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 17:45, 23 May 2023 (→‎Youngkin: 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

Update 5: updated DeSantis name

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]

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

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.

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

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)[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]

Is Robert O'Brien a potential candidate?

Former National Security Advisor under Trump, Robert O'brien has been subject to speculation about his higher ambitions (2024 presidential run), even as recently as the 2022 midterms. He has not denied interest in running and has yet to endorse anyone in the race, so it woulld be safe to add O'Brien in the "potential candidates" category. 2806:103E:D:1F28:F509:FDBF:7A0C:4D0F (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential candidates require two two separate references from reliable sources within the past six months. The 2022 midterms are now more than six months ago. The references should provide substantive discussion focusing on them as a potential candidate for this race, not a brief mention or just a list of numerous people. Hope this helps. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
do you have sources? Scu ba (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe anyone should be debating whether or not O'Brien should be considered a potential candidate. He has previously held significant office, had substantial media coverage and has expressed interest about running for president. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That expression of interest has to be from within the past six months. See the introduction to the Potential candidates section:
"As of May 2023, the following notable individuals have expressed an interest in running for president within the previous six months." David O. Johnson (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ducey in potential candidates?

I believe that Ducey qualifies to be in the "potential candidates" department, he has had various articles talking about him as a potential candidate. Mister Conservative (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe he does. In the year 2023, there has been no articles talking about him potentially being a candidate. Alexjjj (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I found a single WSJ article in their opinion section speculating on how he might be a good candidate. The consensus is, to be listed as a potential candidate, they would need two separate major and reliable news sources publishing articles on them and the prospect of running. So if you can find another than we might be able to add him to the list.
That being said, there is a lot more speculation that he is going to run for the 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona, despite him directly saying he wont. There is a multitude of articles still speculating on a possible run.
[4] [5] [6]
So in short. No. He needs another source. Scu ba (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Can someone edit reference #103 to be correct it shows missing title so please add |title=The Rules of the Republican Party and on reference #107 please fix the date to spelled out month date 4 digit year. Thanks.


2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – Callmemirela 🍁 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Youngkin

What has happened to him?

Last I saw he was bouncing between potential candidate and declined candidate, now he isn't in either list. Was that the compromise reached?

92.16.56.134 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the archives it seems we had listed him as potential since he'd "ruled out a run this year" but there is speculation of him announcing early next year. I'll re-add him now until we get a new consensus or a new source where he declines totally. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It looks like new information has come out since I created this topic, and Youngkin is deciding whether to run, he has been moved to decision pending. That seems to be the right place for him given the information available. 92.16.56.134 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1156600778"