Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 207.244.205.106 (talk) at 05:24, 10 March 2024 (→Bill was opposed Trump: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted

Forecast Sources

The five sources for forecasts on this page are CNN, IE, Cook, Sabato, and, bafflingly, CNalysis, whose Wikipedia article describes it as being “launched in 2020 by… a political science student at Virginia Tech” and having “a staff of seven as well as one intern.” It seems to me that there are more established, credible sources to include if the article requires five sources in this section. 2601:42:0:14F:8892:B63C:3675:5E54 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair and reasonable point. CNalysis is respected in the community, has a reasonable successful (if short) track record, and demonstrated lack of bias. The size of the staff or age is not particularly relevant to me. All the big boys are more or less one man shops. I think greater inclusion here is important to show that opinion of these close races is mixed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support including CNAlysis as well. KlayCax (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I question whether forecasts should be included at all. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Provided there are no objections, I'm going to add Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the infobox once each candidate obtains a majority of delegates, per precedent.

(I think we should hold off until a majority is officially obtained. Not merely Super Tuesday.) Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about Super Tuesday..? Sounds like a straw man tactic.. You will not be adding RFKJR anytime soon; there seems to be an early consensus to wait until he gets enough ballot access. We will probably not add any candidates until both the Democratic and Republican races are decided. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until after the RNC and DNC for that. RFK Jr is irrelevant despite what the polls say. Qutlooker (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the consensus on presumptive nominees being in the infobox? Trump will become presumptive as soon as Haley drops out, which could happen 24 hrs from now. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait until the candidates are projected to get a majority of delegates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommitted draft

In light of recent events I have created a draft for the Uncommitted voting option in Presidential primaries. If anyone wants to assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Draft:Uncommitted (voting option). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roe v. Wade in lead

Is mentioning that this is the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned WP:TRIVIA or WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable coverage that indicates that Dobbs has been driving turnout on the left, and it will have an effect on this race. That said, I really like how this year's article gives a list of issues in the lede (and thus gives them prominence) while leaving the prose to the body. Once you start expanding on one issue in the lede, you will inevitably create questions of balance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump eligibility lead

Now that SCOTUS ruled that states can not disqualify Trump, should we condense the lead about his eligibility or remove it altogether? Seems WP:UNDUE to keep as is. Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed from the lead, and the paragraph about it in the Republican Party section should be updated.--Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue for condensed. This story is too big a part of the election. Draft: "Courts in several states had initially ruled that Trump was ineligible for office under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also am fine with a condensed version. Prcc27 (talk) 01:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it, @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see you moved it to the "Background - Procedure" section. This is a good choice, although I am tempted to move it into the section just below where it is now. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Donald Trump listed in the first paragraph like he’s the Republican nominee?

The Associated Press has a specific policy NOT to identify presidential candidates as presumptive nominees until they’ve either (1) won the necessary number of delegates to be nominated, or (2) their last remaining challenger drops out. Per WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), Donald Trump should not be listed there until he’s the presumptive Republican nominee. 2601:642:4C00:D149:EDCC:5DF2:93C4:BAC7 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he is the nominee..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, we are not the Associated Press. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That and let’s be honest he’s going to win it’s not like Jesus Christ is gonna come down and run for the GOP you might as way just say trump vs Biden because that’s what it will be 2600:8801:1187:7F00:25D3:B97C:DDCA:F27C (talk) 04:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nikki Haley dropped out Burabshurab (talk) 06:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clear bias shown

It shows clear bias to show trump's classified document scandal without showing biden's, and trump's stormy daniels scandal without showing biden's corruption investigation regarding china and russia paying the biden family. 198.184.248.250 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you want WP:FALSEBALANCE. Trump was indicted for his not returning classified documents. Biden cooperated at every step and was not indicted. Trump was indicted for his hush payments to Stormy Daniels. Biden's "corruption investigation" is such a nothingburger that it looks like Republicans are giving up on impeaching him. Hope this helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get back to us when there are indictments/legal consequences attached to Biden’s. SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marianne Williamson withdrawal

Marianne Williamson had withdrawn from the primaries on 7 Feburary, according to this Politico article: [1]] Is it possible y’all can move her to ‘Withdrew during the primaries’? CallMeVbuck (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She re-entered the race last week. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my bad. CallMeVbuck (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haley dropping out

With Nikki Haley reportedly dropping out. I think it’s time to add Trump and Biden to the info box with a “(presumptive” tag. I’m still not sure what to do about Kennedy, his polling is clearly above 5% but not consistently above 15% and he is now on the ballot in ~8 states. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Trump being added/kept on as the presumptive nominee. Agree with Biden as well, unless the done thing would be to wait until their respective parties refer to them as such? Also with RFK Jr, I know with previous elections the Green/Libertarian parties have been in the infobox - maybe wait until a bit closer to see if RFK qualifies for any debates? Open to discussion on this. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree to add Trump as presumptive nominee when Haley will drop out and disagree to add Biden as presumptive nominee since there is still other major candidates in the race and he haven't won an absolute majority of delegates Punker85 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haley hasn't dropped out yet, and neither have Williamson nor Phillips. None have a majority of delegates to win the nomination yet, so they shouldn't be added as presumptive until Haley drops out on the Republican side or Williamson & Phillips do on the Democratic side OR if they get a majority of delegates to be presumptive. --JustAGrook (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: neither candidate has won a majority of delegates, and totally plausible for non-major candidates to win delegates like we saw in American Samoa. Prcc27 (talk) 03:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's 3 discussions covering this topic. Perhaps there's a way to merge them together. PS - Your 'discussion' tags on the infobox aren't completed, as they're not directing readers to the actual discussion(s). GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose adding Biden Trump is the presumptive nominee because all of his opponents have dropped out. Biden still has major candidates running against him, per Wikipedia's defintion, and has not reached the delegate threshold yet. I don't think our logic is consistent if we include Biden in the infobox at this time. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, Williamson is the only 'major' Democratic candidate opposing him now. GoodDay (talk) 05:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either both parties have a presumptive nominee, or neither do.

Right now, Trump is listed as the presumptive Republican nominee; but the Democrats have no presumptive nominee. I do not know what the Wikipedia standard is, but it's clear the same is not being applied to both. (Generally speaking, an incumbent President serving his first term is the presumptive nominee for that party, unless the President has specifically noted that they either do not intend to run for a second term, or there is a _viable_ challenger for the nomination.

If Haley is not a viable challenger, Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. But then neither are any of the Democratic challengers. Biden should be pictured (by the same standard) as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.

If Haley is a viable challenger, Trump is not yet the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, and both parties should have no presumptive nominee listed. 2600:8801:FB07:7200:95F:EAE9:D462:19A2 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The standard is reliable sources are calling Trump the presumptive nominee (someone should add the citation, but I can see that it is true). I believe that the difference is that there are candidates running campaigns, however hopeless, on the Democratic side. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, Representative Dean Philips is still challenging President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe you'll find a policy to support that. Reuters says a presumptive nominee is one where the nominee has not been officially chosen but is "clear"[2]. The AP says the nominee needs to have "captured the number of delegates needed to win a majority vote"[3]. We can choose both or neither today. Frankly, its illogical to set the standard as one quixotic candidate with zero delegates choosing to nominally continue. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think both are the presumptive nominees and should stand. Trump because he is the last remaining candidate, and Biden because he is only 200 off and has no real opposition since 2nd place in the primary is Uncommitted votes rather than a person. And even that 2nd place is far off. Leave both on there. And at worst we add Biden back in a week when he has the 1900 delegates he will need. SDudley (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's an article from the Associated Press explaining why it is not yet calling Biden or Trump the presumptive nominee: [4]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither candidates should be treated as “presumptive” until they win a majority of delegates. Even if Haley dropped out, other candidates can theoretically win delegates. Did anyone expect Biden to lose American Samoa to a candidate we did not consider “major”..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barring a huge surprise, both Biden & Trump will have won a majority of their respective parties' delegates for their presidential nominations, by next week. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s improbable they won’t secure enough bound and pledged delegates. However, it is not impossible: hence why neither is yet a presumptive nominee. SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Haley announcing to suspend her campaign today.

This is according to NPR, a US Government source. [5] JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until she does, my opinion is that we do not add Trump as the presumptive nominee as Trump does not currently have the majority of delegates needed to be the Republican nominee, making Haley still a viable challenger-- even if we know she will not make it at this point in the race. When she does, we can add him back. This is a high frequency article, and while it's common sense to leave him, the facts have not proven her to drop out yet. Feel free to debate me if you disagree, but it just feels up to point of the standard. By the time anyone sees this she might've already announced. Same goes with Biden, Williamson and Phillips haven't dropped out yet, therefore he is not the presumptive nominee yet, as he doesn't have a majority of delegates. --JustAGrook (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She suspended her campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump should be listed as presumptive now then. But the same still applies with Phillips and Williamson, Biden still needs delegates. JustAGrook (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe Williamson has suspended her campaign as of four weeks ago unless something changed. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has since unsuspended Esolo5002 (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hayley has suspended her campaign at this time, so I'd agree it is reasonable at this time to have Trump listed as the presumptive nominee. AstralNomad (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Trump is running pretty much uncontested now. WorldMappings (talk) 04:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added Joe Biden as presumptive nominee

Hey everyone, I've added Joe Biden to the infobox as the presumptive Democratic nominee. FunIsOptional (talk) (use ping please) 16:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the BOLD edit, but we already had a thread open today on this subject. Would be better to consolidate similar topics. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. But hasn't Williamson re-entered the Democratic race? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's too early to describe him as presumptive nominee per AP and other sources as March 19 is the earliest day that Biden can secure a majority of pledged delegates. Even if Florida and Delaware's pledged delegates (which are expected to be ultimately awarded to Biden, but haven't at this point) are added to the total, that wouldn't be the case before March 12. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Others have described the results as "effectively determin(ing) the Republican and Democratic Party nominations" while declaring "the 2024 general election has kicked off in earnest"[6]. This is not to say that either position is more or less valid, but rather that there is no official standard. We are free to apply common sense. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a meaningful difference between that and the actual term "presumptive nominee" – Biden and Trump have been prohibitive favorites for their party nominations before a single vote was cast, but that doesn't mean that they were presumptive nominees at that time, and it makes most sense to defer to the language of other media sources at a time when the term is actually being used. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked to an article that supports my position and undermines yours - there is no agreed upon definition and it is open to interpretation. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Too early for either Biden or Trump: Neither Biden nor Trump have secured enough delegates to win their party’s nominations on the first ballot on bound and currently-pledged delegates alone. Other candidates and options appear on enough ballots that either Biden or Trump could possibly fail to secure certainty of a nomination on a first-ballot vote (even if that is not remotely probable to happen) SecretName101 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harris is also a presumptive nominee, since she too won't be nominated until the convention. I've tried to make the edit, but the 'pedia server is having trouble. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote on Trump's residency

The footnote on Trump's change of residency made since in 2020, as never lived in Florida, and "moved" there during his time actually living in the White House. But he has now literally lived in Florida for over three years, so the clarification seems superfluous. Why would anyone need an explanation of his home state? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may not need to be a footnote. However, I suggest leaving it in as a hidden note as opposed to removing it altogether, to discourage edits by those unaware, since this happens occasionally. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed IEditPolitics (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden and Trump pictures

I think we should make a decision on what pictures we use in the infobox. Using previous rematches as a precedent, there was no change in the pictures used in 1952 & 1956, both images were changed from 1896 & 1900, & only Cleveland's picture was updated from 1888 to 1892. This gives us options of what we think is best for this page. Seeing as Trump's official portrait has already been used twice I think it's best we use an updated photo as it's been 7 years since his portrait was taken. As for Biden I think we should do what we did for Trump and use his official portrait.

However whichever candidate wins we would obviously update their picture to whatever their official portrait is. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, there is no WP on election pictures, this is basically just an unspoken rule. Lukt64 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. He’s not changed physically that much but it’s an obvious need for trump. A 7 year old portrait is odd, especially for someone who is known by nearly if not all people in the USA, and well known around the world. Biden too, a talk page was created below this giving good pictures for Biden. Option 5 personally is best in my opinion. May be 2 yrs old, but it’s still the most official and presidential. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd go with the 7-year-old official portrait for Trump. He tends not to photograph well due to his haphazardly applied-bronzer and high maintenance comb-over. The infobox photo need only look representative, and the official is close enough to his current appearance. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, considering that the age and cognitive functions of both candidates are a concern among voters, the images should be relatively recent to represent that concern. 7 years is too long ago and Trump's apparently lost a significant amount of weight recently.[7][8] I think there's also an argument to be made against using his official portrait as he will not be the incumbent at the time of the election. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want pictures of them drooling? C'mon. We don't push agendas and we don't intentionally post pictures that make the candidates look bad when there are acceptable alternatives. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't suggest any of that, I'm saying with how often age-related concerns are covered in news sources it's important that in the image of Trump, for instance, he's closer to 80 (he'll be 78 in June) than he is to 70 (when he was inaugurated). This photo is only from last year. Even if they were drooling all the time or you think Trump's fake tan is "haphazardly applied", the fact is we're not their propaganda arm and the onus is not on us to represent them any better than they represent themselves. GhulamIslam (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it makes sense to have a picture of candidate Trump (recent) and the official portrait of President Biden, in 2020 it should have been the reverse, and that article should be edited. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@OCNative, could you please participate in the discussion here instead of making edits on your own accord? If you think the 7 year old photo of Trump should be used then please give your case as to why. Way I see it we've never used the same photo three times in a row for Presidential elections. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
to be fair there hasn’t been a 3 time major candidate for presidency, but u are right. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been multiple, Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson, & Clay. In all cases the same picture isn't used throughout all their candidacies TheFellaVB (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Joe Biden

This is going to be a topic, so I am choosing 6 candidates :

Current infobox image
  • Current (March 2021)
    Current (March 2021)
Proposed infobox images
  • Option 1 (December 2023)
    Option 1 (December 2023)
  • Option 2 (November 2023)
    Option 2 (November 2023)
  • Option 3 (June 2023)
    Option 3 (June 2023)
  • Option 4 (May 2023)
    Option 4 (May 2023)
  • Option 5 (August 2022)
    Option 5 (August 2022)

Which one should be in the Infobox? Lukt64 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not opposed to option 4, my vote would be that or his current portrait TheFellaVB (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally 5 is the best. Most presidential plus official. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2: I think Biden picture should the most recent as possible but option 2 looks quite better than option 1, so it have a pass for me Punker85 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current. Best lighting, and not too old to be representative. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I second option 5: though not the most recent, it is the most instantly recognisable, at least to me, he seems to always be smiling/chuckling like that in news reports and photos. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also second option 5. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2 As since it is the best and most recent out of all of them. Qutlooker (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Option 5 is the best, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

After further consideration, IMO it's best to stick with the current image. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Current image - It's not broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
that’s like a saying to NOT do. Something being not broken doesn’t mean you don’t change it. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current image is best, with the presidential flag behind him. After all, he's the incumbent in this race. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 or the current one both look pretty nice. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 is an alternative. However the current image is the offical, so works as is. Expoe34 (talk) 03:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it’s fair to say that since there is 5 there is relative consensus for option 5 from active members as well. Any opposed, please list. I’ll change it in 12 hours if there is no opposition to it above 3 to show an actual mountable opposition to changing to option 5. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slow down, The thread was open for 5 hours and the count was three for keep & four for change to opt 5 when you made this comment. That is not consensus. In any case it is now tied. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:17, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukt64 Option 2 is the best so far, with a clear background Segagustin (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 5 or current - Both are front-facing, although I think the official portrait is more appropriate as he is an incumbent. Longestview (talk) 04:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lukt64 option 4 illustrates the best image. Vuvietanh6204 (talk) 08:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with other editors that option 5 makes the most sense, looking directly at camera, minimal disruption in the background, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 14:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Option 1 is the most recent, which should break any tie. I don't see a visual issue with any of the images. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
current or 5 ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 19:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a 9-7 consensus here for 5 specifically, 7 is option 4,2,no change. I think that 5 has a lot of support. Once inbox added, I will add the image UNLESS someone comes up with 10 people saying no. IEditPolitics (talk) 23:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote would be option 4 or current. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not "7 is option 4,2,no change" it's 8 for the current, 2 for option two, and 1 each for one and four. Second, option five has 7 votes, not 9. You are counting Expoe34 & Longestview as option five when they expressed a preference for the current portrait over five. Even if you claim the 9, it's 8-9 and that is not consensus for a change. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My vote’s on current—Obama’s portrait was used for his re-election, and same with W Bush. But remember WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, so a simple majority isn’t the right way to view this. Dingers5Days (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Low-performing second-place candidates inclusion in primary infoboxes

I'm bringing back the discussion that was archived a month ago after not reaching any consensus. Nevertheless, some users decided to skip the 2017 RfC on the matter and remove all the second-place candidates. It should be the other way around: unless a new policy is decided, the previous consensus applies. Therefore, I'll be WP:BOLD and start restoring the infoboxes. If any user is against, please, don't revert and try to reach a consensus here. Basque mapping (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy in infobox

I do not believe that Kennedy should be featured in the infobox. He does not have substantial support in the way Trump or Biden do. Is there rules for this? (Aricmfergie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I Support him being in the infobox, due to him polling above 5%, which is WP:5%. He is also gaining ballot access very quickly, and now has it in 7-8 states. Lukt64 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. WP:5% rule should be the end of the discussion. This has already been addressed in previous RFC's. As NYMag notes: The general election is now projected to be a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and their mutual, Kennedy, with a cluster of less popular third-party candidates filling out the constellation.. Editors who say that the infobox inclusion requires a substantive (which I'm assuming is 20% or more) chance of winning are violating the rule.
Considering previous consensus, precedent, and the present polling, this shouldn't even be a controversy. The guideline's are clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly Support.
People have used any argument they could to keep him off the infobox, but suddenly now without Trump or Biden getting their conventional nominations, or without requiring the pledge delegate threshold, suddenly it's that far out of the question to include a guy that's polled at Ross Perot levels? Definitely violation of the five-percent rule and Neutral Point of View to be saying that Kennedy shouldn't be up there.
There was no consensus before putting Biden and Trump up there, despite the flagrantly premature decision to do so, but it's premature to put him RFK Jr up there? What gives? Borifjiufchu (talk) 01:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose as the 5% rule only applies to actual results. Not just potential polling numbers. The 5% rule comes into play from the national threshold needed to get matching funds for party presidential campaigns, but even within our guidelines, it would not need to apply until actual results came in, as has been seen in every other page with election results present in the United States. Tipsyfishing (talk) 03:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tipsyfishing The 5% rule as clearly defined in text doesn't specify rather if it is for election results or all. By default, it seems to refer to all.
I don't think we should do what SCOTUS constantly likes doing which is make up or use outside sources and say a law means something else when the law says nothing on it, which is lazy. 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:49, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support he meets the polling requirements the guy may be a nut which is why people don’t want to put him up there but the rules don’t care about our opinions he meets the wiki requirements to be up there 2600:8801:1187:7F00:25D3:B97C:DDCA:F27C (talk) 05:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose Kennedy's inclusion in the infobox, as well as the descriptors in the opening paragraphs characterizing him as a major 3rd party candidate and the first since Ross Perot--too early to make such a claim. He may be a serious contender, but that is yet to be seen, him polling in the high single digits well before July/August conventions does not warrant treating him this way. For the moment, the race should be treated as a two-way rematch between Biden and Trump until we have more evidence that Kennedy can continue to remain relevant and pull significant support--especially after Biden and Trump are confirmed as their parties' nominees. If, even after that, Kennedy is polling at 10% or more (aggregated), then I think he would be worth mentioning. JUBJUBBB (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose bringing RFK Jr. into infobox. I suggest waiting until July to see if his average poll numbers can get above 10. Vuvietanh6204 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed. (Provided that Biden and Trump are additionally excluded.) There was never a consensus to include anything in the infobox for the time being. KlayCax (talk) 12:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I '''Support''' because the 5% rule is clearly applicable here and he was considered a serious contender in the dem primary. Notwithstanding, He has already received serious and significant media coverage, way more than Johnson got in 2016 Cannolorosa (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted Kennedy from the infobox, until a consensus is reached to include him. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy consistently polls at 5%+. I don't expect him to win the election (or even a state) but that's not the criteria of inclusion. WP:5% rule is clear here. 1980 United States presidential election, 1992 United States presidential election, 1996 presidential election, and others all show candidates who received 5% of the vote. It's widely expected that Kennedy Jr. will obtain this. I haven't seen an argument against inclusion that doesn't go against precedent and previous RFC's.
He should be included, as @Lukt64: mentions. It would be a violation of WP: NPOV (and an instance of WP: CRYSTAL and WP: OR to do otherwise). KlayCax (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My major concern here, is that there's no edit-warring over this. BTW - If it's decided to include Kennedy? Please adjust the images (downsize from 200px to 160px), so that they don't make the infobox too wide & thus squash the written intro into the left side of the page. The 1992 & 1996 prez election pages, are a good guide. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That works with me. KlayCax (talk) 22:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose there is no such thing as a 5% rule. That is the name given to an information page that attempts to summarize prior discussions the subject, and generalize conclusions that do not appear in the discussions themselves. Wikipedia does not have rules; we have policies and and guidelines and this is neither. In any case, most prior discussions concerning a 5% threshold for inclusion in the were about election vote totals, not polling numbers. Those that do concern polling are about exclusion, not inclusion, of those candidates with ballot access. For example, Jo Jorgensen had ballot access, but some wanted to exclude her due to polling numbers. A larger issue is those discussions (like this one) concern very specific contemporary scenarios such that editors are commenting on the specific race and not the 5% principle more generally. There has never been a consensus on including a candidate without ballot access polling above 5%. And frankly, because the scenarios are so different, forcing a phony rule on the proceedings is unnecessary. It makes sense to evaluate each event separately. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Kennedy in infobox, as he is a significant candidate. For now, his chance of winning is vanishingly small, but that isn't the point. He has more support than any independent since 1992 and is likely to change the outcome in some states, perhaps even the national result. Moonraker (talk) 05:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 5% does not apply to polling. Gary Johnson in 2016 had a few polls that hit 10%, but was never included on the infobox. Ballot access is irrelevant as well. Kennedy's ballot access in 7-8 states is nothing compared to historical Libertarian access (typically all 50 states). If Kennedy is included in the debate or something similar, then there is a real case to include him in the infobox. Currently, there is none. Burger1018 (talk) 05:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But getting above ten per cent in the opinion polls makes Kennedy a significant candidate, and there is a big problem with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. For consistency, the most relevant WP precedents to look at are the infoboxes of the previous elections in 1912, 1924, 1948, 1980, 1992, and 1996. Going against all precedent gives an impression of partisan bias. Moonraker (talk) 05:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those elections has third party candidates that obtained more then 5% in the actual, final results, hence why those were included.
I'm all for 5% being the benchmark when it comes to actual, final election results. But not when it comes to polling. Tipsyfishing (talk) 06:46, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We include "systematic opposition" candidates in Russian presidential elections that get 3-8% of the vote, are widely regarded as kooky, and absolutely have no chance of winning. It's inconsistent and goes against precedent if we exclude Kennedy Jr. but include them. There's no good argument against exclusion. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As the users you've responded to have emphasized, though, that's about actual election results, not polls. We don't know what % of the vote RFK Jr will get. There's not even a lot of high quality polling data yet--you could make a stronger case for RFK in the infobox if he's polling at 10%+ in June or July when more Americans are paying attention and more polls are being done/aggregated. Right now, it feels super premature.
Arguably, isn't their inclusion in Russia's case quite different? They have sham elections, Putin has no real opposition (unlike Biden and Trump) so documenting the silly, sham candidates that are put up against Putin is important context? I'm not sure why we would use the same standard for entirely different electoral systems and levels of institutional legitimacy. JUBJUBBB (talk) 10:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's right.
And unlike the Russian candidates, Kennedy Jr. has a chance of actually competing, unlike Vladislav Davankov or Nikolay Kharitonov We don't know what percentage of the vote any candidate in this race will get.
The sources agree that Kennedy Jr. will likely get over 10% of the vote. New York Magazine labels him a major candidate. He routinely polls in the mid-20s. Only listing two candidates (and then hypothetically waiting until November) isn't neutral. It's tilting the scales to include Biden and Trump while excluding Kennedy Jr. CrackTheJack (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree he *could be* a major candidate, and I agree editors should not wait until November if he continues to poll significant support. But the singular NYMag article calling him a major candidate doesn't feel very convincing to me (nor the idea we can know 8 months in advance he'll get 10%), is major candidate a technical term? What does it mean? Do other outlets call him thus and continue to? I also do not put much stock in current polling--of which there is not a lot and even less of great quality. But more of the electorate will be tuned in and there will be more relevant polling 3+ months from now, but still before the election. JUBJUBBB (talk) 11:09, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For our purposes? It's 5% in the general. The evidence is overwhelming that Kennedy Jr. will obtain that. He's listed as such by multiple citations, and even pollsters skeptical of his campaign's vitality believe he'll almost certainly obtain it. We wouldn't exclude Ross Perot in 1992 or 1996 from the infobox at this stage. The same should apply to Kennedy Jr. Only including two candidates gives an implicit bias of its own. The majority here is right. He deserves to be included in the infobox.
It's a double standard to include members of the Russian "systematic opposition" while excluding Kennedy Jr. If we adopt the same standard for Russian elections, then we should simply exclude anyone other than Putin, as Kennedy Jr. has an infinitely higher chance of becoming president than any of them.
Either we're consistent and exclude every candidate until the nominating convention or we include Trump, Biden, or Kennedy, anything else in my view gives a significant bias, as other editors have already expounded upon. CrackTheJack (talk) 11:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He does not "routinely polls in the mid-20s". RCP has him maxxing out at 22, and only hitting that 16% of the time. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Those candidates that you listed have actual election results though. Not just polling. I'm pretty sure everyone here is in agreement that any candidate that actually gets 5% of the vote would be included in the infobox. I'm in favor of that too, that's what we currently do with election results. However, polling is not election results.
Rags saying that he "might" get 10% of the vote doesn't mean anything.
If Kennedy gets on enough state ballots to reach 270 in the electoral college, then we can re-discuss. Till then, I will stay opposed. Tipsyfishing (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonraker Tbh, WP:FALSEBALANCE should be more limited in its appliance to political articles as it can result in accidental bias caused by our selected "Reliable Sources" 2600:100B:B13E:D56B:68C7:7A6:67CD:755 (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Why is Kennedy excluded from the infobox if he's being called a major candidate in multiple sources? Even wacky Russian candidates with no chance of winning are displayed before the Russian presidential "election" results are "announced. Yet, Kennedy Jr., who is consistently polling in the double digits, is getting removed by certain editors. What gives?

I don't like the guy but like others here I immediately noticed the bias. If we replaced "Kennedy Jr." with "Perot" in 1996... Would editors still exclude him? Seems much of the opposition is based on him being a kook rather than the data. CrackTheJack (talk) 09:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP did not exist during the '96 campaign, so we cannot speculate about how we would have treated Perot at a similar time in the campaign. That said, Perot received 19% of the vote in the previous presidential election, where RFK has not. No one is arguing that Kennedy should never be added to the Infobox, only that he be held to a similar standard as the others shown there. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27:'s proposal to exclude the infobox until either 1.) A majority of delegates are obtained for both 2.) The convention floor is the best course of action. @CrackTheJack: and @Moonraker: have expressed similar sentiments.
The essay of WP:NOTNP is apt here. Can someone revert every name from the infobox for the time being? There was no consensus to add it KlayCax (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Putting these two debates together makes sense: delay B/T as long as reasonable, and we can punt the RFK discussion to a point where we will have a greater sense of his credibility. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's do that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. It would save editors hundreds of hours debating whether "Kennedy should be in the infobox" and whether "Trump and Biden are the nominees yet".
We all know it's coming otherwise. I was initially in favor of including Trump, Biden, and Kennedy in the infobox, but after the debate on here, the opinion I leaned towards reversed. It's still too early in my view.
If Kennedy Jr. however remains at current polling levels: I agree he should be included in the infobox. But let's punt that question for a few months. KlayCax (talk) 13:11, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
he has been polling above 10% for months.. Lukt64 (talk) 14:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as others have pointed out 5% only applies to results. I think RFK should be added to the infobox in one of two scenarios: he garners over 5% in the actual results in November or he is treated as a major candidate by: a clear consensus of sources treating him as such, invited to the major national debates, etc. Yeoutie (talk) 14:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's already enough of a consensus of sources treating him as major third-party contender that could even qualify for debates. We are lenient with other countries when it comes to candidates consistently hitting 10%+, but suddenly because it's an American election and you see a lot of reactionary behavior towards a third-party candidate, you get a lot of biases thrown around to exclude him.
Why should what one source say what is a major candidate be a major stepping stone anyways? That's heavily subjective. There is enough raw numbers and data as is, and precedent in certainly more than one country for what qualifies other candidates for infoboxes. Seems to be the American-bias in articles speaking more so than actual Wikipedia precedent and policy when it comes to people that Oppose him. But this goalposting in opposition is nothing short of, well, unfortunately baffling. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose until we know what his ballot access looks like. Then I have no problem if his polling is still strong. --Woko Sapien (talk) 16:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat regarding existing consensus. I believe there is already consensus on this issue that candidates should be included if they poll over 5% and have ballot access in sufficient states to win 270 electoral votes. Naturally, the nominees of both parties have automatic ballot access in sufficient states. However, my understanding is that RFK Jr. does not have sufficient ballot access yet because a number of states require a vice presidential running mate to be granted access. With that in mind, we should reconsider whether Donald Trump will be added to the infobox upon his declaration as presumptive nominee by the Republican National Committee, or whether he must also choose a running mate and thereby gain ballot access to be added. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 16:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It's a moot point until he secures ballot access in enough states to actually win the presidency, after which a polling threshold is sufficient to determine his inclusion in the infobox. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has had write-in candidates for many state elections, but ballot access is now a threshold? That part I don't get. There were a lot of candidates that had specific regional support or didn't have sufficient ballot access or nationwide representation, but still get represented in parliamentary or congressional elections. This sort of line of thinking is what Ballotpedia has, but it's not something that's consistent with Wikipedia. Borifjiufchu (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's all well and good but even counting states where he's eligible as a registered write-in that only brings him up to 122 delegates. We're not at a point where he can yet reach 270 and actually win. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Evidence speaks for itself. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't to say he doesn't post relevancy and ignored what I said. 5% rule and relevancy are likely to be in order, although even when he does inevitably cross eligibility for 270 (like any third-party candidate polling above 3% typically has), people will find yet another goalpost to make-up. He has the percent, and sources to back him up as a relevant candidate, which is what matters most - in consistency with other nation's elections, which are applied far more lenient standards than what you see here in U.S. election infoboxes. Borifjiufchu (talk) 05:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I support, however i believe that as a matter of compromise we should wait until he gains ballot access that gives him the ability to get 270 electoral votesCompromise — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cannolorosa (talk • contribs) 15:34, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Photos?

Could we get new photos of Trump and Biden? To distinguish between 2020 and 2024? I think the 2020 Biden should be pre- White House portrait, and 2024 should be White House portrait. And 2024 should be candidate Trump.

Edit ::: instead we got a photo of President Trump and President Biden for 2024 (Makes no sense) For 2020 we got a photo of President Biden and Trump, (also makes no sense)

Instead it should be

2020 -> Candidate Biden, President Trump

2024 -> President Biden, Candidate Trump


68.189.2.14 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are already two open threads on this subject. Please weigh in there. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox needs removed

Can an editor remove the infobox from the lead until a consensus is reached about what exactly should be contained within it? Multiple editors, including Prcc27 and myself, think it should be excluded until then.

Per WP: ONUS, it needs removed. Thanks. I've already made one reversion so can't at the moment. Although I will when the 24hr limit expires. KlayCax (talk) 12:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. @Esolo5002: @GoodDay: please seek consensus here before adding it back. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's irrelevant to me whether it's included now or not & who's included in it or not. Trump, Biden & Harris will be included after March 12, 2024 anyway. Trump's running mate will be included sometime in July 2024. It's a dispute not worth having, as it'll become moot within a few days. GoodDay (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When do we add Biden and Trump to the infobox?

Media sources have already started using the "P" word[9], and the edit war has begun. Let's nail this down. When do we add Biden and Trump?

A. Now The media has called them presumptive, they have crushed all opposition in actual voting, and any opponents still in the race are garnering trivial support.
B. When they earn the majority of delegates as indicated in reliable sources, not by our own count
C. Some other time during the convention, maybe?

GreatCaesarsGhost 13:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

A But i support adding kennedy as well. Lukt64 (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B If I'm not mistaken the usual practice, once the AP and other sources officially call the race and both have received a majority of delegates. Yeoutie (talk) 14:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - They're going to be added within a few days anyway. GoodDay (talk) 15:22, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - It makes sense to me, plus we should stick with RSes say. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B with footnote that the nominees are “presumptive” or C to wait for the nominees to officially be chosen and give RFKJR a chance to be added at the same time as the other candidates (if he has sufficient ballot access by then). Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - Although I wouldn't object to A either. However, I'm against adding any independent or third party candidates just yet; there seems to be a casual consensus to do that after the conventions and/or once ballot access has been finalized. --Woko Sapien (talk) 15:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - Not only has Trump become the presumptive nominee, but President Biden faces little opposition. If anything, I'm okay with Trump being in the infobox because he has no more challengers in the primary, and wait until President Biden either clinches or when Marianne Williamson drops out. Dylansh99 (talk) 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTA - My understanding is that "presumptive nominee" status is something declared by the respective party Committees. We should go with that. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B – Conventional usage of term (see Presidential nominee#Presumptive nominee), regardless of whether a candidate is a prohibitive favorite to secure their party's nomination. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - For the Reasons above. 24.189.38.39 (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
B - this is when the candidates are traditionally considered to be presumptive nominees. It should also be when the media is calling them as such as well. Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 01:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NOTA - Trump can be added now since he has no opponents. Biden should wait until either all major opponents drop out (yes Williamson and the other guy are not "major", but Wikipedia is defining them as major) or he is projected to receive the majority of delegates. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 01:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A with no prejudice to B. Wikipedia is designed to reflect reliable sources, if reliable sources are declaring both Biden and Trump presumptive nominees, which they are [10], [11], [12], [13], then so should Wikipedia. Esolo5002 (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a newspaper. As an encyclopedia, we should at the very least wait for these candidates to be the projected winner of a majority of delegates. I am not really interested in whom the pundits think is a “presumptive nominee”. Hilary Clinton was once considered a “presumptive nominee” early on, but then Bernie gave her a run for her money. Prcc27 (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No point of the actual WP:NOTNEWS policy means that we shouldn't summarize current reliable sources, in fact, the policy says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage." None of the above cited sources are "pundits" but news reporting. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:53, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A They probably won’t be able to clinch at the same time, so it would be unfair to add one but not the other purely because of their party’s primary schedule. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, many of us support keeping the infobox completely blank until both candidates clinch the nomination.. Prcc27 (talk) 16:10, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Unless something crazy happens and wildly unforeseen happens, both will be their party’s nominee Cannolorosa (talk) 15:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A The purpose of the infobox is to supply the relevant information rapidly. Read any article on this race and it will talk about these two candidates as the very likely or “presumptive” candidates in the election. We don’t need to set up complicated rules or decide what “presumptive” means, just follow the reliable source reporting. —Jfhutson (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think we should establish rules on candidates being considered presumptive nominees for the Republican and Democratic parties Punker85 (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A - There is no other major candidates that could primary Biden or Trump. Qutlooker (talk) 01:31, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Trump is the defacto Republican nominee at this point in time. If that changes then we can reconsider. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 01:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In November

Every four years, we tend to have a dispute about how & when to describe an elected or re-elected president, at the bottom of the infobox. This comes about because the general public vote in November, the electors vote in December & the electoral votes are counted & certified in the following early January. Will we be using the same method, like we did in the last prez election? Asking now, so there won't be a repeat of this dispute in November. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same thing, albeit later in the election cycle (September/October). This is my view on how we should describe the apparent winner on the infobox and in the article: before the electors vote = projected winner/President-Elect (projected)/re-elected (projected), or something along those lines; after the electors vote = President-Elect/re-elected maybe with a footnote that the results are pending certification; after certification = President-Elect/Elected President/re-elected. Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination is that "Elected President" is used immediately upon the bulk of the big boys (CNN, AP etc.) calling the election. I was curious what the prior dispute looked like. I found this[14] which supports "Elected President" as being the convention. Are there any other prior conversations worth reviewing? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the winner is known as president elect until their Inauguration Day. Hope this is helpful. Cwater1 (talk) 21:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the electoral college votes (at the earliest). The media do not "call the election." They project it, and until the electoral college votes, there is not a president-elect. In 2024 especially, given the advanced age of the two presumptive nominees and the likelihood of dispute if the result is close, we should avoid predicting any future outcomes to avoid confusing readers. (See also the recent madness in Pakistan, which has turned that article into a mess.)
I don't think we need to wait for counting and certification, though, given the terms of the Electoral Count Reform and Presidential Transition Improvement Act of 2022, but that could be discussed. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. A projection is a mathematical analysis of the votes, it has no legal effect. Prcc27 (talk) 19:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The link I posted above shows we have always used "Elected President" after the November vote. It has nothing to do with the media "declaring" a winner, but with the near universal conventional understanding that the winner is decided in the November vote. Moving away from that convention because there might be a coup or one of them might drop dead is CRYSTALBALL. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. For me this has nothing to do with a possible coup. In fact, I also argued for calling Biden the projected winner in 2020 even though I knew he was going to win. We are an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Calling someone a winner before they are certified the winner is sensationalism. Also, projections do end up being wrong in rare instances. At the very least, we need a footnote explaining that the “President-Elect” was declared the winner based on (unofficial) projections. The media outlets do in fact describe the winner as a projected winner (especially when they first make the call); it would be dishonest of us to leave that information out. FWIW, I’m actually a candidate right now; I am about to declare myself the “apparent winner”, but will not officially declare victory until the votes are certified. Prcc27 (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are using words like "projections" and "sensationalism" for the orderly, ordinary and official transfer of power that has happened every election except 2020 (pointing out that you denied the title to Biden in 2020 is a mark against you). It is not just media and pundits that declare a winner in November; it is the federal government as well. Recall the scandal that ensured when the GSA Administrator refused to certify Biden's victory in November of 2020. It is incumbent upon us to maintain an even, neutral voice; conferring upon a rubber-stamp process the status of an inflection point is reflective of and promoting the talking points of those who perpetrated the coup in 2020 and have communicated their intent to do so again. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The transfer of power can absolutely happen when there is a projected winner, even before the win becomes official. Why is it wrong to make a distinction between being the de-facto President-Elect (projected winner) and the de jure President-Elect (elected by the Electoral College)? We should be giving our readers more information, not less. No mark against me, I am more of a de jure kind of guy, but we should absolutely acknowledge a winner when the media makes their projections. Prcc27 (talk) 19:46, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not wrong to make a distinction, but you are wrong in suggesting that the de jure meaning of President-Elect is tied to the December election rather than the November one. Federal law indicates that "the terms "President-elect" and "Vice-President-elect"...shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the (GSA) Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President."[15] (emphasis mine) Again, this is why the GSA administrator's failure to "ascertain" the President-Elect became an issue by November 7th (four days after the election). GreatCaesarsGhost 22:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, “projected President-Elect” before the GSA makes a determination, and “President-Elect” after. Prcc27 (talk) 03:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Moving away from that convention because there might be a coup or one of them might drop dead is CRYSTALBALL."
The supposed convention itself is CRYSTALBALL and should be abandoned. We should stick strictly to compiling what is factually true, not what is generally anticipated, and we can note with more precision in the body of the article how the electoral process works and to what extent delegates and Congress are bound as of the date of publication. Rising misinformation and misunderstanding of the electoral process is a reason for us to be stricter about violations of CRYSTALBALL and WP:NOTNEWS. (We should likewise drop the bad habit of declaring "projected" winners in state or congressional races before results have been certified.) -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify the question here, when you say "bottom of the infobox" are you are referring to the phrase "Elected President" that indicates the winner? And the question is should we use some other phrase between the November popular election and the December Electoral College vote? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Last time around, there was disagreement over how to list the winning candidate under the "Elected President" bit. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again Wikipedia summarizes reliable sources, when reliable sources start calling someone "President-elect" Wikipedia should follow. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The sources also say that they “project” that so and so is the winner. Omitting this wording is not following the sources. Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
President Biden made a speech celebrating his victory after the media "projected" him President. There is simply no real difference. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely a difference between de facto President-Elect and de jure President-Elect. No doubt Biden was the President-Elect in practice, but whether or not he is legally the President-Elect is also important as well. Prcc27 (talk) 19:48, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We must be careful not to get too literal on these matters. I understand & realize the accuracy arguments. But honestly, do we really have to wait until the Electoral College has voted? I highly doubt faithless electors will be allowed to overturn the November result. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”I highly doubt faithless electors will be allowed to overturn the November result.” That is Original Research. But to answer your question, I think we as an encyclopedia should wait, because people expect encyclopedias to be more accurate and to explain the legal nuances. The media on the other hand, should have more leeway on blurring the lines between de facto and de jure, because readers probably have a different threshold for accuracy for them. If not in the infobox, these nuances should be explained in the body and the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not original research, to state that faithless electors will not be allowed to overturn a presidential election result. GoodDay (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as “faithless electors overturning a presidential election”. Electors are not bound in some states, and they are entitled to vote for whomever they want. The initial projections do not determine the winner, the actual electoral votes do. Definitely WP:OR, and maybe even throw in WP:CRYSTAL to assume faithless electors are powerless. Prcc27 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, but we won't know if you're correct until it actually happens. GoodDay (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Infobox

Already a discussion on this abovePrcc27 (talk) 04:28, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I understand that we must wait for the intra-party elections first to add candidates to the infobox, but when that happens would it be reasonable to add Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as an independent candidate to the infobox like done to John B. Anderson in the 1980 United States presidential election article? Titan2456 (talk) 02:42, 8 March 2024 (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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 March 2024

Change “If Trump wins, he would become the second president to achieve nonconsecutive terms after Grover Cleveland.” in the lead paragraph to “If Trump wins, he would join Grover Cleveland as the only presidents to serve non-consecutive terms.”

The current wording is ambiguous enough that the use of “after Grover Cleveland” could imply that there is a first president after Cleveland to serve non-consecutive terms. HidyHoTim (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

“ If Trump wins, he would become the second president to serve a non consecutive term, the first being [[Grover Cleveland]].” I believe that is the most appropriate wording Cannolorosa (talk) 15:43, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done used User:Cannolorosa's wording. Thanks for your contributions! Staraction (talk | contribs) 16:20, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bill was opposed Trump

In the "Border Security and Immigration" section, it said the bill was "opposed by Trump" in 2024. Trump isn't in government, so the statement is at least misleading, as Trump could do absolutely nothing to stop the bill from passing. 207.244.205.106 (talk) 05:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1212917238"