Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Trans Rights.

This is a requested change, not a forum

In the lead paragraph the following should be changed LGBT rights, ..... are expected to be leading campaign issues. to Trans Rights ..... are expected to be leading campaign issues. for the following reasons:

I suspect Trans Rights will be a bigger issue than just LGBT rights.I don't suspect Lesbian or Gay rights will be center-stage (like in say, 2012) compared to just Trans rights. I would recommend changing LGBT rights to Trans Rights. I know LGBT covers Trans Rights but Trans Rights are a particular hot topic among both conservatives and liberals, and their wouldn't be a better way to differentiate the times, (Say, the 2020's), (To say the early 2010s) than to differentiate the social justice and civil rights issue of the current political day or era.

This is for many reasons, from Ron DeSantis' culture war/war on books, to the potential release of Hale's manifesto to Gender Affirming healthcare being denied in Tennessee, to J.K Rowling's transphobic statements, it seems like Trans Rights are going much more of a political issue than LGBT rights in general.

It's also interesting to note that Biden was the first president to mention Trans as part of a boarder political coalition. Unlike the 2010s, Biden also incorporates the Trans flag into his political apparel. I think Trans Rights will define a much broader debate for the rest of the decade (2020s) in a way that the just the LGBT movement won't, which is why Biden made a point to mention them seperately. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What about LGBT rights, especially trans rights? Because you're right that trans rights are a particular issue of contention, but also stuff like the sudden increase in prominence of the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory says to me it's not just trans rights. Loki (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd agree that the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory has become an issue, but I think it's become more of an issue under the auspices of gender identity as oppose too same-sex attraction. I don't think a majority of conservative opposition is that they are turning kids gay but it's that they are against children receiving gender-affirming care or identifying as non-binary. Or they are against public educators discussing certain issues to students. Most of the political topics in the last 4 years have been directly related to Transgender issues specifically, including but not limited to

Trans individuals right to use locker rooms/restrooms.

Trans individuals right to compete in sports.

Trans individuals right to surgery.

Trans soldiers right to surgery.

Non-Binary pronoun usage in government documents.

Educators right to teach about certain subjects.

The only issue that tangential touches Lesbian and Gay rights is perhaps education, but the objection from conservative media hasn't been Gay books are in schools, it's supposedly explicit books are in schools which are being taught too children or are mandatory. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The word "rights" I believe isn't neutral. Just as saying "right to life" suggests opposition to abortion and "abortion rights" suggests support, saying "transgender rights" suggests a point of view that transgenderism is valid and not subject to political and social debate. I would instead say "transgender issues," which puts less of a thumb on the scale. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

“Transgender issues” sounds negative, and also may be WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that's equivalent to saying Civil Rights suggest a point of view that people of color are valid members of greater American society. I think Trans rights are on par with Women's rights (1920s) or Civil Rights (1950s-1960s) or Gay Rights (1980s-2010s, but still ongoing). Especially with the epidemic of Trans suicide and overall acceptance, "Transgender issues" sounds very insular, and slightly negative. As if it's something they are dealing with internally and has no points of contact with the outside world. Even though there has been Trans individuals sense time immemorial. Trans rights are eventually going to come into contact with the society as a whole and therefor are not bifurcated from it, in the same way Civil Rights or Women's Rights were. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh no. Conservatives genuinely think that they are turning kids gay. 

We need this site to say it how it is; no more leaving out details such as right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Are there reliable sources for the contention of "right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people"? In any case, the "T" in LGBT is "transgender", so the term is already covered. BD2412 T 00:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

They've instated a policy in Florida that takes trans kids away from their parents (violation of section E of UN Genocide Convention), causing physical and mental harm, dehumanization, you can see the proof all over. Don't be askin' for proof of things you can see on the internet. Western Progressivist (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

When you are proposing changes to an article, it is incumbent upon the person asking for change to provide reliable sources to justify the changes. Regardless of how obvious they may seem to you. --Pokelova (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, according to the article on Trans rights, allegations of genocide are being proven day by day.

Transgender rights in the United States - Wikipedia

Furthermore, the US is witnessing attacks on civil, constitutional, and human rights of marginalized groups.

There is plenty of online proof of this. Not adding this only increases the danger of transcide as people are ignorant to the right-wing attacks. Western Progressivist (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Western Progressivist, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Stick to the facts and not your fears. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

But there are facts of transgender genocide. Conservative pundits have become transphobic, while the GOP has been behind anti-trans bills. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that these are “facts”, we give due weight to the most prominent sources. Most (all?) of which do not describe these laws as “genocide”. Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

First of all, the laws fall under the UN convention of genocide, as they (1) cause major mental and bodily harm, (2) attempt to erase a group via restricting access to needed things, and (3) if we look at certain pundits like Larry Elder and Candice Owens, we can observe their aversion to queer rights, which leads to dehumanization which is a precursor to genocide.

For direction, the following sections are being violated:

"(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group": Florida has enacted a law to transfer trans kids to guardians should their family allow them to have gender affirming care.

"(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group": transgender folx have reported conservative anti-trans sentiment to be damaging to their mental wellbeing.

"(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part": this can be confirmed by the banning of HRT and transitioning surgery in red states; this would not be done without knowing that the banning of such care would lead to increased suicide rates in trans individuals (particularly youths).

Yes, you can deny and assume I'm a "paranoid" fool, but incidents like at CPAC and such are indicators of an upcoming transgender genocide. Western Progressivist (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

GOP has been behind anti-trans bills - this is verifiable

Conservative pundits have become transphobic - this could be true, but it is not verifiable

What really matters for this page is what it has to do with the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro anyone?

These are major anti-trans pundits. Other commentators such as Tucker Carlson have spread anti-trans conspiracies and rhetoric. If you look on their respective media, you can see pretty transphobic stuff.

I'm getting disappointed by this website's ignorance. Call me a dullard, but ask anyone in the trans community and they can verify that, yes, a transgender genocide is unfolding as we speak.

If that's not enough proof, have this:

Statement on the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement’s Ideology and Practice (lemkininstitute.com)

"trans people are on stage 7 of genocide " : r/lgbt (reddit.com) Western Progressivist (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson are not candidates for president in the 2024 elections. If this were an article on trans rights in the United States, their views might be relevant. For an article on the 2024 United States presidential election, we would need, very specifically, reliable sources actually discussing how trans rights (or LGBT rights, more generally) are, in fact, an issue in the election. BD2412 T 02:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

You are new here, and you are being cut a significant amount of slack, but you need to learn more about how Wikipedia works, especially if you want to make contributions around two of our most contentious topics: American politics and gender identity. Specifically, you should read WP:NPOV to learn about how we reflect things neutrally, and WP:RS, which discusses reliable sources. Reddit comments are not reliable sources. Also, please assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't be ignoring the severity of things.

If there were an extreme case of, let's say, a virus from space, we'd want to ensure that people know that this is dangerous, and that neutrality would not create the message of urgency. Western Progressivist (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

This article is neither about space viruses, nor transgender genocide. Anyways, the consensus here is clear, so I see little point in further discussion on this matter. Prcc27 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If there were a virus from space, we would only mention it on this page if we could verify that it was relevant to its subject, the 2024 U.S. presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m a right winger and I don’t wanna commit genocide on trans people? WONKAKlD (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I would never kill anybody plus no conservative wants to kill trans people I do not know what Liberal site you’re reading but trust me the we aren’t gonna start a genocide. WONKAKlD (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@WONKAKlD sorry to further the of-base sub-conversation (I anticipate that this will be all I have to add to this tangent), but I just will note that genocide does not require mass murder. Forced sterilization, forced cultural “re-education”, abduction of children are all just a few non-murderous acts that can constitute a genocide.

also, I concur with all who said before that the focus of this article is the election. SecretName101 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

ok WONKAKlD (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on 'Other Declared Candidates'

Afroman has an FEC filing, Kanye and Marshall do not, should we separate Afroman from them or keep him in 'Declared intent to run' HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why and what criteria is there for separating some candidates out of the boxes and simply putting them into a short sentence along with others so handled? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:895A:A8F6:1262:AD4 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Afro man's campaign is more serious if he has a filing. That's obvious criteria. However, instead of making a direct sentence, adding clarification that someone has an FEC filing would probably the route to go. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Information Missing

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.

---

Please add that attacks on voting, trans, and civil rights are coming from Republicans and conservatives.

They are the main reason this so-called "culture war" is occurring, and not adding this detail creates a false narrative that liberals also hate minorities. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No false narrative is being created that liberals hate minorities. Some liberals could. Additionally, not all Republicans and. Conservatives "hate" minorities. Doesn't make any sense. IEditPolitics (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Really? They've harmed civil rights one way or another. Stop bothsidesing and realize that all members of a group can be hateful. Western Progressivist (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Trump "thumbtack fact" about a recent statement and/or perspective on Abortion

Hello,

In the section of "Abortion Access"[1] , the Wikipedia entry in the said section simply mentions regarding Trump: "[. . .] Donald Trump has mostly avoided the topic since Roe v. Wade was overturned."

However, by sources about a month ago; on May 17th 2023, as well as by my recollection, Trump on the website TruthSocial had stated that he was able to "kill Roe v. Wade" (pictured here on Twitter [2] ).

On the conservative news netwark "Newsmax" presumably around or at May 17th, Trump had also apparently mentioned in a phone interview with them that he "was the one that got rid of Roe v. Wade". (Clip authenticity is seemingly true. This clip was found only on a Twitter post, referenced by a main source: source number six: [3] )

Other mentions of this event happening can be found looking it up. Sources such as The Hill [4] , BusinessInsider [5] , and Newsweek [6] . Other various sources from the same time seem to report, or imply this "Roe v. Wade" statement made from Fmr Pres. Trump.

Another fact to mention, and despite it being implied now, is it should also be noted and typed into the section that Trump, in line with his Republican Party's common 'principle' of being Pro-Life, has mentioned before in a 2016 debate during the election that he is indeed, pro-life. [7]

These are quite a rather small note of addition to the Wikipedia Article here, and if added can very well possibly give some more accuracy to readers regarding possible 2024 Republican Candidates-for-President stances on Abortion, more specifically: Accuracy on Donald Trump's stance on Abortion, as well as Roe v. Wade.

Thanks for reading this, and thank you in advance for making the additions mentioned in my suggestion here. Wang Dynasty (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

As of now, on June 10th 2023, and unlike Trump's stated perspective of Roe v. Wade on TruthSocial and on a phone interview on NewsMax, another excerpt from Trump himself; in person, has stated of himself quote: "killing Roe v. Wade, which everyone said was impossible."

This was apparently stated during a Georgia GOP convention today.

This excerpt stated by and from Trump was taken by journalist Aaron Rupar on Twitter (twitter post is source 1):[8]

Keep in mind that this is an excerpt of this one singular moment. However, it would seem that Rupar had created a full "Twitter thread" of excerpts from Trump in the Convention, including the Tweet I had sourced here. Wang Dynasty (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

"This excerpt stated by and from Trump was taken by journalist Aaron Rupar on Twitter (twitter post is source 1(8))"

Source 8*. Mistake. Wang Dynasty (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Independents UNDUE

Isn’t it WP:UNDUE to include the “potential candidates” and “declined to be candidates” sections in the article for the independent/third party section, but not for the Democratic and Republican sections? I assume the only reason it is in our article, is because there is no article for independent candidates for this information to be listed, whereas the potential and declined to be candidates information is accessible at the Democratic and Republican primaries subarticles. Nevertheless, we should at least collapse the sections, so we are not giving undue weight to independent/third party potential/declined candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I'm okay with either removing or collapsing the "potential" and "declined" sections per WP:UNDUE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The formatting you have put in place is now seriously problematic. The way you have formatted the collapsible lists leaves no bullet points or clear separation, making it nearly impossible to read at a glance. SecretName101 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• I wonder if there is a way around it. If not, maybe we could add a “-“ before the names? Prcc27 (talk) 16:36, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, problem solved. I removed the section entirely (please see reasons I gave in my edit summary). Prcc27 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Peoples Party major enough for own category?

Maybe I am just a socially illiterate nerd but I had never even heard of the People's Party before, and now they have a single candidate running and that some how gets its own category list over the Libertarian Party, the third largest party in the country? Los Pobre (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't think the party is notable yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

With ballot access in one or three states, CERTAINLY not notable enough SecretName101 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

i think No Labels would likely be the next to get one, along with Libs and Green. If Manchin were to run for president, I can entirely see No Labels being discussed for a section in 2024 presidential election. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign

I just created a draft for the Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley I’m someone who believes a lot early-stage candidacies should not have their own articles. Unless they are front-running or have particularly significant note off-the-bat. A subsection of the subject’s biographical article usually suffices during the early campaign.

West (and most of the GOP candidates, as well as the two Dem challengers) are prime examples of this at this stage in their campaigns. SecretName101 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think because West is making an independent run that this campaign will go quite long and perhaps make it to the general election. If he were running for the Democratic primary, I’d say leave the redirect. The draft can be updated until it is fleshed out enough for the mainspace. Thriley (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley when and if it goes a long way, such an article could be published. But it has not yet. SecretName101 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapsible lists in third party and independent candidate section not rendering properly

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.

---

Lists lack bullet points making them hard to read SecretName101 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Excessive number of stub-articles for campaigns

An excessive number of stub-articles have been created for campaigns. At this stage, most campaigns can be appropriately covered as mere sub-sections of the candidate's own biographical article.

Some of these articles are artificially lengthened with the addition of sections summarizing the candidates' stances, which largely duplicate (or which can be merged with) similar sections on the candidate's main article.

I think we should seriously consider merging the following campaign articles into the respective candidates' main article for at least the time being:

• Doug Burgum 2024 presidential campaign
• Chris Christie 2024 presidential campaign
• Larry Elder 2024 presidential campaign
• Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign
• Asa Hutchinson 2024 presidential campaign
• Mike Pence 2024 presidential campaign
• Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign
• Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign
• Tim Scott 2024 presidential campaign
• Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign
• Marianne Williamson 2024 presidential campaign

SecretName101 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Beginning to officially propose these mergers SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the exception of maybe Pence, who's campaign seems to be covered a little more reliably in itself. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr has similar coverage and polling numbers as Ron DeSantis, he should be treated as such. 92.12.12.233 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I generally oppose these merges as short-sighted, since a campaign almost immediately becomes more than one person. BD2412 T 20:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Also oppose these merges. Most would likely take up far too much of the subject's article and we'd just need to split again; better to keep them as their own articles for consistency. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidates not currently in office

Why are candidates who are currently not in office have their last office in bold? For example, Chris Christie is not current governor of New Jersey but that title is listed in bold. I suggest that we only use bold for offices that are currently held.

user:mnw2000 21:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) user:mnw2000 21:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess it puts more emphasis on their most recent experience? I am neutral about your suggestion. Prcc27 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Only one who should be in bold is Biden, as he is the incumbent. Everyone else is a challenger. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

It's just stylistic convention to bold the most prominent and/or recent office of an individual in these tables SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Empty sections

Can we please keep empty sections hidden, until information is added to those sections? For now, users can access the relevant links in the see also section. Prcc27 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Indictments & investigations

I removed most of the information about Trump’s indictments and investigations in the Republican primary section, because most of those sources did not even say anything about the 2024 presidential election. I found a source that does mention his criminal trials in the context of the the election. Should this information be re-added with an updated source? If so, is the Republican primary section the appropriate place for this information? Prcc27 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The trial on the case in New York is literally scheduled to begin midway through the primaries. That will effect the election purely on a logistical basis. BD2412 T 01:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

The Stormy Daniels indictment is the only sentence I left in the article– everything else did not have a source which mentioned the election. Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Democratic Declared Candidates Experience - Joe Biden: County Council (1970 - 1973)

Hello,

It has been a month-and-a-half now since my initial suggestion on this same subject of President Biden's political experience, and I am typing another request/question on this, same subject again:

As referenced by the title of this card, I was wondering if Biden's experience of being a: New Castle County Councilman (4th District; 1970 - 1973)" can remain Permanent in the article section here for his past political experience[9] (as well as for the Wikipedia Article "2024 Democratic Party Presidential Primaries"[10])

It could be Somewhat similar to the past political experiences of current-Republican Candidates Fmr. Governor Nikki Haley (South Carolina State Representative (87th District; 2005–2011)), and Senator Tim Scott (South Carolina State Representative (117th District; 2009 - 2011)). (Both sourced here:)[11]

If this suggestion is accepted, then perhaps one way the addition can be added into the section can be:

President of the United States (2021–present)

Vice President of the United States (2009–2017)

U.S. Senator from Delaware (1973–2009) <- (Section Here and Above is left as is, due to it being the current display.)

Member of the New Castle County Council (1971 - 1973) (This has been noted even in Biden's Wikipedia Article as Political Experience.)[12].

(Additional Source:)[13]

This addition is suggested, due to it most likely being still considered as "political experience", as well as the County Council addressing itself as a "legislative branch of New Castle County government"[14].

Thanks for your time reading this, and Thank You in advance if these changes are applied to the requested places. Wang Dynasty (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: this seems WP:UNDUE compared to his more recent and relevant experience. Also, having too many roles listed in the experience section was an eyesore. Let’s try to keep it to a maximum of three please. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential Candidates Section to be re-added

I believe that the potential candidates section should be on here, for many reasons.

1. We have very minor candidates still listed, under Democrats or Republicans. Potential candidates of one party are of equal or more importance than minor candidates. Manchin is one notable candidate.
2. Potential candidates provide more insight into the upcoming election. A person might come to this Wikipedia page in search of possible candidates, not just declared ones. The announcement pending is a good start, but there is just so much more possibility with potential candidates.

For clarification, I would likely have them as a separate section, due to the possibility of a candidate like Sen. Joe Manchin (no section has been made for No Labels).

More reasons are valid but those are just two. Hope that we can make this article better, as this could likely be one of the most important elections in U.S history, and we need informed voters on who might be there.

IEditPolitics (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If people want to see the potential candidates, they can go to a subarticle. Adding the sections to the main article would be too much clutter, possibly even WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Making a sub article would be unneeded, and the average user is not looking for a sub article. There is no clutter, it is straight up fac a the user would want to know. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be made. The sub-article already exists (Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election), it includes Manchin, and there's a link to it in the main article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Delete this talk topic. I was unaware of this article, even if it was redundant. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

If No Labels gain a majority of states ballot access, should they be mentioned?

Since No Labels is likely to have Larry Hogan or Joe Manchin if ballot access is gained, would those candidates be major enough to be listed, as this is the first time in a considerable time that a party has gained ballot access with such a major nominee compared to others (see Lib and Green party regular nominees. Also, count their media coverage and polling from third parties on their likely performance. IEditPolitics (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes YangGang2024 (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Put Perry back on!

Now! YangGang2024 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC)