Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Candidate colors/gradients

I've reverted the colors of each candidate in the infobox to what I orignally put for them, the actual colors themselves I am not fussy about but I would suggest we use the best posible shadings to avoid shades colling similar from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals so in the future when county maps of the primary are done it's easy to create shadings for how much each candidate won each county by. Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

to add to this also, I've saved the red color shadings for the potential that DeSantis does run for the nomination, if he does not we can swap somebody else in for that color at a later date Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to update some of the colors using the hue subpage on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals/2023a all and have a list of hues below, I welcome all feedback on these so we can have a proper forward thinking agreement on which hues to use for candidates, the proposal I have put below draws inspiration from the 2016 GOP primary colors used

I've had a few questions about shading so I've updated my above text, originally when I first created these I thought using the 70-80% shade for everyone would be best as it'd be uniform but as we've gotten more candidates I realized that using different shadings is the best approach to this since it avoids candidate colours looking similar Matthew McMullin (talk) 03:42, 19 june 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've added potential colors for Chris Sununu & Tim Scott, should they eventually decline a run I'll remove them

Update 2: added Chris Christie colors should he run

Update 3: changed Chris Sununu to purple on request, also removed (should he run) from Tim Scott

Update 4: updated DeSantis name

Update 5: swapped Elder & scott colors, added Burgum

Update 6: removed Sununu

Update 7: added pence

Update 8: added Francis Suarez (should he run)

Donald Trump

Hex code	Percentage
#eef1fd	<30%
#dee3fb	30–40%
#b5bded	40–50%
#8d9ae2	50–60%
#6778d7	60–70%
#4156cd	70–80%
#3343a2	80–90%
#243179	>90%

Ron DeSantis

Hex code	Percentage
#fcebf0	<30%
#fad7e0	30–40%
#efa6b8	40–50%
#e7728f	50–60%
#dc3962	60–70%
#c81945	70–80%
#a8002a	80–90%
#7f0020	>90%

Nikki Haley

Hex code	Percentage
#fceee6	<30%
#fadecc	30–40%
#eab591	40–50%
#dd8c55	50–60%
#ce5e13	60–70%
#ba4f08	70–80%
#993d00	80–90%
#742e00	>90%

Asa Hutchinson

Hex code	Percentage
#feeffe	<30%
#fcdffc	30–40%
#efb6ef	40–50%
#e68ce6	50–60%
#dc63dc	60–70%
#cd39cd	70–80%
#a526a5	80–90%
#7b1b7b	>90%

Tim Scott

Hex code	Percentage
#ecf9f6	<30%
#d9f3ec	30–40%
#a9ddce	40–50%
#7cc9b3	50–60%
#4bb597	60–70%
#11a279	70–80%
#0e805f	80–90%
#095e46	>90%

Vivek Ramaswamy

Hex code	Percentage
#f9f2e0	<30%
#f3e5c0	30–40%
#dcc17b	40–50%
#c79e36	50–60%
#b17f00	60–70%
#9b6f00	70–80%
#7c5900	80–90%
#5e4300	>90%

Larry Elder

Hex code	Percentage
#eef6fd	<30%
#deedfb	30–40%
#b4d0ec	40–50%
#8db8e2	50–60%
#679fd7	60–70%
#4187cd	70–80%
#336aa2	80–90%
#244e79	>90%

Chris Christie

Hex code	Percentage
#ecf7e6	<30%
#d9efcc	30–40%
#aad691	40–50%
#7dbe57	50–60%
#54a625	60–70%
#348e00	70–80%
#297000	80–90%
#1e5300	>90%

Doug Burgum

Hex code	Percentage
#fceeeb	<30%
#faddd7	30–40%
#efb2a6	40–50%
#e78572	50–60%
#dc5439	60–70%
#c83619	70–80%
#a71c00	80–90%
#7f1500	>90%

Mike Pence

Hex code	Percentage
#f2fae0	<30%
#e5f4c1	30–40%
#c2de7c	40–50%
#a0c938	50–60%
#81b300	60–70%
#719d00	70–80%
#5b7e00	80–90%
#445f00	>90%

Francis X. Saurez

Hex code	Percentage
#FDF5ED	<30%
#FCECDD	30–40%
#EED0B2	40–50%
#E4B78A	50–60%
#DA9F64	60–70%
#D1873D	70–80%
#A56B30	80–90%
#7C4F21	>90%

Mike Rogers/John Bolton (should either run)

Hex code	Percentage
#FEE5E9	<30%
#FCE3E7	30–40%
#EFBEC7	40–50%
#E699A9	50–60%
#DA3877	60–70%
#A52657	70–80%
#8A1743	80–90%
#77153A	>90%

Matthew McMullin (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:72.183.119.220 I hope this is helpful to you, I've made Trumps color a very close match to his 2016/2020 color as you requested Matthew McMullin (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest maybe changing Sununu's color to something more distinct, as the current color is very close to Haley's. Maybe a violet/purple? QuailWatts (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

A lavender color would work very well, it fits the state flower of New Hampshire, the purple lilac. HurricaneKappa (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

will do, give me a couple minutes to find a decent color pallete Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I like the purple you've chosen for Sununu! HurricaneKappa (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Wait what was Sununu’s original color? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:24C8:2F05:A6D6:C1D7 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Great color you using for Doug 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

What about Mike Rogers? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Mike Rodgers would be a major candidate, he was only in congress and that was 10 years ago Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Also what about Francis X. Suarez? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

atm Suarez isn't a major candidate imo, unless he either gets a big media coverage session or a decent polling number Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I tried to use the lime color you wanted to use but that didn’t work so I tried to do a revision and it is still messed up WONKAKlD (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I would suggest using a pink magneta color for Mike Rogers WONKAKlD (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

mike rogers is not a major candidate so he will not be receiving a color Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Currently all candidates are different shades that vastly rade on shade, with ome having a 40-50 shade while others use the 70–80% shade, I feel this leads to the candidate's page feeling like a disorganized mess, with very few colors complimenting/balancing the others out. Thus, I'd like to open a discussion to change all candidates colors (barring trump) to a uniform shading. 2603:8080:4D01:6516:1941:3E6F:67D3:3754 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

the reason the candidate shades are different is to avoid colours clashing with each other so each candidates colour is easily recognizable Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I think all candidate colors should be same shade I suggest using 70-80 WONKAKlD (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Can you please change Doug’s color it is too similar to Haley’s and Ron’s maybe make it a toothpaste color like what they were originally using for Pence WONKAKlD (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

How about Pence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:103E:D:9361:AD05:2DC3:674A:9099 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just bumping this to stop the archive bot. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I plan to add a color for Pence once we get an expected formal launch time frame, currently he's still pending a decision but if he does in fact run I'll most likely use a lime green for him Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

What about Burgum? HurricaneKappa (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

personally I don't plan on adding a color palate for Burgum as I myself don't consider him to be a "major candidate". his potential best primary performance would be in North Dakota itself but ND doesn't have a GOP primary until June so I imagine he'll have dropped out by that stage. if he manages to get himself up to polling 5-10 in Iowa I might make one for him Matthew McMullin (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Could be just my eyes but I see Trump/Scott and DeSantis/Haley/Ramaswamy as closely matching colors. Given these are currently the top polling candidates, perhaps switching some to the more distinct purple & green would be a good idea, if the polling doesn't change of course. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Tim Scott has a genuine chance of winning some counties in South Carolina because he's their senator, which will make a county-vote-margin map really questionable if Trump and Scott are both winning in counties next to each other and they're both colored blue. My suggestion is that Tim Scott be colored a bright (as opposed to Trump's dark blue) turquoise or a bright orange. Trajan1 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I could swap scott and elders colors, would that be suitable for you? Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Tim Scott is gonna withdraw before the primaries WONKAKlD (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Burgum would qualify as a major candidate under the "current or previous holder of significant elected office" criterion, if he runs. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't really think the governor of North Dakota is a significant elected office, rarely is north dakota or bergum himself mentioned in mainstream news networks and the state of north dakota itself and the events which happen in it is rarely discussed nationally/internationally. if Bergum had a national noteworthy story which propelled him to the national stage such as what Chris Christie had in 2012 or Ron DeSantis currently Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Burgum is a governor, ergo he qualifies. It's pretty cut and dry. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

this doesn't hold up when we look at past primaries, in 2016 people such as Jim Gilmore, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker and Rick Perry all ran as governors but they were not given a specific color shading Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, giving Burgum a pre-emptive color is no big deal. The universe will not come crashing down because we gave the Governor of North Dakota a specific color shade. He is self-funded which gives him at least the plausibility of getting through 2023 and holding on until Iowa and New Hampshire. Trajan1 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Will Hurd announced his presidential bid on June22nd. What color do you plan to add? Mister Conservative (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Pence declared yesterdasy. I assume thatmeans we can add him. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I've now added him Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm not here to say who is "major" among the major candidates and who isn't, but right now we have 10 (current or expected) candidates assigned colors, with eight gradients for each candidate's color. That means 80 potential shades so far. When we actually have to start filling in the counties and states next year, we may want to revisit these colors and gradients to ensure that the maps are comprehensible. Let's be open to changing the color decisions in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree with Metropolitan90's suggestion to be open to changing the color decisions for the candidates in the future. With 10 major candidates already assigned colors and gradients, possibly revisiting these choices when filling in counties and states next year will ensure that the maps remain comprehensible. Expoe34 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

of course, when all is said and done and the primaries are over looking back at the color pallette is needed, I myself doubt that even half the people listed will actually win a county so we'll have plenty of options Matthew McMullin (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Starting to realize that Ramaswamy and Suarez's colors kinda look the same, thinking about a green like what's used by the University of Miami, like what I suggested when Sununu was a potential candidate relating to him being governor of NH and NH's state flower. HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• Burgum's recent color change was almost identical to Haley's color. I changed it to the previous color used because I think it worked best as it was more distinguishable than the colors used on other candidates. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

  You should add a color for John Bolton, Rick Perry and Glenn Youngkin *should they run) 2806:103E:D:F5D3:50E6:A51B:B527:6A85 (talk) 22:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting Perry Johnson as a Major Declared Candidate Again

In the past, many people have argued that Perry Johnson should be considered a major declared candidate. While 27 different sources that specifically covered his candidacy were cited, 23 of them were disqualified for a variety of reasons, including them being syndicated, too local, not focusing enough on the candidacy, the sources not being reputable enough, along with a variety of other reasons. As a result of these disqualifications, he was then declared ineligible to be a major declared candidate. The full list of these sources and the discussion about them can be visited in the archives for anyone who wishes to see them. As of April 26th, TulsaPoliticsFan stated that Perry Johnson appeared in five polls according to FiveThirtyEight. Regardless of his poll situation, I think that at this time, Perry Johnson clearly has the consensus five national source requirement to appear as a Major Declared Candidate. The following sources were agreed to have fulfilled the requirements before the aforementioned discussion was archived:

• AP News
• ABC News
• NBC News
• Washington Times

He has since gained considerably more traction. For example, these articles have all appeared in the past week, are specifically about his candidacy and each have national reach: Market Realist, VB News, Ground News, another VB article, USA News, Head Topics I'm not sure how videos are counted, but for what it's worth, this is a YouTube video from Forbes specifically about Perry Johnson's candidacy posted in the past week: Forbes YouTube Video

Keep in mind, all of this was in the last week and there are many, many more articles that have appeared about him before then. However, as per the consensus requirement for significant media attention, only five sources are required and Johnson clearly meets that standard. Perryj1622 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually don't think we came to a five-article consensus. If you recall, I was arguing that there should be no specific threshold and that significant media attention was more of a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. If there must be some kind of objective measure, it should be 25 articles. I know someone suggested five, but there were suggestions for ten and fifteen, as well. I thought the debate trailed off at that point, and no consensus was reached. Vrivasfl (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I recall when we discussed this earlier that 20 was considered too many by most parties. The more recent archived section "Larry Elder Declared Classification" seems to suggest that 5 is consensus. Perryj1622 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Perry Johnson can come to the Declared Major Candidates but I think he needs a Picture which will be hard to do. 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I need to apologize for my prior comment on 538. I misread two state polls as national polls which puts Johnson at 3 national polls, not 5. That's my mistake and I should have read more carefully. As far as the substantial media coverage goes, I don't really have an opinion and will defer to consensus.

Also just for ease of access here are the archived discussions on Johnson: Johnson 1, Johnson 2, Johnson 3 Johnson 4 TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we've reached a consensus as to how many articles are needed to satisfy the media coverage standard. If I had my preference, it would be a lot more than 5 articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Elder was admitted with very few actual sources that satisfy the requirements that were solidified in the last Johnson topic page. Refer to "Larry Elder Declared Classification." Out of those, two of the articles are videos, which was enough to disqualify some sources for Johnson. Four of the articles are syndicated. Even if the requirement were ten, Elder would not have met it (he may not have met seven), yet he was admitted as a Major Declared Candidate, at the time, solely based on his media attention. Now he does also meet the polling requirement but during the time he was first added to the section, he didn't and those few articles were enough to qualify him. We have to apply the standards we are using to include candidates equally. Perryj1622 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I disagree. If we make a mistake and add a non-major candidate, then that shouldn't be an excuse to compound error. If some editors added Elder before he should have been added, that is not a reason to add Johnson before he should be added. It's silly to argue that we both listed Elder too early and that we should list Johnson now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that Elder was admitted before he should have been. I'm saying he was admitted using standards that obviously align with consensus by virtue of the fact that he was admitted (and which I view to be reasonable) and that we should apply those same standards to all other candidates. Otherwise, we are giving preferential treatment to some candidates over others. Perryj1622 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I believe that was a mistake. He only barely qualifies now based on polling, which strengthens my belief that the polling threshold is too low. I agree with you that he really hasn't received significant media attention, and he should not have been added on that basis. I'm not in the business of moving goalposts, but if it were up to me, I'd remove Elder. I don't think he's a serious major candidate. Alas, he meets the agreed-upon polling threshold, so what's done is done. Vrivasfl (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We could revisit Elder, there is still an open discussion from a few days ago on it, it might get more traction if more than one editor wants to revisit it. But I don't think we're too far off the mark. The NYT had Elder in their major candidate list alongside the Desantis announcement announcement; 538 wasn't including Elder polling averages last I checked. It seems WP:RS are divided; I'd be more worried if no RS was listing Elder with their major candidates. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

There is no consensus to if the Washington Times is a reliable source per WP:RSP so it should probably be omitted. The ground news article is a regurgitation of the Des Moines Register story. Ground news, despite its name, isn't a news site in its own right, it just hosts stories from other networks and sorts them based on political affiliation and other factors to check for biases. None of the national reach articles you mention appear on WP:RSP, ill open discussion about them in WP:RSN.

I still don't think that he should appear on the list of notable candidates. 1) we still haven't established if he has significant news coverage, that could change depending on how the RSN talks go. 2) he hasn't been in enough polls 3) he's held no prior notable office. By all accounts he should be included as a minor candidate at best.Scu ba (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Articles with no consensus have been added in the past for candidates to verify media attention, such as Ramaswamy. For The Washington Times specifically, it is reliable by WP:RSP when there is a lack of other sources. Since we are having this discussion, it should be included. We had the argument for its inclusion over a month ago which seemed to end in the consensus that it should be included. Perryj1622 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

regardless, you'd still be one short. As per WP:RSN VB is closer to a blog than a news source. Scu ba (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It does seem a bit off to me that candidates such as Perry Johnson, running and featured in major media and some polls, are less prominent in the article (due to lack of a picture) than potential candidates that only require a couple of local news sources to be listed. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. Potential candidates shouldn't have photos. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be another push to have him added to the "Declared major candidates" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Then How are we determining who is and isn't based major based on media coverage.

Perry Johnson has seen far more coverage than people like Mike Rogers, Steve Laffey, and Corey Stapleton, yet Rogers has hardly any coverage the past month Rhian2040 (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Johnson may make it by polling now. He was included in another national Quinnipiac poll and a McLaughlin and Associates poll, where someone named "Perry" polled at one percent, but since there is no one else in the race with that first or last name, I think it's safe to assume that is referring to Perry Johnson, who likely got that as a write-in.

Since I am not sure if the other 3 national polls have been included, I will write them here for reference:

Quinnipiac poll

Cygal

Quinnipiac University. Perryj1622 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I am on your side but Perry probably refers to Rick Perry as they go by surnames. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

You may be right. If that is the case, that would put him at only 4 polls. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

National polls that is Perryj1622 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should make Johnson a major candidate now. In my opinion, he is getting sufficient media coverage and he has been in various polls. Many news sources include him when listing out the major candidates. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that assessment. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Out of interest, are you Perry Johnson or part of his campaign? Your username has perryj in it and all your contributions are on this talk page. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

No, just happen to have a very similar name. I thought it was funny a candidate was running with the same first name as I had and thought that based on the media attention he had received at the time that he should be included so I created a Wikipedia account to make my case here. Perryj1622 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

That really stretches believability, and I note you haven't responded to COI questions on your talk page or the COI noticeboard. --Pokelova (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in listing him. He just about makes it on media coverage from what I can tell, and is 4/5 in polling, but candidates only need to meet 1 of the criteria anyway. It doesn't look like there are that many potential candidates on the horizon so the page isn't going to be swamped, I think someone said the 2020 Democrat page had 20+ candidates. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I know Wikipedia isn’t a bureaucracy, but I like sticking to whatever criteria was agreed upon. It is important to be consistent with our criteria, especially since we do not know if we will be swamped in the near future. Prcc27 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

There's a criteria of substantial media coverage, but as far as I can see it has never been agreed upon what this actually means. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

To summarise the media coverage he has received so far,he has the big four listed in the opening post, the AP article was shared by the independent and the hill, which are 2 major media organisations with national reach in their own right.

He is talked about amongst other candidates in Politico and Reuters articles,he has been covered by fox news,huffpost, Forbes video and dozens of local sources.

Not going to get a much better spread,going forward it's unlikey there will be articles solely about him, they will be like Reuters in which they talk about the positions of all the candidates on certain topics. 2A00:23EE:2500:91C0:964E:2740:4989:8297 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

per Wikipedia:Syndication the AP story repeated by the Independent and Hill would only count as one source. He might be listed in Politico and Reuters but they've yet to run an article just on him. Fox news is listed as Generally unreliable in WP:RSP and should never be included. Huffpost has no consensus, and the Forbes video is a video, can't be used as a source. Scu ba (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Mediaite can be used and that would be 5. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I say include him as he has fulfilled atleast one of the needed criteria, however with that said, he currently doesn't have a photo on Wikipedia, and should only be added after someone uploads a (hig quality) photo 2603:8080:4D01:6516:15E2:B8B9:4C09:440D (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't have enough media coverage

he doesn't have a presence in national polls

he has held no prior office

he actually has fulfilled none of the criteria. Scu ba (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Huh... not strange at all. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

he doesn't have major media coverage. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

If the criteria is 5 sources he qualifies. All these sources are 3 to 4 months old though, I think we need a recency clause of say within 3 months. It shouldn't be hard for major candidates to achieve that.

• AP News
• ABC News
• NBC News
• Washington Times
• Mediaite

2.103.101.211 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Mediaite is not a major news source and is not counted. Scu ba (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Found another article talking about him... circumventing election law... from Politico. Not sure if this helps or hurts his case. Scu ba (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Make Perry Johnson a major candidate! According to 538 i=he has been in five national polls!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YangGang2024 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I still see four national polls on 538. Vrivasfl (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

yep, same here HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of him seems primarily on him as something of a minor eccentric and hardly warrants inclusion alongside DeSantis, Trump, or even Burgum. PeacockShah (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Five poll discussion (June 2023)

For Johnson we have Quinnipiac (Mar. 9-13; 0%), Quinnipiac (Mar. 23-27; 0%), Cygnal (Mar. 26-27; 0.4%), Quinnipiac (May 18-22; 0%), and Big Village (June 9-14; 1%) listed on FiveThirtyEight. We're at 5 national polls for Johnson. Is there consensus to move him to the major candidate section and close this discussion? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As he has now been included in at least five national polls, then Johnson meets the standard for a major candidate used in this article. I would support including him as a major candidate. Jacoby531 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that Johnson qualifies based on him successfully meeting the polling criteria. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Johnson has met the criteria, however, I don't think he should be moved to major candidates until we a potrait on wikipedia that is on quality with the rest of the fellow candidates (It's been back in forth between Johnson having no image, or low quality ones) Expoe34 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the 5 poll threshold meant 5 different polling agencies. If that's true, then it has not been established that Johnson meets the criteria. I'm only seeing three polling agencies listed above: Quinnipiac, Cygna. and Big Village. Yes, there is a total of five actual polls cited, but Quinnipiac has three of them. I apparently misunderstood the criteria, but IMO the standard should be five unique polling companies/agencies and not just a raw total of polls taken. Is it not a better indicator of "major" candidacy to be listed by at least five different national polling firms than, say, to be included on five polls from just one particular polling company? I don't think the latter scenario would be a reasonable benchmark for major candidate status. If it is not currently the case, I strongly believe that the criteria needs to be revised to mean five unique polling companies/agencies, and clarified as such. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I mean it says included in at least five national polls not pollsters or polling agencies and revising a criteria we've been using the whole cycle right when a candidate meets it is probably not best practice. When we applied the polling criteria for Larry Elder, we did not check for 5 unique polling agencies just 5 unique polls. Honestly, I think revising the criteria will just delay when he meets it a few more months while people post complaints about it on the talk page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There it is, he has finally reached a qualification to be included. However, I still think he should be omitted until we find a portrait for him on Wikicommons. Scu ba (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would concur here and have removed him for the moment. PeacockShah (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson didn't look very strong on paper but fair play to him, he has proved resourceful. We will see if he makes the debates. He should be included up to that point. 2A00:23EE:1230:9808:CAC4:77E5:8FC9:2D9E (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Johnson has been included in five major polls, so by default he's considered a major candidate. Should he make it to the debates is another story but should he be excluded from the debates that shouldn't disqualify him as a minor candidate as some other candidates listed such as Hutchinson, Hurd, Suarez might not be qualified for the debates yet they'll still be included as major candidates. I definitely think we should prioritize in finding a free-use image for Johnson, however him not having an image shouldn't disqualify him either. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Brian Kemp still considering presidential bid, subject to speculation.

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.

---

https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/05/17/new-poll-shows-how-brian-kemp-stacks-up-against-other-republicans-2024/ Kemp is still being speculated about, his intentions about running are still not very clear. I would recommend returning him to "Potential candidates" 2806:103E:D:48B:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Perryj1622 (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this source is better than the Wall Street Journal reporting a direct no from Kemp in March. News speculation and polling doesn't outweigh a direct no. Especially because this article says his office made no comment. If they had said "Maybe" or "He's considering it," then maybe we should update it. But not based on this source. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

https://nowhabersham.com/a-kemp-presidential-run-in-2024-advisor-says-things-can-change-quickly/ 2806:103E:D:BF71:507B:769:CE19:67BF (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hall said that he does not “actively” expect a 2024 U.S. presidential run from Kemp but is open to the possibility. I don't think this is super persuasive that he's a potential candidate either. He said no in March and his advisor says he's not expecting a run in May. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with TulsaPoliticsFan. We do not move someone out of the declined section if they have not recanted their initial declination. Prcc27 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with TulsaPoliticsFan, Kemp in plain white and black text said no. The media can speculate on a campaign all they want, but until he personally changes things we should keep him in declined. Scu ba (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Other candidates such as Noem and Carlson have also said no, but the media continues to speculate, thus they are in "potential candidates", in the lalst week, 3 seperate articles have commented of Kemp as a potential candidate in 2024. Mister Conservative (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources for Noem's no? I'm fine removing her if we have a source for a direct no. Also, I believe, Tucker Carlson was in the declined based on his no until he left Fox which is an unique situation that is not really comparable to Kemp. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I was not implying that Noem should be removed, only that Kemp should be added. I think both are still subject to speculation. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of democrat candidates in the same situation as Kemp, declined to run but still speculated over. They would need to be relisted as potential candidates if Kemp is listed as such. 92.16.56.134 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Kemp is listed in the Declined section, though (as he should be). No matter what the speculation is, if a person has outright declined a presidential run, they go in the Declined section.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

greed. If they are subject to speculation about a potential candidacy then they should be relisted as potential candidates.a 2806:103E:D:C9B7:4461:E5AE:0:C9FC (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2023 (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.

Brian Kemp keeps getting re-added to Potential candidates section

A user keeps adding Brian Kemp to the Potential section, without reason.

First edit: [1], second edit: [2], third edit: [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

He has walked back his previous comments and left the door open[4] Twentytwenty4 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a change in his stance since the last discussion was closed. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Where does he walk back his declination though? Seems pretty vague to me. Prcc27 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a direct no before, now it's no plans, but anything can happen. Back in March I had ruled him out, but this new stance and the continued media speculation has changed that. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate pictures

Is there guidelines on pictures for the candidates? The pictures seem to be changing every few days for all candidates and is getting a bit annoying. Blake675 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In past elections I’ve seen RfCs on candidate photos. Might be needed again to avoid edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been trying to put in the best pictures but they keep being taken down. 96.230.191.203 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just have them be their most recent official photos/portraits for those who have them. I mean, that's the highest authority there is. They made those for a purpose, they'll be flattering, and that's the way they want to present themselves to the world. Veganoregano (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. Prcc27 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

https://ballotpedia.org/Republican_presidential_nomination,_2024

Ballotpedia chose great pictures, and they have an actually good one for Elder Veganoregano (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I Agree Ballotpedia has good pictures so I think we should use those WONKAKlD (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m starting to get uncomfortable with Hurds picture I don’t like how he is all sweaty… WONKAKlD (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

He actually has grey hair now Veganoregano (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

Found an article from "The State", says Rogers is to jump in this summer.

HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think his deadline should be summer 2023 and not June 2023. 2806:103E:D:D866:E918:230E:1ED1:9873 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't read it because it's paywalled, but unless it's a direct statement from him and more recent (April or later) his statement on CBS should be the final word. He said "late spring-early summer" and "May or June" Veganoregano (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

March 30th - youtube.com/watch?v=N1-mn0J-Qwk&ab_channel=CBSNews Veganoregano (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should move Rogers to "publicly expressed interest" after 30 June if nothing else happens. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed Veganoregano (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

same HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Ted Cruz not a potential candidate

An article from Yahoo yesterday said that "Only one senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has entered the 2024 GOP presidential field eight years after senators defined the non-Trump presidential field, with Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina standing out as major candidates. None of them appears interested in giving it another go." Why is he being removed then re-added, then removed and then re-added again and again, it's getting annoying. Can we get a consensus to add him in the declined section until he explicitly says he might/will run. 2601:249:8E00:420:582C:9FCC:D7F6:5BBA (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• It’s the other way around: the declined section is for those that explicitly decline to run. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  To be fair, Youngkin was in the declined section for a bit since he said "no" to a run but then switched gears on a potential run, hence his placement in the potential candidate section. I think this is what the editor means. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

There was already a discussion here that resulted in him being moved from declined to potential. We can discuss moving him again, but there is currently consensus to list him as a potential candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would back the idea of putting Cruz in the decline section being how any media mentions of the 2024 election to Cruz is that he's not running or isn't interested in running. I think it makes more sense to put him in the declined section until we see reliable coverage saying he's at least considering a bid. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We already had this discution, the media can speculate as much as they want on Cruz or Youngkin, or Abbott not running for president, but until we hear directly from them, they stay in potential. 2806:103E:D:C3F9:F1D0:FE27:7DCD:4A00 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely, Cruz should be in potential candidates. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Some user keeps moving Cruz back to declined, we had agreed that until we heard directly from Cruz, potential was the place to put him. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

If he's running for re-election one can assume that he's not running for president unless he explicitly states otherwise. Epicradman123 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Need examples that prove that staement wrong? 2806:103E:D:4099:1026:9027:D90B:907C (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys. He’s running for senate and not running for president with any reasonable doubt. People don’t need to say “I name will not run for president in 2024” to get off the potential list. 70.252.19.143 (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

i AM IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT, cRUZ HAS SAID HE INTENDS TO RUN FOR A THIRD TERM BUT HAS NOT RULED OUT A PRESIDENTIAL RUN, HE HAS ALSO BEEN SUBJECT TO SPECULATION A LOT RECENTLY. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's settle this once and fr all. I feel like we come back to the same topic over and over. The media can speculate as much as they want. Until we hear directly from Cruz on whether this is a no or a yes, I feel it is best to keep him in potential unti either he declines a run, announces a run, or the sources that talk about him as a potential candidate are more than 6 months old in which case we can remove him altogether. Mister Conservative (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I say we should have a vote on weather or not Perry Johnson and Corey Stapleton should be in the major candidates. Should I make a google form?

It seems to be very split, and a vote would finally settle it. YangGang2024 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Shameful YangGang2024 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@YangGang2024: Based on this response, it appears that you do not understand the purpose and function of this encyclopedia. BD2412 T 18:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also shameful YangGang2024 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've fought for stapleton but there's a bunch of people here with sticks up their ass referencing random rules Veganoregano (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

yES, LET}S HAVE A VOTE, ON A GOOGLE FORM 8.243.213.122 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We both do and don't "vote" when making decisions on Wikipedia, it's a little weird to explain. We call them "!votes", which is pronounced not-votes. What this means is that, on the one hand, the option that gets the most support is more often than not going to be the consensus option (as consensus is the fundamental method of decision-making on Wikipedia, but at the same time, Wikipedia is not a vote and the rationale or arguments provided for a certain option matter more than the shear number of users expressing support for an option. That is to say that users simply saying "support" or "oppose" followed by nothing doesn't really matter; you need to provide an explanation for your stance in order for your "vote" to count. One last thing, we don't use external websites like Google Forms, we do everything right here on the Wikipedia talk pages. If you want to hold "a vote" on a matter, consider starting a Request for Comment. Hope that cleared some things up for some of the newer editors.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes very helpful. I would lean towards supporting Perry Johnson as he has more notable endorsements than Hutchinson and Elder. I would lean against supporting Corey Stapleton as I don't see him mentioned by the media as often, however I could change my mind if a convincing argument is put forward.

Bring on the !votes 2.103.101.154 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson yes, Corey Stapleton no. 2806:103E:D:1D8B:FD48:AA74:F100:DE38 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the current criteria we're going off of for listing a candidate as a "major candidate" is that a candidate must meet one or more of the following criteria: campaign has received substantial major media coverage; current or previous holder of significant elected office; have been included in at least five national polls. Does anyone have citations demonstrating that either of these two have met said criteria?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson technically meets the media criteria,see Perry Johnson discussion above. 2A00:23EE:14E0:8DD9:F680:1B88:5C45:4F0D (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've read the discussion above a few times and I see no consensus on whether or not he meets the substantial media coverage criteria and that he's one poll short on the polling criteria. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How can someone "technically" meet a subjective criterion like "has received substantial major media coverage"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both because they haven't met any of the criteria. Stapleton is a good example as to why the "significant elected office" criterium is limited to President, VP, Governor, Senator or Representative. Only those people are, basically without exception, automatically treated as major candidates. Despite once holding statewide elected office, no one will give Stapleton the time of day. He is not even close to major. Johnson is on the cusp. He has been included is some polls, and he has received some national news coverage, but I believe it falls short. Substantial media coverage means to me that it is overwhelming enough that any reasonable person would have to conclude the person is being treated as a major candidate. It is a high burden. Vrivasfl (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I watched a Fox News video and at begging it showed pictures of 11 Republican candidates and Perry Johnson was on there 64.255.149.196 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. He's a candidate. Being a major candidates involves a lot more than being included on a list of candidates. Vrivasfl (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Stapleton seems like a no to me. As for Perry Johnson, at least one major media source (Politico) seems to be treating him as a major candidate. See https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/02/first-gop-debate-qualification-00100080/ , https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/ , and https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/03/roast-and-ride-iowa-gop-primary-00100095 . I'm not sure if one source alone is enough to qualify as "substantial major media coverage," but it's something. Jacoby531 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/07/rnc-debate-rules-small-donors-00100637

Politico called Perry a "longshot" Veganoregano (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

They called Burgum and Suarez “longshots” I support Johnson as a major candidate MarblePolitics (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This feels like WP:DEADHORSE territory. It has already been discussed and determined, more than once, that neither are major candidates. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

^Agreed. This does indeed feel like a case of WP:DEADHORSE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And as for Perry Johnson absolutely not Veganoregano (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson absolutely meets the criteria needed to be a major candidate, but I will staunchly oppose adding Stapleton to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:E7E7:BC36:CC33:A43:F1FD (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson absolutely meets the criteria needed to be a major candidate, but I will staunchly oppose adding Stapleton to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:E7E7:BC36:CC33:A43:F1FD (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that both meet the criteria needed to be a major candidate, and again, many articeles are treating Perry Johnson as a major candidate. In fact, some of the other candidates have mentioned Perry Johnson along side other candidates names and have attacked him, the only reason they would do that is because they consider him a serious aka major candidate. 2806:103E:D:E7E7:BC36:CC33:A43:F1FD (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone point to even one reliable source which explicitly calls either of them a "major" candidate? Ann Teak (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've got a reliable source that explicitly calls Perry Johnson not a major candidate. This article from FiveThirtyEight.com says (at note 1): "One name you might not recognize in the table below is Perry Johnson. He’s a businessman running a quixotic presidential campaign who, decent fundraising aside, doesn’t qualify as a major candidate by our definition." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think Perry Johnson is a major candidate, he has been included in at least 5 polls, and has had substantial media coverage. It could be argued that he has never held elected office before, but then again neither has Larry Elder, Vivek Ramaswamy or even Donald Trump back in 2016. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I am looking for independent reliable sources, not opinions. Ann Teak (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Johnson has only two national polls listed at Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  For what its worth, Big Village just dropped a poll that included Johnson. Going by FiveThirtyEight, he has five national polls. I think he squeaks in now. Vrivasfl (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yep! 8.243.213.122 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  He has definitely not had substantial coverage Veganoregano (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The BBC [5] . They've not used those exact words but 'Trump's top challengers' is effectively the same thing. 92.16.61.17 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate Color Shades

Currently all candidates are different shades that vastly rade on shade, with ome having a 40-50 shade while others use the 70–80% shade, I feel this leads to the candidate's page feeling like a disorganized mess, with very few colors complimenting/balancing the others out. Thus, I'd like to open a discussion to change all candidates colors (barring trump) to a uniform shading. 2603:8080:4D01:6516:69B3:3DE9:E498:9735 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• You would be best off continuing the discussion which is still on this page at #Candidate colors/gradients. That way, your comments will be much closer on this page to where the colors are being illustrated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I made all candidate colors same shade WONKAKlD (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Rolland Roberts II

Why isn’t Rolland Roberts II in other declared candidates list when he raised over $1,000,000 64.255.149.196 (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As has been explained elsewhere on this talk page, he is not considered notable. A million isn't very much for a presidential campaign anyway. --Pokelova (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

could it be that he is so un-notable that he doesn't even have a wikipedia page of his own? Scu ba (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Jeb Bush in Potential Candidates?

Should Jeb be in Potential I don’t think he declined yet and if he did we should put him in declined to be candidate’s WONKAKlD (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

• What sources have been identified speculating about him as being a candidate? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I am sure we can find some WONKAKlD (talk) 13:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Thats... not how this works. you can't just add a candidate to Potential Candidates because you want to. Scu ba (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I never said I want to? JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

  By the way yes I am an alt JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No 70.252.19.143 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

He put his support behind DeSantis [6]. Not seen anything to suggest he will jump in the race himself. 92.16.61.17 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

He did not endorse DeSantis. Washington Examines reported he "was praising him, not endorsing him". IEditPolitics (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I never said he endorsed him but he effectively did, of course this would be toxic to DeSantis and used against him so neither person wants to make this official or promote it too much. 92.12.8.215 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

No, unless sources speculate about his potential candidacy tbutnfor now, its a o. Expoe34 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkins 2024 color

Glenn Youngkin (should he run)

Glenn Youngkin = (should he run)

Hex code	Percentage
#f6f9e0	<30%
#eef3c1	30–40%
#d3dd7c	40–50%
#b9c837	50–60%
#a0b200	60–70%
#8c9c00	70–80%
#717d00	80–90%
#555e00	>90%

WONKAKlD (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That'd be 4 candidates sharing the color green, that might get a bit confusing. I recommend referencing 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries for an example of how to color-code candidates when the field gets too crowded.

Right now we have:

-      Red (darkish, slightly maroonish): DeSantis

-      Red (not quite pink not quite red): Rogers of Bolton should they run

-      Orange (slightly dark and desaturated): Haley

-      Yellow (a rather ugly shade of it, too dark and desaturated): Ramaswamy

-      Green (regular): Christie

-      Green (somewhat lime): Pence

-      Green (slightly teal): Scott

-      Green (a very slightly olive lime): Youngkin should he run and this color be used

-      Blue (lighter): Elder

-      Blue (navy): Trump

-      Purple (bright, with a small hint of magenta): Hutchinson

-      Peach (not that far off from the rogers/bolton color proposal): Burgum

-      Brown: Suarez

These current colors have very poor contrast in my opinion. We could improve readability by using more basic colors and intermediate colors, and by keeping in mind accessibility guidelines for colorblind readers. We should consider using bolder colors instead of shades of green that only somewhat lean towards being teal (e.g. just use teal), etc. Adding yet another green color (this time one that'd be quite hard to tell apart from Pence's) is not ideal.

I think we should have a discussion about potentially replacing almost all of these colors with better ones. It really seems like these hues were picked randomly without much thought going into how well they'd work with the rest of them.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, most these colors were picked only once the canidate announced their bid, and no color was picked ahead of time, thus the colors look out of place, and poor contrast with eachother Expoe34 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to keep it diverse we go with this:

-      Blue Trump

-      Brown Saurez

-      Green Scott

-      Yellow Ramaswamy

-      Lavender Pence

-      Orange Haley

-      Blue Elder

-      Red DeSantis

-      Green Christie

-      Pink Burgum

-      Purple Hutchinson

It's still distinct even on the different colorblind sprectrums Expoe34 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate Colors and Rules

Candidate colors have gone back and forth and we need to define DEFINITIVELY the colors for each candidate. It was mentioned that the colors should be the same shade but this make Ramaswamy and Suarez look very similar and Burgum and DeSantis look Very Similar. Try looking at both the colors side by side before choicing a color for a candidate. There also NEEDS to be rules for Major/Minor Candidates that EVERYONE can agree on to end the back and forth about Perry Johnson for example MarblePolitics (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I now see what you mean I think we need to talk to Matthew McMullin about the color situation and for the Major/Minor candidates situation we need to get everyone to agree that Perry is not a major candidate WONKAKlD (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Even Matthew McMullin said he thinks we should use 70-80% I think people who redo edits like this just like to make edits WONKAKlD (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new color palette to put this issue to rest

There's been way too many threads suggesting new candidates and new colors for those candidates and acknowledging how we've been going back and forth for a while now.

In the above section I criticized the current colors for lack of contrast, ugly hues, and lack of accessibility for colorblind readers. But complaining won't really solve the problem, so I took the time to look up some colorblind accessible palettes and tried to make one that's both visually pleasing and easy to distinguish.

So here is my suggestion:

     Red: DeSantis

     Orange: Haley

     Yellow: Ramaswamy

     Green: Christie

     Lime: Pence

     Teal: Scott

     Light Blue: Elder

     Navy Blue: Trump

     Indigo: Youngkin (Should he run)

     Magenta: Hutchinson

     Peach: Burgum

     Brown: Suarez

     Grey: Possible Future Candidate 1

     Pink: Possible Future Candidate 2

Any thoughts? Support/Oppose? I think it's an improvement from the old/current colors (see above for comparison)

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! MarblePolitics (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed but sadly there is no peach color pallette. WONKAKlD (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a lot of discussion here aside from two users agreeing I've boldly implemented most of these changes. I kept Burgum and Hutchinson's colors the same since there's no need to split purple into indigo and magenta unless/until more candidates join, same goes for Burgum's altered color. Trump and DeSantis have the same hue since my suggestion also kept theirs the same. I think it's looking better now, but if the field gets more crowded, we can adjust the colors as needed in the future.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason I wanted to change Burgum color is because there is no peach color palette and the orange looked too much like Haley’s WONKAKlD (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's a legitimate concern. Since Youngkin isn't in the race yet, perhaps we make Hutchinson's color the indigo one and use pink for Burgum? Not sure if pink and magenta would be too hard to tell apart on gradients, but for now we don't have enough candidates to worry about that. Using pink instead of magenta for him since pink is closer to his current color.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I think Hutchinson purple, and Burgum pink Expoe34 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I support it! Expoe34 (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe change Christie to this #415bcd JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks like      #415bcd is a bright blue color. This might be an issue on gradient maps since a color like this is likely to be used to represent some % of the vote received by Donald Trump whose color is navy blue. Christie being bright green should work out fine since the other green candidate, Pence, has a more chartreuse hue.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential Candidates

This section is going to have to go or the criteria be modified at some point. The current criteria is two sources in the past 6 months discussing them running. But launch season is wrapping up. 6 months is a long time when talking about a year long process. In 6 months new people wouldn't even get on the ballots in significant states. It would be absurd if at the end of the year we're still entertaining the possibility of governors starting campaigns, referencing sources that clearly meant the possibility of them launching by now. No sitting official has ever started a campaign that late in modern presidential elections. Not to mention, the sources in this section are very flimsy and some of these governors have signaled themselves they aren't interested. There is always going to be "speculation" over just about about any high-profile figure. This criteria should at least be strengthened. Veganoregano (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg didn't announce until November last time around. I don't think there's any harm in having the potential candidate section, though I think it should be less prominent. I suggested removing the photos. Vrivasfl (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

they werent sitting any office Veganoregano (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I would support changing the criteria to two sources in the past 2 months. However, this cycle is unique and shouldn't be compared to other modern presidential elections so readily. 80.41.165.93 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I’ll make these two changes if no objections come in Veganoregano (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should leave it at six months per Vrivasfl's point on historical late entries being possible and having recent precedent. You're not citing any sources that the launch season is wrapping up, you're just asserting it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

New colors for candidates

Some candidate colors are WAY to similar to each other so I decided to propose some new colors

Francis X Suarez

Hex code	Percentage
#ebf7e6	<30%
#d6efce	30–40%
#a4d695	40–50%
#74bd5d	50–60%
#47a52b	60–70%
#218d00	70–80%
#1a7000	80–90%
#135300	>90%

Doug Burgum

Hex code	Percentage
#ecfafa	<30%
#daf5f4	30–40%
#ace1df	40–50%
#80cfcd	50–60%
#52beba	60–70%
#1cada8	70–80%
#168985	80–90%
#0f6563	>90%

WONKAKlD (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Can someone fix this I don’t know how to WONKAKlD (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The Burgum color just looks like Elder and Scott and Suarez looks like Pence. MarblePolitics (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Table format is now fixed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We have too many green colored candidates as-is. If we were to use the green color you used for Youngkin, that'd make it even more difficult to tell all the candidates apart, and the suggestion to change Suarez and Burgum to colors we're already using would even further exacerbate readability and accessibility issues. We can't have every candidate be green.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You can tell from Burgum , Elder and Scott but with Francis you have a good point but what color do you guys think I should change Francis too? (Also thanks spiffy sperry) WONKAKlD (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe like Lilac? MarblePolitics (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

These colors are even less unique than the ones we currently have in place, all it does is add another Green (We already have Christie and Pence) and blue (Which we already have Elder and Trump) Expoe34 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Significance of Trump's federal indictment

At this point, I think it is fair to say that the federal indictment of Donald Trump has become a galvanizing flashpoint of the Republican primary campaign. In addition to the event itself dominating international headlines, there is substantial reporting on the responses of other campaigns, with these responses ranging across an entire spectrum from Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson hammering Trump on it to Vivek Ramaswamy pledging to pardon Trump, to attempts to strike various middle ground poses in between. The event has also appears to have reshaped the polls, with Trump pulling further ahead against all primary candidates. In short, this appears to be shaping up to be the defining issues of the contest to this point. I think it would be reasonable to have a section in each candidate's campaign article describing the coverage of their specific response (or non-response) to the event. BD2412 T 06:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Steve Laffey in Declared Major candidates

Do you think Steve Laffey should be in Major candidates? WONKAKlD (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, he does not meet the criteria MarblePolitics (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

And just as a reminded to everyone, the criteria are: (1) current or former major office holder (Prez, VP, governor, senator or U.S. representatives; mayors not included); (2) inclusion in five national polls (Laffey has been included in zero); and substantial media coverage (anyone is welcome to make the argument that Laffey met this criterium, but this is well-trodden ground, and every previous discussion has concluded he falls well short of meeting this high burden). Vrivasfl (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Sir, in what world is this fellow I’ve never heard of a major candidate Veganoregano (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

This is the Nth time this topic was brought up. Being the mayor of a town in Rhode Island isn't a notable topic, he hasn't been included in enough news sources, nor has he appeared in at least 5 polls. Scu ba (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ballot access deadlines

The article currently says, "At least 17 states have filing deadlines for presidential candidates seeking the nomination of their party in order to appear on the state's ballots. ... If a candidate files in a state without a deadline, but too close to that state's primary, that candidate may not appear on the ballot." This seems to be somewhat confused. Unless it's a caucus state that doesn't even use a ballot, doesn't every state have a filing deadline to appear on the ballot? The states need sufficient time to print the ballots. (And, in the consideration of some states, setting a relatively early deadline may limit the ability of "outsider" candidates to get on the ballot.) But with delegates for the presidential nomination at stake, I can't imagine that a state would go without a filing deadline. How would that work?

"State Division of Elections, may I help you?"

"Yes, I'm calling from the John Doe presidential campaign. Can you tell me the rules to be listed on the Republican primary ballot?"

"Sure. The primary is on March 4, and you will need to submit petitions signed by 1,000 voters who are registered as Republicans in this state."

"Okay. When do we need to submit the petition signatures by?"

"Oh, we don't have a deadline. Just make sure it's not too close to our primary or your candidate might not be listed on the ballot."

"But will we qualify if we submit 6 weeks before the primary? 8 weeks before the primary? Or what?"

"Like I said, we don't have a deadline ...."

This situation doesn't seem plausible. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The presidential primary/caucus calendar for 2024 is still in flux and a lot can still happen. Many states have not set their dates yet and therefore have not issued filing deadlines. Ballotpedia tracks filing deadlines here: https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024 The state with the first filing deadline is Nevada, where Republicans and Democrats must file by 16th October to be on their presidential primary ballots for the February elections. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, so I'll revise the paragraph to have it make more sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Original author of that paragraph here. I analyzed that ballotpedia page to write it. There’s a reason I said “at least.” Veganoregano (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I still think the following sentence is unclear: "If a candidate files in a state without a deadline, but too close to that state's primary, that candidate may not appear on the ballot." Just because a state hasn't announced its deadline to qualify for the primary yet doesn't mean the state won't announce a deadline later. The sentence as we have it now implies that candidates are at risk of not learning the date when it will be "too close" to the state's primary to file. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I updated the section as well, because the Ballotpedia link lists just 16 (not 17) states yet with a filing deadline. Some are twice in there because California or Texas list filing deadlines for D and R primaries separately (or other requirements to file). I also updated Nevada, which uses a primary in 2024 for the first time for both parties. Passed by law and signed by the governor. The Republicans are suing, because they want a caucus again. It's unclear at this point what Republicans will use, or what the lawsuit will end up with. The filing deadline was Oct. 15 in the article, but I corrected it to the actual Oct. 16th. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson just got 1% in a poll- has he been in any others? Because I want to know how close he is to the five needed to be a major candidate.

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.

---

yep YangGang2024 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I counted 3 polls that Johnson was in. I think that as soon as he reaches 5 polls, if he ever does we should consider him a major candidate MarblePolitics (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Johnson appears to have 5 different national polls from 3 different pollsters on 538 as of today. His polling average is less than 1%, but he appears to have been in 5 national polls. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki page on opinion polling only has three polls I believe, MarblePolitics (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, than why isn't he on major candidates?! YangGang2024 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting and would be convincing if true, could you highlight which polls you're referring to? I clicked around on a few random ones on that page and didn't find mentions of him, nor is he listed on the candidate polling graph.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you type a candidates last name into the "search polls" box on 538 it returns only the polls they're in. For Johnson we have Quinnipiac (Mar. 9-13; 0%), Quinnipiac (Mar. 23-27; 0%), Cygnal (Mar. 26-27; 0.4%), Quinnipiac (May 18-22; 0%), and Big Village (June 9-14; 1%) listed on FiveThirtyEight. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't notice that feature until you pointed it out to me. You're right, 5 polls do come up when you search Johnson. Taking a look at each of the ones you linked, I was able to find where in the polls he's mentioned in 4 out of 5 of them; I'm having a hard time noticing where he's mentioned in the Cygnal poll, but I trust that there's a reason why 538 put it there and I must've juts missed it. I recommend directing people's attention to it at Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Revisiting Perry Johnson as a Major Declared Candidate Again (unfortunately this is one of the most unorganized talk pages I've ever seen with way too many separate talk sections about the same things, which makes it really hard to gauge consensus on anything)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the Cygnal poll is in a pdf that you can't control F. It's page on 22 here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2023 (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.

Adjusting autoarchive?

Would anyone object to the autoarchive counter being adjusted to 10 days, instead of the current 14 days? It would cut down on the amount of discussions. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think we need to start closing and archiving duplicate discussions. Like the time they're here isn't as big of a problem as we have 3 open discussions on Corey Stapleton, 3 on Perry Johnson, and 2 on Roland Roberts II. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No objections, this talk page is a monstrosity Veganoregano (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Lost our minds

Perry Johnson is apparently a major candidate according to us and just about nobody else. He’s never held an office and literally has 0% support. I continue to ask for a reasonable modification to the criteria, which will also make it objective - At least establish a minimum polling threshold, like 1% is not too much to ask for.

Also, there has been a lot of debate over the “significant media attention” requirement. If it’s practical, we may want to change this to a threshold of Republican voters who have heard of the individual before. For example, this website has been tracking that.

pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker Veganoregano (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The rule is that appearing in five national polls makes you a major candidate. Perry Johnson has met that criteria and we're not going to make an exception just because people "feel" he's not as important as the others. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The changes I suggested are objective. I didn’t say make an exception, I said we need to change the criteria. Veganoregano (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

There is too much focus on following "rules" that we create which is not really how Wikipedia is supposed to function. Rather than creating "rules" we should be evaluating how each candidate is treated by RS on a case-by-case basis. Johnson is not considered to be a major candidate by RS. He is usually not included in lists of candidates, and when he is, they refer to him as a "long-shot". 25stargeneral (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, Johnson is not a major candidate, heck he doesn't even have a photo on Wikipedia and barely even passes the polling threshold. Expoe34 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with the nom. The inclusion of such a person in a comparatively minute percentage of polling alone is, frankly, a bizarre measure of being a "major" candidate. BD2412 T 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. I have long thought (and argued) that the only "real" criteria is substantial media attention. The major office holder criteria is just a shortcut because those people, pretty much without exception, always receive substantial media attention and are treated as serious major candidates. The polling criterium is supposed to prevent edit wars for candidates like Ramaswamy, who was the subject of weeks of back-and-forth, even though the RS clearly treated him as a major candidate from day 1. The polling criterium put a stop to that. The polling criterium, however, leads to unusual results, and not just here. 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries includes Rocky de la Fuente, even though an honest review of the RS in 2020 would limit major candidates to Trump and the "three Stooges," Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh and Bill Weld. Setting a minimum threshold won't help, because then we'll have to decide which polls or poll aggregator to use, what threshold minimum is appropriate, and why. If the polling criterium leads to untenable results, I suggest eliminating the polling criterium. Vrivasfl (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Not saying I agree or disagree with him being listed, but when we agree on a criteria and then try to change the criteria once a candidate meets it, that does not seem neutral. I would like to revisit the criteria in August. Candidates should be considered “major” if they qualified for the debates and/or held/hold a significant political position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

NPOV means neutral with respect to sources. It's not a requirement to stick with any arbitrary rules we create when the sources go against them. Sources treat him differently than the other candidates, so we do too. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

He was included in five polls, which means there are at least five sources that view Johnson as a candidate worth mentioning. Consensus can certainly change, and I think a 1% threshold as well as a criterion that the five polls all have to come from different polling firms is fine. But at the same time, we do have sources that mention him, it’s not like he was added out of nowhere. Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Which five sources would those be? BD2412 T 01:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The five polls he was included in. Prcc27 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You said "there are at least five sources that view Johnson as a candidate worth mentioning". I just want to be clear whether you are asserting that there are, in fact, five sources, and not multiple statements being republished by a single source. BD2412 T 01:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think they mean the five polls on the talk page here (and here). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

We don't even have Wikipedia articles for Cygnal (currently a redirect to a section of Gnash (software) stating "Cygnal is the Gnash Project's Flash Media Server-compatible audio and video server") or Big Village. I have no sense of their significance, reliability, or independence as sources. As for the rest, we have Quinnipiac, Quinnipiac, and Quinnipiac. A reputable pollster, but they seem to have dropped Perry Johnson from their most recent poll. At what point does a candidate cease to matter when the pollsters stop considering it worth asking about them? BD2412 T 02:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

At what point a candidate ceases to matter when the pollsters stop considering it worth asking about them was not discussed beforehand and a good point open for discussion. As far as the polls reliability goes, they're all on the FiveThirtyEight polling aggregator which has an open editorial policy and expertise in the subject area I do not have. Their ratings of the polls are here: Cygnal and Big Village. I don't think there is a WP:RS issue here, but I could be wrong. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't think 538 speaks to the reliability of the sources. They only care about how accurate their past polls were, which says nothing about their independence or general reputation as organizations. BD2412 T 02:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

• Is it asking too much for the people who claim Johnson has been in 5 polls to have those polls listed at Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries? So far only 2 national polls for him are listed there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries is not an WP:RS for verifying polls. I don't think having the sourcing there is relevant at all. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think it would be helpful and a convenient place for readers and editors alike to verify that he met the criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 00:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can agree that it's helpful and convenient, but it's ultimately a page updating issue for the other article. The 5 polls are linked on this talk page and WP:V, and can be added to the other page at any time by any editor. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would also like to point out there is a phenomenon in polling called the “lizard man’s constant” where roughly 4% of respondents in any given poll will choose the most ridiculous response. Veganoregano (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I would bet that a substantial number of the miniscule percentage of people picking "Perry Johnson" thought that this was "Rick Perry". BD2412 T 03:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it could help a candidate qualify for the debates. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

A 'phenomena' that was coined in a blog that pulls one google scholar result (the blog post)? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we can finally end this major candidates debate and speculation over potential candidates once it’s announced who’s going to be in the August debates Veganoregano (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, adding Johnson to the list is nothing short of Insanity. Scu ba (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It also only makes sense when the national gop announced 1% is the minimum to even participate in the debates Veganoregano (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the "Five poll discussion" above. I had thought that the five_poll threshold meant that a candidate had to be listed by five different polling companies/agencies, not just included in a total of five polls with no regard to how many polling agencies listed the candidate. By this standard. Johnson doesn't qualify as a major candidate. Inclusion on polls by five different agencies/firms should be the standard,IMO, for reasons given in my comments in the aforementioned discussion. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson is the very definition of a minor candidate by any rational metric and including him based on him barely passing the five national polls criteria seems clownishly pedantic. As if the Pro-Inclusion people where just waiting for another 0 % poll to come out. This isn't just an issue of box space, including people like Elder, Johnson, Suarez and (possibly) Rogers as "major" candidates gives undue weight to them, as many people that don't follow politics closely might get the impression that they actually matter in any way, which they obviously don't. I definitely agree with the point Vrivasfl made regarding media coverage, and if it were for me, the criteria would be way stricter, i.e. significant media coverage AND inclusion in at least five national polls OR substantial office held (with a stress on "substantial"; being a former Rep. isn't "substantial") Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree the "5 national polls" standard should be from 5 separate polling outlets. I don't think 5 national polls from one polling company would justify putting a candidate in the major candidates section. Alexjjj (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Search for a Perry Johnson Potrait

He has passed one the requirements however, Johnson currently has no photo on wikipedia, which I feel is odd for someone who's considered a major candidate by the community, so I suggest we look for a potrait of Johnson, as currently it messes with the page visaully. Expoe34 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't you create a picture from his campaign website or his campaign Facebook/Twitter page and use it here ? Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It needs to be “public domain” which idk what that even means Veganoregano (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

come on, it means it doesn't have a copyright on it. Scu ba (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Nope, twitter and facebook would own the copyright to that image. Scu ba (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

You know he’s in a bad position when his ”portrait” on this page is a crop from a shirtless group photo 60 years ago Veganoregano (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

lol i know right YangGang2024 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Perry+Johnson&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

There is also this: https://ballotpedia.org/Perry_Johnson we could use that image JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I know for a fact that very image got deleted off commons for copyright violations. Scu ba (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a picture now and wrote an email to his site for copyright confirmation, so that it won't get deleted. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It has been deleted for some reason, even though I sent an email to his website confirming copyright status. The pictures are usually deleted after just 1 week, but here after a few days already. It's pointless. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I have removed Johnson for the moment. I was wrong to do so on the grounds that I did at the time, however, I believe it would probably be reasonable to wait until we have an image to include him. Thank you for contacting the campaign. PeacockShah (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Some image considerations from these articles:

https://apnews.com/article/perry-johnson-2024-presidential-campaign-b734b469aa0b56a94e19ef0125cf5997

https://www.wkar.org/wkar-news/2022-06-14/federal-judge-says-perry-johnson-wont-appear-on-gop-primary-ballot

https://www.9and10news.com/2022/03/17/perry-johnson-visits-traverse-city-talks-quality-energy-policy/

https://hillsdalecollegian.com/2023/03/johnson-is-not-a-serious-candidate/ HurricaneKappa (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

You would think his campaign would have spent 2 minutes giving him a picture Veganoregano (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Rick Perry and John Bolton are potential candidates.

Rick Perry the former secretary of energy under president Trump has publicly expressed interest in running for president from 2 notable sources within the last 2 months. Also, John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor John Bolton has also been named a potential candidate in many news sources. However, the rquirements to be in potential candidates have changed. Even so, I believe both of these candidates should remain in potential candidates. Any thoughts? 189.135.171.243 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Were they in potential? Last I checked it was 4 governors

I think there’s no shortage of media speculation over just about anybody who has a high profile, which is why I don’t agree with having this section in the first place

But if they meet the new requirements feel free to add them Veganoregano (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

They were actually both in publicly expressed interest but were suddenly removed, since the page is semi-protected and I can't edit. Could someone put these two candidates back in publicly expressed interest? Mister Conservative (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that they were removed since the sources didn't really meet the requirements. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

What requirements are you joking? Mister Conservative (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The two articles have to substantially focus on the individual (simply being a list including them isnt admissible), be from within 2 months ago, and the 2 sources have to be different and reliable Veganoregano (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

All you have to do is make 10 edits dude Veganoregano (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Perry and Bolton shouldn't be included as publicly expressed interest, however they shouldn't be deleted all together. I already added updated sources from April and June for Bolton and Perry respectively that says they're potential. Here's an article from MSNBC that called Bolton and Perry potential candidates and listed them alongside Kristi Noem, Mike Rogers and Glenn Youngkin who are listed in this article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Other declared candidates

Have any other non-Major candidates been in polls? JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

check the polls.Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Binkley has been included in one national poll included on FiveThirtyEight's website. Alexjjj (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Great, 4 more polls showing 0% support and this Ryan fellow that nobody's ever heard of will be a major candidate Veganoregano (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe Binkley or Johnson should be considered a major candidate right now, just was mentioning who else was included in polls. Alexjjj (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson is not a major candidate

Perry Johnson should be removed from the candidates list. He is not an elected official or someone with major notoriety. If he is included, then candidates such as Corey Stapleton should also be included as Stapleton at least has a successful electoral history (statewide at that). Johnson has also not received any kind of consistent inclusion in political polling for the 2024 republican primary. There is little reason at all to include him in this list. Rjeremygolden (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Candidates listed under the "Major Candidate" box are only required to meet one of the agreed upon criteria for being considered major. One of these criteria is being included in at least 5 national polls, and as of recently, Perry Johnson met this criteria. If you believe this criteria should change, you are welcomed to propose a new criteria here, but that is something that cannot be done through an edit request as it would require a consensus.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

be quiet YangGang2024 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

One of the prerequisites to be in the debates is: 40,000 unique donors to candidate’s principal exploratory/presidential campaign committee, with at least 200 unique donors in each of at least 20 states/territories. Where or when can this information be found? The page also still has no campaign finance information for most candidates

gop.com/press-release/rnc-announces-criteria-and-date-for-first-debate-in-milwaukee/ Veganoregano (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• If you mean, where in Wikipedia should we list the prerequisites to be included in the debates, that would best be included at 2024 Republican Party presidential debates and forums. As to campaign finance information, there is good reason why we don't have it for most candidates. As indicated at FEC.gov, presidential campaign committees are required to file reports only quarterly during non-election years. Most of the current candidates didn't enter the race until after April 1, 2023, so they weren't required to file reports for the first quarter of 2023. They will have to file their reports for the second quarter by July 15, 2023. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

Hi,

I've added the Synthesis tag to the last sentence in the Debates subsection here: 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Debates, as the cited Morning Consult article itself does not indicate that "Trump, DeSantis, Pence, Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy, and Christie" (per the Wikipedia section as written) would qualify; it is improper to combine sources to say something that isn't there, per Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

• I agree. Furthermore, as indicated at https://gop.com/press-release/rnc-announces-criteria-and-date-for-first-debate-in-milwaukee/ only polls conducted on or after July 1 will qualify a candidate for the debates, so a candidate can't pre-qualify in June. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to say (list of candidates) are polling above 1% and let the reader draw their own connection? Veganoregano (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Where's Rick Perry and John Bolton?

Last week they were in publicly expressed interest and now they're gone. If they're no longer in publicly expressed interest, is there a source that says they've ruled out a bid? Shouldn't they be in potential candidates or in declined? 2601:249:8E00:420:68E7:4BC7:F41D:FBFF (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. While I agree that they probably shouldn't be considered publicly expressed interest, given Bolton hasn't talked much about running since January/February. However an April 2023 article from PBS called him a potential candidate. As for Rick Perry, while his CNN interview said that he's considering a bid, he did say “It certainly is something that I haven’t taken off the table, but the chances of it happening are probably a little bit slim" CNN. Given these two sources, I feel that they both warrant to be in the potential candidates section until they either endorse a candidate or decline to run. MSNBC that called Bolton and Perry potential candidates and listed them alongside Kristi Noem, Mike Rogers and Glenn Youngkin who are listed in this article. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Updated Candidate colors/gradients

With the colors recently updated I took the liberty of redoing the colors to match the new hues, I'm unsure if we're still going with the original colors, so I'll post them on a separate thread:

I attempted to get the colors (60-70% for most canidates) as close to their Wikipedia colors as possible.

Doug Burgum

Hex code	Percentage
#FFE9FA	<30%
#FFD0FF	30–40%
#FFBBDC	40–50%
#FC90C2	50–60%
#F567A7	60–70%
#EF3D8E	70–80%
#C03372	80–90%
#932858	>90%

Chris Christie

Hex code	Percentage
#D1F4E1	<30%
#A3E7C4	30–40%
#4AC282	40–50%
#149D4B	50–60%
#047C30	60–70%
#015B1F	70–80%
#003311	80–90%
#042C12	>90%

Ron DeSantis

Hex code	Percentage
#E3D4DA	<30%
#E4C2D1	30–40%
#E385B1	40–50%
#BE2760	50–60%
#BB0036	60–70%
#A80016	70–80%
#870012	80–90%
#57000C	>90%

Larry Elder

Hex code	Percentage
#EFFCFC	<30%
#E2F5F8	30–40%
#BCE3E8	40–50%
#99D4DB	50–60%
#76C6CF	60–70%
#54B7C3	70–80%
#428F99	80–90%
#306A72	>90%

Nikki Haley

Hex code	Percentage
#FFEFDB	<30%
#FFE7D3	30–40%
#FFBF96	40–50%
#F69654	50–60%
#EB660C	60–70%
#D65603	70–80%
#B44900	80–90%
#8C3801	>90%

Asa Hutchinson

Hex code	Percentage
#F2EFFE	<30%
#E6DFFC	30–40%
#C3B6EF	40–50%
#A18CE6	50–60%
#7F63DC	60–70%
#5C39CD	70–80%
#4426A5	80–90%
#311B7B	>90%

Perry Johnson

Hex code	Percentage
#BDBDBD	<30%
#A0A0A0	30–40%
#868686	40–50%
#7B7B7B	50–60%
#6E6E6E	60–70%
#5E5E5E	70–80%
#484848	80–90%
#303030	>90%

Mike Pence

Hex code	Percentage
#FDFFE3	<30%
#F2FFBE	30–40%
#D2FB6D	40–50%
#B3EF1D	50–60%
#97DF0A	60–70%
#85C50A	70–80%
#6DA00A	80–90%
#547B0A	>90%

Vivek Ramaswamy

Hex code	Percentage
#FFF8E7	<30%
#FFF3D1	30–40%
#FDDF9B	40–50%
#FACB66	50–60%
#F7B833	60–70%
#F5A700	70–80%
#C28600	80–90%
#916300	>90%

Tim Scott

Hex code	Percentage
#F1FFFD	<30%
#DBFAFF	30–40%
#A5EEFF	40–50%
#70E1FF	50–60%
#3DD4FF	60–70%
#0AC7FF	70–80%
#0A9DCC	80–90%
#0A799B	>90%

Francis X. Saurez

Hex code	Percentage
#C7A083	<30%
#BC885E	30–40%
#A76A3E	40–50%
#A45727	50–60%
#A44B12	60–70%
#A73F00	70–80%
#893600	80–90%
#6D2A00	>90%

Donald Trump

Hex code	Percentage
#eef1fd	<30%
#dee3fb	30–40%
#b5bded	40–50%
#8d9ae2	50–60%
#6778d7	60–70%
#4156cd	70–80%
#3343a2	80–90%
#243179	>90%

Expoe34 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

👍 JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Would I update the colors of "Canidate Colors/Gradients" or going foward, would this be the new page for the discussion/map of colors Expoe34 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Are these real pallets or did you make them? JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Recolors of the original pallets to match the hues of the new colors Expoe34 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

My only objection to this is that Elder and Scott's colors are almost identical. I also wish there'd be another color option for Perry Johnson as grey colors are usually used to reference others/unknown/undecided on polling graphs. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

i like these! HurricaneKappa (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Instead of reinventing the wheel by creating new sets of gradients, I think it would be better to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals/2023a all, as in the original talk page thread on this topic. One of the qualities of the sets in that WikiProject is that each of colors in a set has the same hue, which is not the case with the proposed sets above. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that existed, I must've overlooked it, thank you Spiffy sperry Expoe34 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Looks great! No objections from me. We can use whichever Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals/2023a all gradient most closely matches each proposal.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Terminator expressed interest

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.

---

Lots of news about Arnie saying he would run if he could. Should we add him with a note saying he is currently ineligible? 2A00:23EE:1230:9808:CAC4:77E5:8FC9:2D9E (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

that would be based and I would vote for him but I don’t think he is JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No serious news media is reporting this. And it is meaningless, because he's born in Austria and cannot run for President (you have to be born on US soil or like military bases or overseas territories like Puerto Rico) for that. As an Austrian myself, I would find absurd to add him, knowing these facts. Therefore: Do not add. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Non eligible candidates have run in the past, so we could add him. However, he is saying he would run only if he wasn’t born outside of the U.S., so he does not seem to seriously be considering a run. Prcc27 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

you don’t have to be born in U.S Cruz was born in Canada JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Because he had a citizen parent. Veganoregano (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Not serious news. Besides, why would we have him in a page about primaries when he won't be able to run in any primaries? The debate rules of the RNC also specify you have to be constitutionally eligible to participate. Veganoregano (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/californnia-governor-arnold-schwarzenegger-president-b2360233.html WONKAKlD (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I believe I know what the original poster is referring to. He said in an interview that he would run if he could; this acknowledgement that he cannot is a good indication that he is not going to. I believe this is the interview where he was asked about running: [7] So it seems safe to say that he is not a potential candidate. (a shame, that'd be interesting to see)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:26, 22 June 2023 (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.

Potential candidates gallery

Isn’t the potential candidates gallery WP:UNDUE? Furthermore, it’s bizarre that the photos in this gallery are bigger than the declared candidates gallery. And contrary to the claim made by the user that reverted me, we are the only 2024 primary page that has a photo gallery for potential candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason why this is the only 2024 primary page with a potential photo gallery is probably because this is the only article that has potential candidates. I know that there's a talk page discussion going on at the Dems primary page to see if Nina Turner should be added and should she be added, she'll have her picture on there too. This is following the precedent of the 2016, 2020 primary articles which had a photo gallery for decision pending, announcement expected, potential candidates and publicly expressed interest. There's a good chance this section will be wiped out by August/September after the first debate as these candidates will either announce or decline to run. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The third party page does not have a gallery for potential candidates. And this does not address my concerns that the photos are too big for the potential candidate section when compared to the other sections. Prcc27 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

There is a substantial difference in the amount (and usually quality) of coverage and sources of potential third party candidates and major party candidates. The WP:UNDUE analysis isn't the same for the two because the sources are different. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Joe Manchin has gotten a lot of coverage as a potential third party candidate, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Here's one such article:

[8] David O. Johnson (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I raised having the section as an issue in "potential candidates" and one other person agreed to not having pictures Veganoregano (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

No. Keep the potential candidate gallery, just like this page has done for several years and just like every other presidential primary page has done in the past. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Also tagging DragonLegit04, who previously restored the gallery and might have some input. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Youngkin original research

Can we please remove the original research that keeps being re-added to the article? “If any candidates enter the race late in 2023, they may not qualify for early primaries. This could affect Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin…” The only two sources provided for this claim is a source from 2019 about Michael Bloomberg (obviously has nothing to do with the 2024 election), and a source about Youngkin which says absolutely nothing about candidates potentially missing filing deadlines. Unless someone wants to provide a reliable source to back up this claim, it should be removed. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Prcc27, what are you talking about ? There are 2 sources in this paragraph: on top from Ballotpedia, which lists all the current filing deadlines for the 2024 primaries and which clearly states that Nevada has the first filing deadline on October 16 already for its primary. Youngkin is Governor of Virginia, which will hold state legislature elections in early November. Youngkin said (and there's another source in the paragraph) that he will re-consider his campaign plans and might join the presidential field in case the November elections in Virginia are won by Republicans. These are 2 sources and these are facts, not original research. Youngkin would miss at least the Nevada primary deadline on October 16 if he waits until after the November elections in Virginia, which is what he said. Therefore: let the paragraph as it is right now. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

@Glasperlenspieler That is a pretty textbook description of WP:SYNTH, a type of WP:original research that combines two sources to reach a conclusion not reachable by either source independently. It violates policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Why is the conclusion not reachable ? The one is a fixed deadline (Oct. 16) by Nevada state law, the other is a fixed statement by Youngkin, also a fact. There is nothing "made-up" or involving my personal thoughts in it ... Glasperlenspieler (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

hmm. I appreciate you sharing this info but agree that you can't post it here, unfortunately. 2A00:23EE:1230:9808:CAC4:77E5:8FC9:2D9E (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

From WP:SYNTH (a mandatory policy page): Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. We don't take two sources and put them together to reach a conclusion, it violates policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Because wikipedia rules are stupid Veganoregano (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

No. They are useful, and your comment is not helpful. Even if this wasn’t original research, I would still lean against including this, because it is clearly WP:UNDUE. Youngkin already declined a run, and only a couple sources claim that an adviser said he’s reconsidering. We do not need a whole paragraph on “will he/will he not run?” Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Will Hurd officially in.

Will Hurd announced his campaign for President today:

https://apnews.com/article/will-hurd-2024-republican-presidential-primary-710f6f0d4bb6cc1f5046e20ed17ef602

He must be listed under major contenders, right ? Having served in the US House. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

He would definitely qualify. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Official FEC filing: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00843540/1708715/

Official website: https://www.willbhurd.com/ Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This can be his color #c5b634 JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike

The picture we're using is from like a decade ago, so can somebody get Mike Rogers a new picture? Not the Alabama Mike Rogers with the fakeass wig, the one from Michigan whose grown a sick flow

youtube.com/watch?v=BhsYZXA74og&ab_channel=WMUR-TV Veganoregano (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Change the Potential candidates to include Senator Rick Scott on the list of potential candidates. Currently, while his picture is shown, his name is not in the above list. I would also include the New York Times article about Senator Scott as a source for this. JVLEndorsements (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Rick Scott is not running

If anyone isn't caught up, a report came out from the NYT saying anonymous sources said Scott is considering an entry. In that report, Scott's senior advisor stated to the times: "It's flattering that some have mentioned the possibility of Senator Scott running for President, but as he's said many times, he's running for re-election to the Senate."

Public statements take precedence over reports. Especially when it's a more recent public statement in response to that report. Even if it may be true, that Scott is weighing an entry, anybody can be weighing anything. Anybody can want anything yet stay on the sidelines. Actions are what matter. I think this is clear enough. Veganoregano (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did you make a new section for this? the post directly above is about the same topic and this reads like a reply to that post. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Original research I think.The NYT article didn't suggest this would rule him out of running for president, and they published the story despite that comment. So right to initially add him to potential,with the NYT being a major reliable news source, but Scott quickly denied the story. 92.12.8.215 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I readded him to potential candidates, I think he is clearly still considering it. Mister Conservative (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Per the latest source, he explicitly says, "“What’s accurate is I’m running for the Senate, I’m not running for president,” Scott told reporters."

I have added him back to the Declined section. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing Perry Johnson picture.

I was banned on Wikipedia Commons for uploading one. It was deleted before I was even able to confirm copyright for it (I sent a mail to his campaign for confirmation). Usually, it gets deleted after just one week, but this was deleted the next day already. Can someone upload a valid picture and post it here ? Thanks. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you would post a picture before confirming its copyright status.. Also, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia users generally do not reach out to campaigns for information. If there was a valid picture for Johnson, I'm sure it would have already been posted, and one will be posted as soon as we find one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

it's ridiculous how hard it is to find one. I looked through so many sites, their TOS to find one. Not a single one exists. I'm ready to literally take a picture of him myself at this point. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

I found one. Uploaded it just now. Licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 from Michigan Advance. https://michiganadvance.com/blog/after-failed-gov-bid-republican-perry-johnson-launches-presidential-campaign-with-super-bowl-ad/

[[File:Perry Johnson Campaign (cropped for portrait use).jpg|thumb|Perry running for governor.]] IEditPolitics (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi IEditPolitics, I'm a license reviewer on Wikimedia Commons. I left you a message on your talk page there but in case you're not checking it I will comment here. The images you are uploading are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons because they are licensed for non-profit purposes only. Commons can only accept content that is freely licensed for anyone to use, including for commercial purposes. c:COM:Licensing lays out the policy. I would absolutely encourage you to take your own picture as you suggested you might. Uploader-created content is the backbone of Commons! 25stargeneral (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Their campaign hasn’t taken 2 minutes to give their man a public domain picture?? Veganoregano (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And the primaries?

I find it strange that in a page titled 2024 Republican primaries we don’t have anything about primaries. Is it about waiting till there’s more information? I still think there should at least be a section dedicated to it. Veganoregano (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a Schedule section created months ago, but I'm pretty sure it was removed because it was premature at the time. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I added a new section at the bottom, by moving "other timing information" down. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There should be a table like the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Primary and caucus calendar section of the 2020 article. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

True. But I think it's too early still: most states are still in the process of finalizing their dates and this will take another 6 months or longer. I added the first few contests and Super Tuesday as a starter. The table can be introduced in late 2023, or when more information comes available. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Nevada Primaries Page

I saw that no page had been created for the Nevada Primaries. Should we make one, or is Nevada just too insignificant to get a page? If not, we should just unlink the Nevada Primaries as it is just visually wrong looking at. IEditPolitics (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There will probably be a Nevada primary page eventually (See 2016 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses for an example). But it probably won't be created for little while so I think it'd be fine to remove the link and then re-add it when the article actually exists. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like there is a problem with 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses just ignoring the controversy on the primary v. caucus issue footnoted in this article. I don't think we need a separate article for the Nevada caucus and primary, but the controversy about the two should definitely be explained at the article that we have.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I added the footnote and source in the article, explaining that Republicans could have both a primary and a caucus later on in Nevada. Currently, Nevada plans a primary for both parties on 6 February 2024 - but Republicans somehow don't want that ... and instead sued the state to have a caucus instead. But as long as just 1 Republican candidate files for the primary until October 16 (filing deadline), there will be a primary anyway. Obviously, Republicans and their candidates could all boycott the primary and just compete in the later caucuses. The Republican Party could also mandate all their candidates not to file for the primary, or risk consequences. If none of their candidates files, no Republican primary will be held. So, we just have to wait and see what happens in Nevada until October 16: if Republican candidates file until then fo4 the primary, a separate article can be created. If nobody files, a primary is not held, and the caucus article is enough. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I am 99.9% sure that the Nevada Republican Primary will be organized and held, because there will be at least a few local unknown Republicans who will file to be on the ballot. Maybe the 13 main candidates will boycott the primary, because the Republican Party tells them to do so (as a pre-condition to participate in their caucuses without punishment). Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I think I understand. I tagged 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses as needing updating since there is not mention of this there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-style for Potential Candidates

Potential Candidates may not have as much weight, but considered we have Will Hurd in a Template, I think potential candidates could deserve a Template style. This could give undue weight, but more visually impressive and understandable. I'd be happy to create the template.

Thoughts? (I'd prefer a consensus) IEditPolitics (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)