Jump to content

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 92.16.56.134 (talk) at 20:20, 19 May 2023 (→‎Tim Scott launches bid: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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 shadings of 70-80% in 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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
will do, give me a couple minutes to find a decent color pallete Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the purple you've chosen for Sununu! HurricaneKappa (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ryan Binkley - Major or Minor candidate?

Ryan Binkley was briefly listed as a minor candidate when he had a Wikipedia article, but the article was deleted. Binkley should not be relisted as a minor candidate unless he has an active article not under WP:AFD or if there is clear consensus to relist him. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:02, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

As reported in The Hill, The Daily Beast and BuisnessWire, Ryan Binkley has announced his presidential run. Just gathering the sources but I think he belongs in the major candidate section. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I second him not being included in even the minor candidate list due to his lack of an article on wikipedia Scu ba (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will knock out an article for him ASAP. In the mean time I'm noting 'The Independent' are also covering him, that's another reliable source and he has only just announced, momentum building. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure you have articles actually talking about him as a person dated before his announcement to run for president.Scu ba (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Corey Stapleton is a MAJOR candidate.

Stapleton hasn't held prior notable public office, hasn't been included in 5 major news sources, hasn't been included in recent polls. Fails all criteria to become a major canidate. Scu ba (talk) 21:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.

He has been elected Secretary of State in Montana, in a statewide election.

Please include him in the table of major candidates. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have significant media coverage or inclusion in polls. Also Secretary of State of a state isn't a major enough statewide office to be considered. Scu ba (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true: Secretary of State is one of the most important statewide offices, because they oversee elections and voting, among others. Secretary of States were very important during 2020 and 2022 elections, see Georgia and Brad Raffensperger. Also, Ramaswamsi and Elder have no elected statewide political office at all and virtually no media coverage either and Elder doesn't show up in national polling, yet they are included as "major" candidates ... that doesn't make sense. You need to be fair and include Stapleton, if you include the other 2. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Im aware of what the secretary of state does. But again, executive tier positions that aren't governor, such as treasurer, attorney general, and yes, the secretary of state, aren't major enough positions to be listed. If he where a governor or senator than yes. Also the ONLY article about him and him alone is from Yahoo! finance. Elder was added because he declared less than a week ago, stapleton declared months ago and has never been included in any polls. Scu ba (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are being unfair: Stapleton has been mentioned in several articles, check Google News. For example when he visited New Hampshire, WMUR TV and other NH newspapers reported about it. Elder is included, because he announced this week ? Are you kidding me ? Is this a criteria ? He is also not included in any national or state poll. Please add Stapleton now, your reasoning makes no sense. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have been checking the news. articles like this and this fail to pass WP:RS due to them being local news stations and local subsidiaries of news stations. Check the WP:RSP list for some example of articles that meet requirements to be counted as major news. Sources such as ABC, BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters. Major news publicans. Not the Helena Independent Record or WMUR-TV. Even then he would need five articles talking specifically about him and his campaign, im not even seeing 5 minor local papers reporting on him, let alone national reliable sources. Scu ba (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Local news articles do pass WP:RS, they just don't really establish "substantial media coverage." Other than that, I agree with @Scu ba TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, I meant reliable major source, sorry for the confusion. Scu ba (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elder has been in 5 polls, despite announcing this month. Stapleton has been in 0 and announced last year. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cory Stapleton is not a major candidate since he has not been featured in any major polls, or has been mentioned in any major news outlets (ABC, AP, CBS, Fox, NBC, NY Times, Politico, etc) Blake675 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Marco Rubio

Robio never actually said he would not run for president, his staff only stated that he was still considering it and it was not a final no. I think he should be moved back to the "potential candidates" 2806:103E:D:5659:65C3:3781:CEBA:D420 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He was in potential candidates when I checked, I added his image to the gallery too, along with youngkin. Scu ba (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When did his staff say he was considering it? I must admit I can't find anything recent that speculates on Rubio being a candidate. The interview with Rubio listed as a source in the article is pretty definitive. “I don’t have any plans to run for anything this year...he continued, noting that a presidential run isn’t something that can be decided quickly. “You’ve got to prepare yourself for that and have all the infrastructure in place. So I have no plans and intentions to do anything, run for anything over the next couple of years.” 79.78.91.188 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still say that Rubio should be back in Potential candidates. He has said that it is not a complete no. And that he is still considering it. 2806:103E:D:66AF:6987:C1B9:41FE:880C (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I Completely agree. Rubio has still to decline. 2806:103E:D:9361:AD05:2DC3:674A:9099 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone help me move Rubio back to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:9BA5:E50B:7317:E744:9F48 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have two sources saying he will run from after he declined to run in March? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting the Major Candidates section

Consensus against splitting major candidates section into a major and significant candidates section. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:02, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I think we should split this up into major candidates and significant candidates, and then the minor candidates section left as is. It is taking up too much space to list Hutchinson, Elder and potentially others with Trump, Haley and Ramaswamy. I propose we add a polling threshold of 2% in at least 5 polls to be included as a major candidate. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

no, if there are a lot of major candidates then we just have to deal with that. the list is going to be getting shorter as the primaries go on as candidates drop out. I think we should keep the system we've been using in place. Scu ba (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine as it is. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Scu ba and David that things are fine as they are. At this point four years ago, 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries had 21 major candidates listed. The current list with only 5 major Republican candidates hardly can be said to be "taking up too much space". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if people are really concerned that the candidates list is "taking up too much space", then we could reduce the size of the candidates' photos and their campaign logos, which in turn would reduce the size of the table rows. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Some fair points, I didn't know the 2020 Democratic primary had that many candidates listed. I think it is a bit overkill and uninformative for the casual reader to group so many together, but it looks like I'm in the minority. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Photos

Have we discussed the photos? I'm not a fan of those for Haley or Hutchison. There are certainly better ones out there for Haley. This photo her has her looking to the left with her head tilted up and kinda squinting, and it was hard for me to even recognize while scrolling that that was Nikki Haley's face I was scrolling past. I also don't love the angle we are seeing Hutchison from in his photo. SecretName101 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not like Wikicommons is overflowing with images of these guys. As far as I can tell, besides from the ones currently being used, these are the images that could be used for them.
Nikki Haley
  • 2020
    2020
  • 2017
    2017
  • 2017 - previously used and switched out
    2017 - previously used and switched out
Asa Hutchison
  • 2019
    2019
  • 2019 - previously used and switched out
    2019 - previously used and switched out
I'm hesitant to use anything from before 2016 since that would defeat the purpose of having a recent and relevant image of them. I think that the images used in the article are sufficient. Scu ba (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Cruz 2024

Cruz added to potential candidates Scu ba (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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.businessinsider.com/which-republicans-are-running-for-president-against-trump-biden-2022-11?r=MX&IR=T#sen-ted-cruz-of-texas-5 In this article it states that Cruz has not specifically mention he will not seek the nomination. I believe that he should be put back in the "potential candidates box" 2806:103E:D:66AF:6987:C1B9:41FE:880C (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This again floats back to the "from the horse's mouth" debate that didn't really go anywhere. Sure Ted himself hasn't said that he isn't going to run, but his campaign and his advisors have said he has no plans on running. Scu ba (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and again, although sources close to him have said that he is not running, we should wait for he himself to make that clear. Sources close to Desantis have said he is running for president but he isn't a declared candidate as of today. Cruz should be moved back to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:B892:DD13:558:4045:B496 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need two sources from the past 6 months to list a potential candidate, do you have a second source? Preferably one, like the Business Insider one you linked, that is post his senate re-election announcement. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3863222-ranking-the-gops-top-10-presidential-candidates/
This is from a few days after his senate re-election announcement. I personally don't credibly consider him as a potential candidate, but he could be listed to allow others to form their own view, as its clear from here that some see him as a potential candidate. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
z should be moved back to potential candidates. I'll move him back, if someone can help me with the picture and references. 2806:103E:D:9BA5:E50B:7317:E744:9F48 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Added him to potential with the two sources in this thread and added a footnote explaining he can run for the nomination and his senate seat. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me and post here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
, Cruz is still for sure a potential candidate, while I doubt he will actually take the step of declaring a run, I think he is still subject to speculation and should remain in potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:48B:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Announcement/Decision pending

I feel like the announcement and decision pending sections should be consolidated. The difference between making an announcement and making a decision is somewhat insignificant. The wording for the decision pending section says “the following notable individuals are expected to make an announcement regarding their official candidacy within a set timeline.” How is that not the same thing as an announcement pending? We should consolidate the sections, or at the very least change the decision pending wording to clarify what counts as “decision pending” but not “announcement pending”. Prcc27 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with consolidating the sections as "Announcement/Decision pending". It would simplify things for readers and editors alike, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the opinion that there is a clear difference between announcement pending, which means a specific date on which there will be an announcement, confirmed by the candidate or someone authorized to speak on their behalf like an official campaign spokesperson, versus decision pending, which means nonbinding comments, sometimes not even from the candidate, that a decision is likely by a certain point, sometimes a specific date, but could as much as a whole month (e.g. "by June"), and prospective candidates occasionally pass those dates without decision. If anything should be merged, it should be "decision pending" and "publicly expressed interest".Vrivasfl (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Elder as a Major Declared Candidate

I think Larry Elder may not meet the requirements for being a Major Declared Candidate. Elder has never served in office nor has he appeared in five major national polls, so the only other requirement that he could meet to be on this page is to have appeared in five articles that meet the outlined consensus requirements which are that the articles are each 1. National 2. Unique, as in no syndicated articles 3. Reputable by WP:RSP 4. The article is not paid for by the candidate or any associated party 5. The main purpose of the article is to describe or announce the candidate's candidacy

I think we should review whether Elder meets this criterion. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He got significant media coverage, so I would assume he qualifies. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the two previous discussions: 1 2. If consensus has changed, we can move him, but previous discussions were pretty in favor of listing him as a major candidate for having significant coverage. Also, as of now, Elder has appeared in at least 7 national polls (6 if you don't count FOX per the pending RFC on their politics reliability) on 538. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the sources and most of them look like they do not count, at least 4 for syndication, 2 for videos being cited as articles and a few others for the sources being unreliable per WP:RSP, but I do think he has at least 5 sources and I checked FiveThirtyEight and he does meet the standard for polling as well by appearing in at 7 national polls. Perryj1622 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason for him to be removed, he has significant media coverage Scu ba (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. He is getting a lot of media coverage, has been in a few polls and is a notable person. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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:


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Brian Kemp still considering presidential bid, subject to speculation.

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)[reply]

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

Formal or Informal Dates for Announced Candidates?

I noticed that Asa Hutchinson's campaign launch date keeps getting moved between the informal (April 2) and the formal date (April 26). If we're going by formal dates, then Nikki Haley's would need to be moved to February 15th as that's when she formally declared at her rally in Charleston, South Carolina. February 14th was the day she announced via video online. DeSantis is scheduled to announce his run next week, but articles say he won't have a formal rally launch until the week after. Personally, I think the informal dates are fine as the candidates have donation pages on their established websites. Would like some feedback so we can settle on which date to use for each candidate. Alexjjj (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The simplest and most objective option is to go by the FEC filing date, but I think the most accurate option is to go with the earliest date, so I say stick with the informal announcement dates Vrivasfl (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should pick one to list (probably the formal announcement), then add a footnote explaining the dating discrepancy in sources if there is one. Instead of trying to pick a date and ignore the rest, just explain to the reader why there's different dates in different sources. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should go with when the candidate submitted FEC paperwork. That is legally when their campaign starts. Scu ba (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Scott launches bid

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/tim-scott-presidential-bid-2024-gop-b2342276.htm https://apnews.com/article/tim-scott-2024-presidential-campaign-152d2ee680c9a98e7fd0a2a1cf328e3c

Was expected May 22nd but its official now. 92.16.56.134 (talk) 20:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seen from the article history that some want to wait until he makes the announcement himself. That is probably best actually as I know filings have been faked before. 92.16.56.134 (talk) 20:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1155807028"