Jump to content

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

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

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 4: updated DeSantis name

Update 5: swapped Elder & scott colors, added Burgum

Update 6: removed Sununu

Update 7: added pence

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]
Wait what was Sununu’s original color? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:24C8:2F05:A6D6:C1D7 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great color you using for Doug 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Mike Rogers? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Also what about Francis X. Suarez? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[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]
What about Burgum? HurricaneKappa (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I could swap scott and elders colors, would that be suitable for you? Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think Tim Scott is gonna withdraw before the primaries WONKAKlD (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Burgum is a governor, ergo he qualifies. It's pretty cut and dry. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Hey, Pence declared yesterdasy. I assume thatmeans we can add him. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added him Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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]
I had been getting skeptical of Elder as a major candidate, but he now has more than the 5 national polls needed to satisfy that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 29 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 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)[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]
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)[reply]
I agree with this. Potential candidates shouldn't have photos. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
National polls that is Perryj1622 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I agree with that assessment. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Mediaite can be used and that would be 5. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Huh... not strange at all. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
he doesn't have major media coverage. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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.
2.103.101.211 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Kemp still considering presidential bid, subject to speculation.

Consensus to keep Brian Kemp listed as a declined candidate. IP editors advocated for moving Kemp from 'declined candidates' to 'potential candidates.' Some active editors were open to listing Kemp as a potential candidate after reporting in May an advisor of his said he is reconsidering running. However, the current source has Kemp (himself) saying no in March and current consensus is to prefer the candidate's own statements over the statements of advisors. As I was involved in this discussion, any editor can revert my close and re-open discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:59, 2 June 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.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]
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)[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]
Youngkin himself hasn't expressed publicly that he's interested. The Axios article said it was a "top source close to Youngkin". I think he should go back to the 'potential' list until Youngkin comments publicly on the subject. Alexjjj (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a point. Unless the information is coming directly from the candidate, it almost seems like glorified hearsay. Prcc27 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For any editor wondering "what happened?": We listed him as potential, a few hours later an Axios (website) article came out quoting an adviser saying he was seriously reconsidering. Youngkin was briefly moved to "Public Expressed Interest," based on this report. However, editors moved Youngkin back to potential since he needs to express interest himself to be in the other section. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think reports should not be considered, an individual's public statements/actions even if they were less recent should take precedence and define what section they are in. Axios simply said an anonymous source told them Youngkin is weighing it. One, just how reliable is that? Two, anybody can be weighing anything. Are they gonna do it though? Veganoregano (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mike Rogers

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


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

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)[reply]

Experience

Should being in the military be listed as “experience”? Also, why do some candidates have long lists of experience listed? Was there a consensus on the limit of occupations we should list in the table, or do we have to discuss this further? Anything over 3 is an eyesore, IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being in the military has never been in the list of experience if they are in the major candidates area. It should be removed Blake675 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, being in the military has been in the list of experience in other articles, but usually only when the person's last notable experience was their military experience. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How many notable experiences should we list? I think we can drop it down to 2. Prcc27 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some declined candidates still being subject to speculation and being discussed as potential candidates.

Among some of the "declined candidates", are names that have continued to be tossed around as potential candidates in the last days. Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, Brian Kemp: https://www.newarab.com/news/look-prospective-2024-us-presidential-contenders I believe they need to be re-added to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:B06D:9190:4664:251E:D574 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That site isn't listed on the reliable sources page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You would have a better case if you could find some speculation in reliable sources. The site you linked even lists Larry Hogan who couldn't have been more clearer that he isn't running for the Republican nomination. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like Marco Rubio should be in Potential Candidates but that’s just me. 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree completely. Marco Rubio never gave a complete, flat no, when asked about it, in fact, some sources say he avoided the question. He should be moved back to "Potential candidates" 2806:103E:D:C40F:F593:D145:EF9F:4EAF (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But we can’t change it without people doing revisions on our edits. 2603:6080:2105:AA26:24C8:2F05:A6D6:C1D7 (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the position of Rubio advocates,that saying you're not running is different to saying you have no plans to run? 2A00:23EE:14E0:8DD9:F680:1B88:5C45:4F0D (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EXACTLY WONKAKlD (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our last discussion didn't find any sources were Rubio said he would run after he was reported as declining in March. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Who changed the colors in the candidate box?

Can they please be reverted to what they were on 5/25/2023? WorldMappings (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an IP editor made the changes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&diff=next&oldid=1157444274 David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I support changing the colors back, we need to be consistent, and there does not seem to be a good reason to change the colors. Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the colors back. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will Hurd Placement

Since Will Hurd's decision timeframe has passed and he hasn't given any indication on a new timeframe, does it make sense to move him from 'decision pending' to the 'publicly expressed interest' section? Alexjjj (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Vrivasfl (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It’s past Memorial Day I don’t think he is gonna run. WONKAKlD (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, but we'll give him the benefit of waiting until he specifically says he isn't running, or the six-month rule takes effect, whichever comes first. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Laffey in Declared Major Candidates

I think Steve Laffey should be in Declared Major Candidates because he did have office as Mayor of Cranston Rhode Island but what do you think? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m person who made this yes I made an account so reply to me instead. WONKAKlD (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. There's been articles about him since he announced his campaign and remember for the 2020 Democratic primaries, Wayne Messam was considered a major candidate. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Messam was included in many polls though. So far, Laffey hasn't even been included in one national or state poll listed on FiveThirtyEight's website. Alexjjj (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor of Cranston isn't a notable political office. He also doesn't have poll or media presence. Scu ba (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Bolton

Since the six month deadline as stated in the publicly expressed interest section is approaching, should we consider moving John Bolton to potential candidates, espeically since there hasn't been much media speculation/further remarks from Bolton about a potential bid. 38.106.246.197 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I agree I think he should go in potential candidates 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, the six month deadline is 8 weeks away. If so, that is not "approaching". --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, the 6 month rule also applies to potential candidates. 2A00:23EE:2500:91C0:964E:2740:4989:8297 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He said he hasn't ruled it out: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=425657 Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think he is clearly considering a run, but not sure if it is safe to say he has expressed “interest” in running. Prcc27 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Stapleton is a MAJOR candiate!

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2023/06/01/2024-us-presidential-candidates-election/9721684804723/ 2806:103E:D:D866:DDC5:BA79:B436:C003 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We've had this discussion, he isn't. Check back in the archive for more information. Also UPI is not on the WP:RSP and would require an entry in WP:RSN to determine if it is a reliable/major source. Scu ba (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
After quite a few discussions, I think the current consensus is he is not. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, ridicoulous that the page has decided Elder is and Stapleton is not Veganoregano (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but if we add Stapleton what should his color be? WONKAKlD (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest a Gold-yellow color and I think we should put him under Nikki Haley. WONKAKlD (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I am sympathetic to the argument that Corey Stapleton is a major candidate and advocated so myself in past discussions (per the major office criteria), but the consensus has been on the other side for months. He was the first candidate to announce and has been in 0 polls, and that in itself is kinda telling. Rick Perry has 3 polls and hasn't announced. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have found more media coverage https://ballotpedia.org/Corey_Stapleton_presidential_campaign,_2024 WONKAKlD (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ballotpedia isn't really "media coverage," it's a more of a reference/tertiary source. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could support adding Stapleton into major candidates. He's been getting more media coverage. The Hill, Yahoo, MSN. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Hill and Yahoo articles are the exact same article, and it's a list format that doesn't really report on the candidates or their campaign in a meaningful sense. Rather, it just pulls some quotes the author found online. The MSN article is a mere passing reference. Stapleton is specifically excluded from the chart of major candidates in that article. The tenor of these articles is exactly the type one would expect of minor candidates. Vrivasfl (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to be talking about trying to fit Corey into the criteria and not focusing on the faultiness of the criteria itself. Simply having attention paid to you doesn't make you a major candidate. The news gave Elder attention because he's an oddball, not because he's anybody's choice. I've thought about it and nobody's going to come back years later and care about sideshows. The candidate section is the top of the page, naturally it should be for important things. Like on the 2012 page where it's brief, I think the criteria should be changed to something like "Current or previous significant officeholder - or has received at least 1-5% in five national polls." As for the timeline, it shows the progression and heating up of the race so it should feature everybody, no criteria. Veganoregano (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Your suggestion is dangerously close to original research. It is not Wikipedia's job to question why the media is giving Elder attention. Rightly or wrongly, "having attention" actually does make you a major candidate, and in case you forgot, sometimes the oddball actually wins. Our job is not to question why the media and the pollsters are giving more attention to Elder than Stapleton, and it certainly isn't to create criteria to adjusts for this. We are here to say it like it is. Elder is a major candidate because the reliable sources we cite treat him as a major candidate by reporting on his campaign and including him in polls. Stapleton is a minor candidate because the reliable sources were cite treat him as a minor candidate by mentioning him only in passing and excluding him from polls. Vrivasfl (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research to say we're not going to put people polling at 0.5% at the top of the page. Veganoregano (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Polling is fact based and this page is about a big poll that's going to happen in 2024. We also organize things for the reader. I'm saying there's a place where we can tell it like it is, and that's lower down the page where Stapleton and Elder and Burgum and such can go. Veganoregano (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson Consensus

Closing to prevent duplicate discussions. Please contribute at the active discussion on Perry Johnson on this page.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:18, 2 June 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.

After our last discussion, have we came to the conclusion that Perry Johnson qualifies for major canidate status 2603:8080:4D01:6516:15E2:B8B9:4C09:440D (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

He doesn't have any of the qualifiers to be a major candidate. Not enough media coverage. Not enough inclusion in polls. No prior significant office. Scu ba (talk) 03:03, 2 June 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.

Liz Cheney mistakenly added to Declined candidates

Liz Cheney is currently listed as declined. While sourcing indicates that Cheney may still run, sourcing also indicates that she has declined to run as a Republican (Cheney said last year that she would not be a Republican on the ballot if she ran for the White House in the future- source). Discussion of a potential 3rd party or independent run should take place at 2024 United States presidential election. Before re-adding Cheney, please provide reliable sourcing that she is considering a campaign specially as a Republican candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:21, 5 June 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.


Cheney was moved to decline candidates from potential candidates. The article that was the cause of this stated that Cheney had not "ruled out a presidential bid", it never said a thing about her declining to run. In fact, she has more than 5 articles all talking about her considering a presidential run. 2806:103E:D:D866:E918:230E:1ED1:9873 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did see that. I moved her to publicly expressed interest, from the articles currently circulating, that is the most fair thing to do. 2806:103E:D:D866:E918:230E:1ED1:9873 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cheney only discussed a third party run in the article:
"Speaking at the 2023 Mackinac Policy Conference in Detroit, Michigan, the three-term conservative was asked if she would consider a third-party campaign." David O. Johnson (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Were do you keep getting this stuff that Cheney won't run as a Republican, she was in potential candidates until last week, when she publicly expressed interest in running. I must admit, I couldn't find a thing where she has said she will not run as a Republican. Plus, unless she has left the Republican Party, then that would make no sense. 2806:103E:D:A84A:388F:FDAB:FC1D:C516 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the same article: "Cheney said last year that she would not be a Republican on the ballot if she ran for the White House in the future." David O. Johnson (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will not run as a Republican = declined for all intents and purposes for this article. Prcc27 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 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.

Mike Rogers

I think Rogers should be moved to Publicly expressed interest. He's been decision pending since early April and just keeps blowing by the listed announcement dates Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Ducey in Potential candidates

This discussion is a bring-back WONKAKlD (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The last discussion did not find 2 sources from the past 6 months. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

User:Veganoregano, in your recent edit you:

  • Added the candidacy of someone not deemed a "major candidate" per the criteria (Secretary of State is not a major office) to the lede - Elder and Ramaswamy are deemed notable by virtue of meeting the classifications in the "major candidates" section.
  • Added candidates who have not declared yet and said that they have announced (one of which purportedly announced on a date that has not arrived yet!)
  • Changed the "denied" section requirements to something you have no consensus to change it to, and something grammatically incorrect ("about a potential candidacy of them" is not grammatically correct).


Per WP:3RR, you're on the precipice of breaking the three-revert rule and are actively edit-warring to reinstate your preferred version. I invite you to self-revert. — ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 22:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you find grammatical errors, modify them!? Say they "will " announce a campaign, change it to "about potentially being candidates." Why would you erase it? State Secretary of State is a significant office, but we have a disagreement there I suppose. To me it makes no sense that someone who's polling at 0% who's never held an office is included but not a former state sec of state Veganoregano (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Will would violate WP:CRYSTAL which is why we don't say "will announce." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe it is allowed when events are scheduled or near certain though right? Veganoregano (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tone and style thing, we don't know they will announce (things could change), we only know they say they will announce. It's typically more concise to convey this conditionality with words like "pending" than "has said they will." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my edits were to the potential section, not the denied. I made it more specific and with common sense as to not overlap with the denied section. Veganoregano (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ted Cruz announced he was not running for president yet was on the potential list. The criteria of the section was nothing but two sources speculating a run about anyone. I simply specified it to say individuals who say they're not running shouldn't be in two sections at once, and obviously shouldn't be considered potential candidates, confusing the reader. Veganoregano (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source were Cruz says he's not running? the last discussion here resulted in him being moved from declined to potentially partially because no one gave a source where he said he wasn't running. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What Cruz stated was that he will be running for a third term in the senate in 2024, back in February. That makes it almost certain he's not running for any other office at the same time. That would be bizarre. POLITICO declared him "ruled out."
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/politics/ted-cruz-senate-2024/index.html
https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/ Veganoregano (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the source that was after his announcement of his re-election campaign and the footnote you removed that stated he can run for both if he chooses? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say he can't run for both, I said it would be bizarre and I've never heard of something like that before. People announcing they will seek a third term can be assumed to mean just that. Veganoregano (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Marco Rubio ran in both the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and the 2016 United States Senate election in Florida; Corey Booker ran in both the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and the 2020 United States Senate election in New Jersey. It is definitely not unheard of for someone to run both for re-election and in the presidential primary. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, with regards to Veganoregano's remark about not hearing of someone running for both the Senate and Presidency; perhaps two better examples (although for the Vice-Presidency) can be brought up, both from Texas (Lyndon Johnson running both for Vice-President and re-election to the Senate; winning re-election before becoming Vice-President, and Lloyd Bentsen doing the same runs for Vice-President and re-election, winning re-election while Bentsen and the candidate at the top of the ticket that time, Michael Dukakis, were defeated). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I place Cruz in potential candidates once again, I only need help with the picture. 2806:103E:D:C3F9:2877:9E93:C15C:E55E (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one warring here? You raised this contention Veganoregano (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Colors for the remaining "Decision Pending" candidate (Francis X. Suarez)

Revised: Drawing inspiration from the 2016 Republican primary colors, much like Mathew McCullin, I have incorporated the unused color brown into Francis X. Saurez's potential campaign. In order to maintain a cohesive visual theme similar to McCullin's, I have ensured that Saurez's hues align with those of the other candidates.

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%

Expoe34 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1158898141"