DNC delegates will vote for somebody different altogether. BOTTO _(T•C) 18:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Best to wait for sources. For all we know, the delegates may vote for Biden, which they still can. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I would say give it at least a few days minimum and wait for sources to call her the presumptive nominee. If no one relevant enters the race by the end of the week (or publicly expresses interest in attending the convention as an on-the-floor option), than it'd be fair to call Kamala Harris the presumptive nominee. RickStrate2029 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, as many news organizations have called her the presumptive nominee. Rushtheeditor (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris Should Be Considered Presumptive Nominee WHEN the AP Delegate Tracker Shows Her Earning a Majority

Here is the link to the AP delegate support tracker. She should be considered the presumptive nominee when she inevitably surpasses the required 1,976 delegates needed. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ap-dnc-delegate-survey/ Trajan1 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The survey is an unofficial tally, as Democratic delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their choice when the party picks its new nominee. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nothing is ever official until the delegates actually vote. But if the AP indicates a majority of delegates will be voting for Harris, I think that is sufficient for declaring her the “presumptive nominee” (assuming the reliable sources also concur with that). Prcc27 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should call her the "presumptive" nominee until RS do. And the AP counter isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. If the delegates were polled two weeks ago, this is not the answer they would have given, and we can't say for sure this is the answer they would give two weeks from now. It's a good guess, but the situation is dynamic. We should at least wait long enough to see if anyone else challenges Harris for the nomination, and whether there is any reaction to that. BD2412 T 01:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't change the fact that she is the presumptive nominee, and that the pages have listed presumptive nominees before. Presumptive nominees have always been able to change and they have been included nevertheless. Pledged delegates are pledged delegates EpochPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Pledged delegates are pledged delegates" is meaningless here. There are no "pledged delegates" since they are pledged to Biden, and Biden has dropped out. As long as Biden was the nominee they were bound to vote for him in the first round. Now they are not bound to vote for anyone, even if they declare an intent at this point to do so. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we should say she's the presumptive nominee. Until there's anything to challenge that, for all intents and purposes, she's the presumptive nominee. That's what the media is calling her. I think we should follow suit, there's no point in pretending like we don't know when we all know who it's gonna be. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

AP Tracker has her over the top now, and are calling her presumptive https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share. That's sufficient for an RS in my opinion. WanukeX (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

“the Associated Press is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee”. Unless other sources decide to call Harris “presumptive”, she should stay out of the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, had missed that line. Yeah, WP:CRYSTAL. WanukeX (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's a Bloomberg article calling her the presumptive nominee [6]. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I now support including her in the infobox per Bloomberg and because it only makes sense that the person with a majority of delegates should be considered the “presumptive nominee”. Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

NYT now calling her the “de facto nominee” Dingers5Days (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Bloomberg is calling her now the presumptive candidate. Harris Crosses Delegate Threshold in Sign Nomination Is Hers - Bloomberg - Harris sealed her status as the presumptive nominee Monday night after crossing the magic number of 1,976 pledged delegates.

Since Bloomberg is another well reputable source per WP:RSN, this should satisfy it now to update it. Raladic (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - The delegates referenced in the sources mentioned here are unbound, unlike Biden (who had bound delegates) there can be no presumption that Kamala is the nominee until the voting actually occurs, because the delegates are free to vote however they please at the actual convention. For NPOV purposes, if Kamala is added at this juncture RFK Jr would have to be added as well since he has submitted more than 270 electors worth of ballot access petitions that are unchallenged and thus presumed to be valid at this juncture.XavierGreen (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Just to ask, since when did Biden have bound delegates? All he had were unpledged delegates to my understanding. (This sentence amended at 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC))

Additionally, while these delegates are unbounded, these delegates have made statements of support to Harris being the party's nominee. Enough of them have declared their support of Harris to reach the majority in a first round vote, which is why reliable sources have reported her as the presumptive nominee.

Furthermore, Kennedy has been discussed enough for an FAQ to be created. In short, Kennedy hasn't been said to have gotten to 270 in reliable sources yet. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Ah, but reliable sources clearly state that he has submitted petitions to enough states for well more than 270 delectors. Since he has submitted unchallenged petitions to over 270 electors, it can be presumed that he in fact has ballot access to at least 270. That is literally the same logical equivalent to including Kamala in the infobox at this juncture. All she has is a list of folks who said that they will vote for her, that doesn't actually translate into real votes until the voting actually occurs. To include Kamala but not RFK, Jr. at this juncture therefore leads to an NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a rehash of the other four discussions on here and it isn't the same. The Democratic Party is eligible for all 538 electoral votes. Kennedy is eligible for 99 electoral votes at the moment according to reliable sources. It isn't an NPOV violation to report that she is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and to say that Kennedy has not been announced to have secured eligibility for enough electoral votes. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Election 2024 updates: Harris secures enough delegates to become presumptive nominee - ABC News. They're calling her "presumptive", so should we. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose -Kamala has no bound delegates and shouldn't be added until after.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - particularly given VP Harris has just released a statement titled “Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for President”. By its very nature, being the ‘presumptive’ nominee indicates a formalisation which is yet to take place but it is essentially a foregone conclusion at this stage. The campaign is referring to her as the presumptive nominee, most of the media are referring to her as the presumptive nominee, and this page should too. Ted86 (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose - she is not the nominee either officially, nor presumptively as she has no bound delegates. Should be left blank until the DNC. Statements from the Harris campaign are self-proclamations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and just because some media outlets are calling her the presumptive nominee does not mean it reflects reality. User:WoodElf 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. we don't consider our own original thoughts. We report what reliable sources cite and we now have multiple very reliable sources that have said as much. The word wikt:en:presumptive means that it is Based on presumption or conjecture; inferred, likely, presumed, which is now supported by the polling of the delegates which have pledged their support for her. Raladic (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Should be left blank until the DNC. Definitely not. The roll call results should be completed by the August 7th deadline. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - According to multiple RS, Harris can now be considered the presumptive nominee. She should be referred in this article as the new presumptive nominee, but first and foremost the infobox must be updated so that the state of the race is visible. Pledged vs unpledged delegates are not relevant here as we evaluate RS. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - Enough reliable sources are calling her the presumptive nominee, so she should be added to the infobox. Potentially we could add a note stating the AP line that the "delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice" as a compromise. Rogl94 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support - Multiple reliable sources, including ABC News, Bloomberg, and New York magazine, recognize Harris as having become the presumptive nominee, due to her having gaining endorsement from the majority of delegates. Additionally, as mentioned above, Harris' campaign has itself issued a statement recognizing Harris as the presumptive nominee. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment - What is the point of the bounded/pledged versus unbounded/unpledged delegates anyways? Biden had unpledged delegates from the primaries and Harris has unpledged delegates from endorsements. What is the actual difference? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - Not one oppose has clarified why it was fine for Biden to appear in the infobox once he hit a majority of unbounded delegates from primaries, but not fine for Harris to be in the infobox when a majority of unbounded delegates endorsed her. Not one oppose has clarified why it is fine to ignore RSs saying she is the presumptive nominee. On July 20th, Biden had 3,896 unbounded delegates out of 3,949 that could vote in the first round for a percent of 98.7%. At the end of July 23rd, Harris has endorsements from 3,107 out of 3,949 first round votes for a percent of 78.7%. Do we really need to wait until she gets the endorsement of nearly all delegates to say she is the presumptive nominee? While I get that Rome wasn't built in a day, I do think it is odd that we are considering not following what a majority of reliable sources are doing and ignoring what a majority of delegates have said. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Support, most RSes are already referring to her as presumptive nominee. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support only because sources have begun to call her the presumptive nominee. Yeoutie (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: No true reliable way of saying "I think person X will become candidate" before they become a candidate. Donald Trump almost died while being listed as presumptive here, so let's avoid a potential repeat of that. Only add Kamela when she gets the nomination officially. We don't list presumptive Oscar winners, so we shouldn't do it for presidential nominees Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment: In the meantime time, can we avoid edit warring over the info box? Thanks. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support Per Raladic above, it seems the oppose votes are confused about what the term presumptive means. She is unquestionably the presumptive nominee. There are no other credible candidates even running. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the Associated Press is also confused about what the term means? Still, the AP is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee. That’s because the convention delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice[7] Endwise (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

100%, they most certainly are. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That one organization has chosen apply this meaning to their own reporting does not change the ordinarily understood dictionary definition of a term, nor its usage employed by everyone else. Please see our article on the subject. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oppose, the delegates are unbound (regardless of whether or not Harris receives state endorsements). The delegates are unbound until the convention. State parties could endorse Harris and then change their view upon the entry of another relevant candidate. Or, "draft" movements could spawn for candidates who are popular but don't wish to enter the race for the nomination. Calling Harris the presumptive nominee at any point would be ridiculous. RickStrate2029 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Support: Per the Associated Press, Harris now has enough pledged delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee. As the editor who first placed the in-line notation for waiting until we had clarity, I am on board with having her named in the infobox. Proceed. BOTTO _(T•C) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The delegates are unbound, they are free to vote for anyone.XavierGreen (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

And reliable sources say they will vote for Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Good thing we're saying "presumptive", then. BOTTO _(T•C) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Same with Biden, but we listed him. I don't see the difference here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Comment:

• New York Times uses "presumptive"
• Wall Street Journal uses "presumed"
• Washington Post uses "likely"
• ABC News uses "presumptive"
• NBC News doesn't use any term
• CBS News uses "likely"
• Associated Press says they're "not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee"

--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

• Support - as she's just announced that a majority of the delegates have pledged to vote for her. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose — A candidate is only presumptive when they have won a majority of delegates through primary elections. Biden's Democratic delegates are unbound. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's current potrait

The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg

He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression. GhulamIslam (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump June 2024.jpg

Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On Multiple States RFK is listed to be part of Multiple parties

Multiple states such as California, North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado and more have RFK listed as different parties such as The American Independent Party, Natural Law, which dissolved in 2004, We The people and more. Makhnoid (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Natural Law: [...] [T]he national headquarters of the Natural Law Party closed effective on April 30, 2004 [...] Entities using the name are still active in some states. [...] Only the Michigan and Mississippi Natural Law parties remained as ballot-qualified parties. As noted in a discussion above, Kennedy is the candidate for the Michigan Natural Law party. It also covers the other six or so parties that Kennedy is a candidate for. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh Ok thank for clarifying. Makhnoid (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Republican efforts to disrupt election"

Where did that section go? soibangla (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1RR reminder

Just an FYI, this article is under the WP:1RR restriction. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

restore Republican efforts to disrupt election

XavierGreen, you mentioned only one paragraph but removed three.

Please restore all the content. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1236136875 soibangla (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the activities of Republican county party officers is entirely undue there are literally thousands of counties and nearly all of them have a republican committee made up of multiple officers adding over 10,000 bytes prose on a minor topic without gaining any consensus to do so is also undue.XavierGreen (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

you mention only one element of a broader topic that encompasses several aspects, yet you remove the entire section. this is improper. restore all of it. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

If coverage of a topic is too lengthy, we truncated it. Removing it all together is highly inappropriate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That is two users who want the content restored, and I will add myself as a third pending discussion. Can you please restore it, XavierGreen? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's left-wing bias on abortion

On almost every page that I read on Wikipedia, abortion is framed as "abortion rights", while pro-life topics like personhood of an unborn child are minimized or absent. To me, this is clearly a bias from Wikipedia, and I notice this with many left-wing topics. It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media. If Wikipedia cares about balance, there should be two photos in this article, one for and one against abortion. Also, any politician talking about personhood or related topics should be properly cited, instead of using terms such as "against abortion rights" or "anti-women". It was easier when "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the common terms. In any event, please present the topic fairly. LABcrabs (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about neutrality, that doesn't mean that 2 opposing sides get to be evenly represented, that's an inherently flawed philosophy for which Wikipedia has rules with WP:GEVAL. A group of people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean we have to dedicate half of that article to that believe. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. None of the phrases you take issue with are on this page (and as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia unless that is specifically the topic of the article/section) so there is no point of raising this issue here in the first place. And just to be clear: none of these phrases are biased language either. Being anti-abortion is not a popular opinion and as such, Wikipedia reflects that. Your own word usage here already shows you have your own biases, which is fine, but that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. YannickFran (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia" I have been using the English language as a second language since I was 9 or 10-years-old, and I have English-language certifications from the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan. I have never heard of the term "anti-women", the term is misogyny or (for persons) misogynists. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false. Our article on the American abortion debate gives roughly equal weight to both sides. Note that about about half of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and half describe themselves as "pro-choice", and the vast majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion in some cases and not others. Endwise (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false." ...yes... that's what I said. Having said that, being "pro-choice" or against it isn't the same thing as being against abortion in general, and that divide is much broader, which the article you link also goes on to talk about. YannickFran (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You said we don't give equal weight to the "anti-abortion" viewpoint (because it is not a "popular opinion"), just as we don't give equal weight to flat Earthers. I was just saying that that's incorrect, because we typically do give equal weight to the anti-abortion viewpoint when the issue comes up in these contexts, unlike flat Earth. And I don't really know what you mean in your new comment being "against abortion in general"; most people who would be described as "anti-abortion" also support exceptions, for example for the health of the mother. Endwise (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

“Wikipedia cares about neutrality but we will admit straight up in the same sentence that we actually don’t care about neutrality” 2600:8801:1194:8D00:D98B:7EE7:88E1:DC98 (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality does not mean evenly representing all opinions, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is accurately reflecting the weight views and opinions are given in independent sources. — Czello ^(music) 09:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Well, it is referred to as abortion rights in reliable sources. And anyway, that's pretty neutral. You can agree or disagree on whether or not abortion should be a right. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we decided to go with the "abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion" movements, which I agree is neutral. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are biased towards their respective sides. None of that is in contravention with this article though so I see no issue. Endwise (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media." So Wikipedia is working as it should. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, and left-wing legacy media are reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I do think it is unnecessary to say “abortion rights” when we can use a more neutral term like “the abortion debate”. We absolutely should be using “pro-choice” and “pro-life”; those are the common terms. Finally, why only a pro-choice picture in the abortion section? Are there any images of protests in front of the SCOTUS building with both pro-choice and pro-life protesters? Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The language of "abortion rights" is kind of preposterous anyway since the idea of a right to an abortion in the U.S. was nullified by Dobbs. "Abortion rights" is activist language much like how "pro-life" was twisted into "anti-abortion" because it sounds harsher and more negative. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Pro-life is itself a euphemistic self-applied term. It only very tangentially relates to what this group advocates for, which is making/keeping abortion a criminal offense. "Anti-abortion" is a much more accurate description of the actual policy position. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't re-litigate the issue on this page if it has been subject to more robust discussion elsewhere, but I personally find "debate" to be a non-neutral. It implies a discussion or deliberation of facts, which does not apply here. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dimadick Last time I checked, no legacy media, including both left and right wing sources, are a reliable source of information. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

They are. See RSP with GREL for some of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree with User:GreatCaesarsGhost that this is too narrow a forum to address an issue of sitewide concern. With respect to "debate" perhaps the question to be addressed—in a more appropriate forum—is whether this should be called the "abortion rights debate". BD2412 T 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Nicole Shanahan, RFK's VP has been added to Wikipedia

I noticed that a picture of RFK Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan has been added to Wikipedia. You can then add it to the ticket under their campaign: [[File:Nicole Shanahan in March 2024.png]] Leikstjórinn (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I do not see any indication on the image source that it is actually under the claimed license. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's been the main issue; Shanahan images keep getting uploaded that don't meet Wikipedia standards. I'm certain one of them in the past did have a CC license... David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any creative commons licensing on that file, so I have proposed it for deletion as a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevada should be characterized as Grey/Gray on the Election Map

Nevada is a swing state, and giving it to democrats as a 50-55% (expected) is not true.

Source: https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

I couldn't find any sources for Kamala Harris, but it should be expected that it would be relatively similar or slightly beneficial to Democrats. Even with this taken into account it should still be characterized as a swing state.

108.20.37.25 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The legend indicates that the "shading of each state denotes the winner's two-party vote share, averaged between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections." It is not a rendering of any pundit's predictions for 2024. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

"Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860."

@RaySwifty18 "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860." You mean one full term right? Alexysun (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking

Theoretically speaking there is no way to know whether Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee, because she said she got enough delegates to agree to vote for her at the convention, but that's her own words. She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. So essentially Biden's old delegates don't need to vote for her, and there's no way to know if her own claims are fully true. Alexysun (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still an open nomination at the convention at the end of the day. Alexysun (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st. However, Ohio Democrats were pushing their party to pick a candidate sooner via a virtual roll call vote. That’s because Ohio voted to move the deadline for candidates to make the ballot from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1 to accommodate Democrats’ mid-August convention in Chicago. That law takes effect on Sept. 1. So the DNC will be doing a virtual roll call with all the delegates sometime in the next two weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

"But that's her own words" There are sources corroborating Harris' claims; media organizations have pages to track her delegates. Here's one from The Hill, for example: [8]. There are more that are sourced in the 2024 Democratic National Convention#Pre-convention delegate count subsection of that article, as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh interesting. Alexysun (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. How is that different from Biden? They were not locked in for him either. Biden could have won all 50 states and still have not gotten the nomination due to delegates voting for someone else. In both cases, the delegates are unpledged. So I am still baffled why this is a major issue for Harris, but didn't seem to be an issue for Biden.

Additionally, it isn't her claims. The delegates have made statements to endorse Harris that have added up to her having enough to win the first round vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

@Magical Golden Whip despite the presence of a comment right above the infobox asking for discussion to finish before adding a candidate to the infobox, you have decided to reinstate an edit that has been opposed twice now. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is currently 10-6 in favor. Why is the default to remove rather than add? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We are adding new content, so there needs to be a consensus around it being added if it is removed, as per the revert-discuss cycle. As opposed to digging in, edit warring and avoiding discussion altogether. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If you can find WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, you can scroll to the next section and read WP:NOTBURO. And perhaps take a gander at WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus of both editors on this page and the media and people living in reality is that she is the nominee. The only counter argument is that the AP has chosen not to update their priors to deal with an unprecedented situation. Their internal bureaucracy is making them look foolish. Luckily, we have policies in place to ignore bureaucracy when it threatens the quality of the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Trivial superlatives in the lede

We are continuing to see trivial superlatives added to the lede. The latest notes this is the first election since 1976 to not feature one of the members of three entirely distinct families. Biden appearing on a ballot is not connected to George Bush appearing on a ballot in any way, such that the absence of both is not worthy of note. Trivia in general does not belong in an encyclopedia. Superlatives are fine, but when you start adding multiple qualifiers, the relevance drops off very quickly. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)