Talk:2024 United States presidential election

RfC: Polling criteria for “major candidate” status

The current consensus for being considered a “major candidate” for this article and listed in the table is a candidate must meet one of the following criteria: being listed in 5 national polls, substantial media coverage, or holding significant elected office. Should the polling criteria remain? Now that the first Republican debate took place, I feel it is appropriate to revisit this question. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• No: The polling criteria has forced us to give undue weight to candidates with minimal media coverage. Even though I thought the polling criteria was flawed, I previously argued that it would be unfair to remove the criteria right after someone (Perry Johnson) qualified, so I said let’s at least keep him as a “major” candidate and see if he qualifies for the debates. After all, polling could be an indicator of whether one will or will not qualify for a debate. Given that the GOP actually has polling as one of their criteria for qualifying for the debates, I think that our polling criteria is obsolete. The new criteria should be substantial media coverage, holding significant elected office, or having qualified for at least 1 party sanctioned debate. Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with your criteria is that candidates like Hurd, Elder and Suarez would be included in the same section as candidates like John Anthony Castro and Steve Laffey who are vastly less notable than Hurd, Elder and Suarez. Yes, all of the three are vastly less notable Trump and maybe even DeSantis, but this will make them a lot less notable than they actually are Punker85 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Not true. A candidate would only have to meet one of the criteria. Elder, Hurd, and Suarez already meet the “substantial media coverage” criterion, and their status as “major candidates” would be unaffected by this change. In fact, Perry Johnson may even qualify as a “major” candidate, even without the polling criteria if he has enough media coverage. Prcc27 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Ah yes, you are right, I'm dumb

  But also, having enough media coverage is a very vague criteria, so it would be very difficult to admit someone who doesn't an obviously big media coverage Punker85 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes: For a few reasons. First, changing the criteria mid election cycle will encourage editors to try and change the criteria when they don't like it's application. Then we get a lot of RFCs. We need to have an RFC after the cycle to discuss tightening our criteria, not multiple throughout the cycle. Second, it's not WP:UNDUE to mention the fact the candidates ran and tried to make it to the debates. There was a lot of national coverage of it. Remember the major candidates are just people that ran a notable campaign, it's not meant to be a list of the only candidates with a shot of winning. Finally, candidates are going to start dropping out over the next few months so it will naturally narrow down, we don't need to narrow our criteria. The field will narrow itself. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can change. I agree, it would have been wrong to change the criteria a while back, but the election cycle changes, and our article should as well to reflect the reality of who is and isn’t a “major” candidate. If it wasn’t clear then that some of these candidates aren’t major candidates, it should be crystal clear now. It is undue, because we are treating candidates as “major” when most reliable sources do not agree with our assessment. It is pretty telling that two of the candidates that qualified under the polling criteria were obvious outliers even by Wikipedia standards (e.g. Perry Johnson did not have a portrait on our article for a significant amount of time, and Ryan Binkley did not have a Wikipedia article until a few days ago). “The field will narrow itself” is irrelevant. We will likely have a section for candidates that withdraw, and only candidates that are actually major should get a portrait in that section, if a gallery is included in that section. Prcc27 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The Johnson portrait and Binkley arguments are two WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments. Johnson not having a copyright free photo available had nothing to do with whether or not he is a major candidate. On the Binkley argument, the standards for being a notable political candidate and general notability guidelines are different. Binkley had an article, but it was AFDed and deleted. Both arguments are WP:OTHERCONTENT, that don't focus on the sources, but other stuff internal to Wikipedia. Sometimes you're just missing a photo or someone you want to link just isn't notable enough for their own article when you're editing on Wikipedia. Those things just happen on here sometimes. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The “othercontent” essay aside, “coincidence” or not, the candidates that have qualified under the polling criteria have been outliers when it comes to media coverage when compared to the other candidates currently listed as “major”. Is there any reliable source that considers those two candidates to be “major” or at least treats them as serious candidates? Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Politico includes them both in their rundown of campaigns seriously trying to make the debate. There are sources on both campaigns and they both tried to seriously run. Johnson is honestly probably getting more coverage than Will Hurd and maybe even Larry Elder at this point. Binkley would be the absolute lowest tier candidate of the majors, but he does appear to be running a major campaign compared to the candidates in our minor candidates section. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

If Perry Johnson is getting substantial media coverage, then obviously he would get to stay in the table. I am fine with that, but the polling criteria is problematic. Unfortunately, I suspect part of the reason he is getting more coverage is because he was included in our table on Wikipedia. I hope I’m wrong, but it is possible. Prcc27 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the views of his page, it went up by a lot when he was included in the table but was strangely at 0 before that and, according to Google trends, his inclusion seems to had little to no impact Punker85 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The BBC, Vox and maybe Axios considered both of them as "major"

CNN, NBC News and the Associated Press considered Johnson as "major" Punker85 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The CNN one is debatable.. Those are candidates listed in the “poll of polls”. It means those candidates are included in polls, which obviously isn’t surprising because they did meet our current polling criteria. It does not necessarily mean that they are considered “major” by CNN. Prcc27 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Where you see bias, I see mere observation that there is a clear illustration indicating that standard previously set is simply not effective (especially not this far into the campaign, when polls are plentiful). The standard should never have been set in a manner that didn't weigh performance in polls. I don't see how inclusion five times at 0%, for instance, could ever be considered to be rationale for considering someone a "major" candidate, and yet this standard would allow it.

Polls can be sponsored by interest groups and campaigns. That provides an easy way for interest groups to manipulate us under the current standard to include non-notable candidates as "major candidates" on a majorly-trafficked web source. SecretName101 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes but a very unenthusiastic yes from me. I was a proponent of the 5-poll criterion, and I don't believe in manipulating the criteria during the campaign in order to include or exclude specific candidates from the "major" category. But I would not support a 5-poll criterion for future campaigns since it allowed Perry Johnson and Ryan Binkley to be categorized as major candidates, which I would consider a failure of the criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  I totally respect your perspective, but just want to offer a counter perspective that the criterion worked well in regards to Johnson and Binkley. If you look at a lot of the media coverage leading up to the debate, I don't think it's wrong to say Johnson was a major candidate during the summer of 2023 while pushing to make the debate stage. Binkley was a major candidate for a few weeks as he pushed for donations and polling to make the debate stage. Are these campaigns historic? Not in the slightest, but there is enough coverage to meet verifiable requirements without original research. There's not a neutral point of view or WP:UNDUE problem with mentioning the fact their campaigns happened and briefly were discussed in good sources. They aren't getting paragraph's of texts like Biden, Trump, or Desantis. They're getting sentences, mentions, and table summaries, which the coverage warrants. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  The requirement should be media coverage, full stop. Even if the current candidates that qualified by polling have significant media coverage (that’s debatable) that doesn’t change the fact that someone else with little to no media coverage could be listed in 5 national polls in the near future, and we would be forced to call them “major candidates”. If Binkley and Johnson already have substantial media coverage, there shouldn’t be an issue with removing the polling requirement. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  In theory, I fully agree with you; but in practice we almost never agree on what substantial media coverage means. Check the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries talk archives if you don't believe me. People have argued things from 5 to 20 sources and there's no consensus on what it means. It's too ambiguous. We need some objective criteria to help ground our discussions or we'll have endless debates on what constitutes substantial media coverage. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  If we want to define what “substantial media coverage” is, by all means, let’s have that discussion. That is not what this RfC is about, however. “5 national polls” is not an objective criteria, and there is also debate on what that actually means. Does that mean 5 different pollsters, or can all 5 polls be from Gallup and you qualify? What about polls affiliated with a candidate, are those included or excluded? Which polls are reliable and which ones should be excluded? Should you at least have to poll at 1%, or is simply being included in a poll all that matters? Prcc27 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  The Plain language reading is pretty clear and objective: 5 national polls. Any national poll from a source that would be a WP:RS (because our general content policies still apply). I think I advocated for adding independent the last time we talked about it, but I think people thought the RS policy would keep out affiliated polling. But to answer you're questions:

  • 5 polls from Gallup or Morning Consul would qualify you (this did not happen, and is hypothetical strawman)
  • Polls affiliated with a candidate would not meet WP:RS and be excluded.
  • Polls that qualify as WP:RS.
  • Being included is the metric.

  TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  It is not a hypothetical strawman. I am relaying the concerns another user made, when Perry Johnson qualified with 5 polls, but some of them were from the same pollster. A user suggested the criterion should be 5 different polls. The point is, there is disagreement on what the 5 national polls criteria means or should entail. The “substantial media coverage” criterion is not the only one being disputed, so let’s not pretend that it is. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• No Five polls might even be too little. The whole point of separating out the major from the minor candidates is so that Wikipedia doesn't put undue weight on people who have no chance to even compete. If they can't even muster a consistent, above zero, presence on the polls, why should they be counted as a major candidate? Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Scu ba I’m confused. So do you support the current 5 poll criteria or oppose it? Or are you saying it should be changed/modified..? Under the current criteria, a candidate can poll at 0% in 5 nationals polls, and we would be forced to call that candidate “major”, even if they have not polled at 1% in any polls. “If they can't even muster a consistent, above zero, presence on the polls, why should they be counted as a major candidate?” That sentence would make sense, if the inclusion requirement was you have to have substantial media coverage and be included in 5 polls. But currently, the criteria is you have to have substantial media coverage or be included in 5 polls; you don’t have to meet both criteria. I wouldn’t have a problem with the criteria if you had to meet the polling requirement and another criterion; but calling someone “major” with hardly any media coverage just because they were included in 5 polls is problematic. As I said before, qualifying for a debate should suffice, especially since on the Republican side, you already have to meet a polling threshold in order to qualify. Prcc27 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  As it stands now, I support the 5 poll criteria because that is the agreed upon consensus. Am I absolutely thrilled about it? No. I am fine with the Five Polls or Significant Media, sorry if that was confusing. The only qualm I have with the debate criteria being Wikipedia's criteria is that is a little too stringent, namely because it doesn't take into consideration Hurd or Suraez who I feel like are the "major minor candidates" Scu ba (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you for clarifying. Hurd and Suarez already meet the “substantial media coverage” criterion, so if a debate requirement replaced a polling requirement– they would still be able to continue to remain in the table. Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Scu ba: Did you change your !vote from “yes” to “no”? Just want to make sure it is clear. Prcc27 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I misread what the question was asking. I thought Yes was to change the polling criteria. Scu ba (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• No This idea requiring being seen in a national poll is biased. It is already known that those who do make the national polls, only put candidate names that they think have a chance to win, thus the reason behind the 'Others' listing. By putting this as a rule here, it would just carry over that specific bias, where the norm for Wikipedia is to be unbiased when ever possible. Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Isn't that the whole point? The only candidates that should be listed as major are the ones that "have a chance to win" Scu ba (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes for prominently featured candidates. Five national polls could be too high of a requirement, or it could be too low. I don't know for sure. Maybe the criteria should be limiting the prominently featured candidates to ones covered in polls, provided that such polls have at least one from a left-leaning polling agency and one from a right-leaning polling agency just an idea. For bullet-listed candidates with a single sentence, I'm more open to allowing other candidates, but this guideline should only apply to independent candidates. More niche Republicans and Democrats should be placed into their own parties' primaries and caucuses articles. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 18:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes The current criteria to be considered a major candidate is not broken and it shouldn't be fixed mid-election cycle. Per InvadingInvader and TulsaPoliticsFan points. As the primaries continue, the field will narrow down and secondly I believe to be a major candidate here on enwiki doesn't mean they have a shot of winning/are longshots, it's the fact they ran a somewhat notable campaign and met certain requirements either polling or media coverage. I also believe it is not biased to be included in the national poll to be considered a major candidate either. If your name appears on a national poll (either polling at 0% or 1% or 15%) I think you're still a major candidate as your name is being mentioned in the poll in the first place. I do firmly believe that Johnson/Binkley are considered major candidates (let's face it this argument has started because we've considered them major per this criterion) and excluding them/considering redoing our major candidates criteria is a bit bias and unfair. Further more by having the polling criterion remain, it can also clear some disputes if a candidate is major enough. We can have candidates who have had major media coverage but there would still be some disputes about their status as a major candidate, so by having the 5 polling requirement would help create less confusion/debate about a candidate's major status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

• No There's no reason candidates who've got no national presence like Perry Johnson and Ryan Binkley, and with very little actual media coverage should be included in the "major candidates" section alongside names such as Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump. Expoe34 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• No Binkley is just not a major or noteworthy candidate. The criteria should be adapted in some way that will remove him, so I guess this will have to do. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

• No: Mainly per rationale given by Prcc27 above, the current polling criteria should not remain. It has now become clear that this was a misguided inclusion requirement that has led to giving undue weight to clearly minor candidates. The next best option to scrapping the polling standard altogether (which I would support) is to amend it to mean 5 (or more) different credible polling outlets (those that would pass WP:RS criteria) and require a minimum of, say, 1% in all 5 (or more) or average that percentage in 5 (or more) different polling outlets combined (as verified in reliable sources, of course). It is much likely that a candidate receiving significant national coverage in major media sources would meet these guidelines, as opposed to merely being listed in a set number of polls. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes I think it provides a basic way to sift through candidates running serious campaigns and also-rans. Say what you will about Binkley and Johnson, but they have run legitimate campaigns. Both have met the donor thresholds for the GOP debate twice now, and in fact the New York Times actually now includes both in their major candidates list, which is a change from early on in the campaign, and is something Wikipedia beat them to. I think people are misunderstanding what a major candidate even is. I mean, the 2020 Democratic primary lists candidates like Wayne Messam, Richard Ojeda, and Joe Sestak. I get that they all held office at one point, but would you actually say any of them should've been included with Biden or Sanders? I would say yes, because while their campaigns were insignificant, they were notable as former office holders. If you are appearing in a number of national polls like Binkley and Johnson did, surely there is something separating you from Corey Stapleton and Steve Laffey, who haven't been.

And as an aside, I think it's weird that a candidate can meet one or both of the thresholds to make the GOP debate (Which requires a minimum of 2 or 3 polls) and not be considered a notable candidate on Wikipedia. Dantedino88 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

The criteria should not remain. At Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries I proposed changing the criteria to something like "current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has obtained at least 1% support in ten national polls, or has qualified to participate in a party-sponsored debate."

The current criteria might have somewhat worked when polls were few and far between. But at this point, it is ridiculously low. Furthermore, interest groups and campaigns can sponsor polls, making this a standard that is incredibly easily manipulated in order to elevate a non-notable candidate to being listed as a major candidate on a prominent web source (Wikipedia). I disagree overall with having ever had a standard that is based on mere inclusion in polls, rather than weighing whether there was any remotely significant support measured in polls. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• :No: the polling criteria has clearly been shown to be too laxed in what it considers a "major" candidate, as demonstrated by the inclusion of Binkley, Johnson, and Stapleton, all of whom barely reach the Wikipedia-set threshold, and who are rarely even considered as such on other election websites. Expoe34 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: the current criteria is far too inclusive, in no way are Corey Stapleton or Ryan Binkley "major" candidates. If anything, the criteria of who qualifies for the debates is good enough, or a bit more extensively, an average of 1% or higher between the poll aggregators. 2600:1700:18A4:4D10:3BDC:371F:5BD4:FFA2 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

FORMAL proposal/further RFC: Change "major candidate" criteria for primary election candidates

Discussion earlier in the talk page has dealt with this subject. I am now formally proposing that we make such a change.

Mere inclusion in five national polls should not be enough to qualify one as a major candidate. It is really hard to rationalize that someone could be considered a major candidate if they poll at 0% support in five national polls and while meeting no other criteria to be seen as "major".

Allowing mere inclusion in a small number of polls was a mistake. It was a serious error failing to attach any weight to how candidates perform in polls in which they are included. Furthermore, since many polls have private sponsors, this opens us up to manipulation. An interest group, PAC, or campaign committee very well could include a non-notable name in their polls in hopes of helping them be listed as a "major candidate" on this well-trafficked website.

We can debate what the new standard should be, but the first question each commenter should answer is should we change the criteria? Please, answer that first before delving into the details as to what the new criteria should look like. SecretName101 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

For the record: current criteria is that a candidate is a major candidate if they are "a current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has been included in at least five national polls."

I think we should change the polling qualifier to be 1% performance in ten or more polls (if it were earlier in the campaign season and polls were less frequent to come by, I'd say less than ten. But at this point in the race, ten is more than generous). I would also add qualification or participation in a party-sponsored debate as another means to qualify as a major candidate.

My idea would change it to "a current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has obtained at least 1% support in ten national polls; or has qualified to participate in a party-sponsored debate."

This doesn't have to be the new standard. Just my thought on what it should look like. Feel free to propose alternatives.

Again, the first question is whether the standard should change. What it should change to is the second question to answer. SecretName101 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the polling criteria has clearly been shown to be too laxed in what it considers a "major" candidate, as demonstrated by the inclusion of Binkley, Johnson, and Stapleton, all of whom barely reach the Wikipedia-set threshold, and who are rarely even considered as such on other election websites. Expoe34 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

A question: If, for example, a candidate get 0.9% in a poll, can it be rounded up to 1% and be valid under your proposal? Punker85 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

I would think not. SecretName101 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I would think not either. 1% should mean exactly 1% or greater. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes and I propose changing the polling criteria to be included in at least 1 national poll from at least 5 different polling firms so a candidate can't become a major candidate from getting 5 polls from one or very few firms Punker85 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

And also, candidate sponsored polls should not be included in the criteria Punker85 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

My official polling criteria proposal: The candidate has been included in polls from five different polling firms/organizations which aren't sponsored by a candidate, candidate campaign or candidate political action committee (PAC) Punker85 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it should be changed, per my reasoning at the beginning of this RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the criteria should be changed, specifically the polling standard. I'm good with the other existing criteria. As to the second question of what should be the new standard, I'm in 100% agreement with SecretName's rationale and proposal of 1%/10> polls and/or inclusion in at least one party-sponsored debate.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No the criteria should not be changed. We currently have very good metrics that kept candidates like Steve Laffey out of the major candidates box. Stapleton, Binkley and Johnson are major candidates and even though they haven't done well in national polling it does not mean that they stop being major candidates. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

@Mister Conservative What makes those three major candidates? SecretName101 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the criteria should be changed, the current criteria is quite frankly laughable. When it comes to the offices held requirement, I would also include mayors of large cities and cabinet secretaries in addition to president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, and U.S. representative; obviously there is nuance to this, but a mayor of New York City and a mayor of Aberdeen, South Dakota are not on the same level. As for what the cut-off would be, I'm more agnostic to that: top ten most-populous cities, top 20, top 50? For the polling criteria, I would be even more drastic – at least 5% in five or more national polls. I don't see how 1% is really all that different from 0% and someone who doesn't reach the officeholder requirement that also can't poll more than 1% in national polls does not seem like a major candidate to me. If others think 5% is too high than I am fine to go down lower, but I don't think the requirement needs to be so low, but the current requirement does need to change. It's embarrassing how many irrelevant candidates completely ignored by our reliable sources are being treated as major candidates by Wikipedia because of this ridiculously low bar to cross. Also agreed that qualification for a national debate should also be a qualifier if one somehow doesn't clear the other requirements. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 23:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

• Yes. Let's not have promoters of truly minor candidates gaming requirements to introduce truly inconsequential figures to the major candidates list. BD2412 T 23:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the criteria we currently have is too lax. Regarding specific suggestions, I would add that a candidate needs to be featured by more than one polling organization. Turns out, all five polls which qualify Stapleton at the moment are from the same polling organization, namely Harris X. This qualified Stapleton despite the fact that he didn't raise a single dollar in Q2 2023. Similarly, Rocky De La Fuente became a "major" Republican presidential candidate in 2020 because YouGov decided to start including him in their weekly national polls, allowing him to cross the threshold within a little over a month. In retrospect, that should have been a warning sign for us to reconsider this criterion. I also agree with User:Jjj1238 in expanding the officeholder requirement so that we can include noteworthy regional figures like Suarez. Finally, I continue to advocate for a media criterion, as I think it can accurately capture the rise of unorthodox candidates like Yang and Ramaswamy. Looking back at my old proposal, I think setting an objective threshold of twenty articles makes sense in hindsight. There wasn't nearly as much coverage of the primary race at the time, and any unelected candidate who's worth the hype will meet this threshold in due time. Considering all of this, my current proposal is that a major candidate:

• has received exclusive coverage by twenty separate major national networks ('exclusive' here meaning that the articles are all primarily about the candidate in question)
• has held or currently holds a significant elected office (such as president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, national cabinet secretary, or mayor of one of the top fifty cities)
• has received 1% in at least ten national polls by at least three polling organizations

Binkley, Johnson, and Stapleton currently fail to qualify under this criteria, as do the minor candidates that are currently listed. Johnson is pretty close to meeting the polling criterion, though, as he currently has nine polls over 1%. I'll leave it up to anyone reading this to decide if that should mean my polling criterion proposal should change. - EditDude (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

I do like the suggestion of requiring multiple polling agencies. SecretName101 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No It has only broken down this cycle because Trump is running at incumbent level support, but the number of quality candidates is at the level you would expect when there is no incumbent. This scenario is unlikely to repeat often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

We aren’t talking about number of candidates. We are talking about assessing which are major candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I started this RfC a month ago. When would we expect to close this? A month from when the new section was started? Sooner? Just wondering. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully it’ll wrap up soon. Will probably be a lengthy close to assess for whomever does, because it seemed unclear in the main RFC what a “no” meant and what a “yes” meant. some people supporting the same exact thing in their comments said the opposite in regards to a yes or a no.

if the close is to change it, I think the next step is to make proposals, see what proposals catch wind, and then decide between the most popular proposals. SecretName101 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree Punker85 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like this discussion thread has not been made into a formal WP:RfC. In particular, there's no RfC tag which is used to generate an RfC ID and add this to an RfC list. See this discussion for more info on why this is not ideal. I doubt if the discussion can be closed without these steps. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

@Spiffy sperry: This is a subsection of the formal RfC I started above. It’s a redundant question worded differently. I don’t think it needs its own RfC tag. In fact, I will be requesting formal closure very shortly. Prcc27 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I see that a bot removed the RfC ID from the main discussion after it expired. Nevermind. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No I concur with SecretName101's position. I agree we shouldn't include PAC polls on account of the potential for manipulation, but this is otherwise a useful metric for now. If it's too weak, 5 national polls should at least contribute to qualifying a candidate as major for us - e.g. 5 national polls plus fundraising comparable to other, qualified candidates, or a certain number of articles, or an office which doesn't quite qualify (e.g. a statewide office with more significant powers than a US House Member's but, apparently, a lower profile - I'm thinking of Stapleton here). PutItOnAMap (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

YES There is NO world where candidates like Perry Johnson, Ryan Binkley or Corey Stapelton should even be considered in the same list as candidates like Donald Trump, Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should change the criteria. The fact that Corey Stapleton, a candidate who has received zero national media coverage, can be included simply because he was included in 5 national polls--polls where he received 0% support, mind you--is evidence enough that the polling criteria is flawed. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we get rolling on this? There is clear consensus. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I already requested a formal close. Prcc27 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No My thoughts haven't changed from the initial discussion. Closer please apply my comments from the earlier section to this one as well. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the closer should take into consideration a user’s comment in either section. It’s the same question worded differently. Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Agreed Prcc27. The closer must also be careful to read comments, since there appeared to be inconsistent understanding/application of what "no" and "yes" indicated in the original section. SecretName101 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: clearly, our standards are far too lax. Now, I propose a combination of SecretName101, EditDude, and Punker85's ideas, as follows. This proposal will strike "substantial major media coverage", as that is an unreliable and unspecific metric. Now, I propose that a major candidate:

• has received exclusive coverage by eight separate major national outlets; or

This allows for both coverage before and after the campaign: entry, dropping out, winning a state, what have you.

• is a current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, mayor of a major American city); or

Major American cities include those on the top-50 most populous.

• has received 2% in at least five national polls by at least five independent polling organizations

I'm increasing the threshold here due to the number of fake candidates used in polls.

I hope this to be a successful proposal. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Cenk Uyger should be added to major candidates because of vast media attention. While I'm here, Kennedy and West should ABSOLUTELY have their own table for Independents

yep YangGang2024 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

nope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.59.216.93 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Well now I don't know who to believe. — Czello ^(music) 20:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can Cenk Uyger even be classified as a major candidate considering the fact that he is constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency? Even if he was, he hasn't met current wikipedia qualifications for major candidate status. TheFellaVB (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I think Kennedy and West should be considered major candidates, if they have substantial media coverage. I’m undecided on Uyger, although I don’t think him being ineligible would preclude him from being considered a major candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be astonished if he doesn't register in 5 polls, partly because there's so few people running for the Democrat nomination. But the polling criteria lags the media criteria because we have to wait for the polls to be carried out. He has had similar media attention as half a dozen other major candidates that all went on to meet the polling criteria, so my view is add him now and save the wait. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

It is constitutionally illegal for him to run. He legally cannot be a candidate. Even if he says he is. Scu ba (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

He can run, he just can't serve. NonHydranary (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Ye withdrawn?

Should we list Ye (formerly known as “Kanye”) as withdrawn? I personally prefer not to do so until the candidates themselves announce they are withdrawing, rather than a source from their inner circle. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Williamson erasure??

“Biden's first significant challenger was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”………did Marianne Williamson not declare ahead of Kennedy? SecretName101 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Going through the diffs, the wording was adjusted in this edit:[1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I think the wording prior to that change was even worse perhaps. “Formidable” seems like fluff for Kennedy. He was characterized in realizable sources as a longshot, not a formidable challenger. SecretName101 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

As you mentioned, there's no current mention of Williamson either. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Just revised the section. If you look at the rest of it, it also read as promotion fluff for Kennedy, with characterizations of him as a free-speech warrior etc. that were unsupported by citation.

Disgraceful that this went un-corrected for so long. We should be easily able to detect such blatant NPOV violations. SecretName101 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

In any case, it's much improved now. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Running mates

Hello, Within the candidates table on both primaries, should there be some way to display candidates' running mates (their name underneath the Presidential candidates, in the campaign logo/announcement date box, or so on) if they have one? After all, it't not just necessarily the Biden 24 campaign - it's the Biden/Harris campaign. Here's a link to a picture I made to better illustrate my ideas. Thanks! Colin.1678 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

It doesn’t really matter who your running mate is, unless you actually win the nomination. Did it matter that Ted Cruz chose Carly Fiorina as his running mate in 2016? (Not really). Might be premature for that to be included in the table. Prcc27 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting: this is not like some governor's races (Michigan and Illinois, for instance) in which candidates and their running mate appear on the ballot together during primary. If a candidate announces their running mate ahead of/during the primaries, technically all they've done is voice their preference of running mate.

Though it is almost certain not to happen, it is well-within the rights of Biden's convention delegates (as well as any delegates not bound to Biden) to disregard his preference and move to choose someone else as the vice presidential nominee at the convention. This is because nothing the primary or convention rules binds any delegates to support a particular person for vice president (unlike president, in which bound delegates do exist). SecretName101 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

That's true and fair, but I do believe it is definitely of mention who these candidates are declaring the running mates, even if technically it would just be a preference. If not in the table, some sort of acknowledgement, perhaps just footnotes, mentioning the running mates could be desirable. Colin.1678 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Biden's intention to keep Harris as VP is mentioned in the prose in the Democratic primary section. i think that is sufficient until the convention when she would be formally selected. Griffindaly (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023

Please add Charles Ballay, MD under list for Presidential Candidates 2024 for Libertarian Party. Website www.Ballay2024.com 108.236.69.231 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Independent/third party candidate

so a third party candidate is on the top part of the wiki but is Kennedy even significant enough to be on the top part there? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:10C:EFE8:6A0A:5ECB (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless RFK Jr's polling numbers are above 5% nationally? I don't think he should be included in the top infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Guys change all the Republican candidates photos it looks so weird with the same background

yep YangGang2024 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)