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 Botto (talk | contribs) at 18:26, 21 July 2024 (→Biden drops out: CRYSTAL.). 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

Michelle Obama

Hello.

I found the following highly relevant information, and would greatly appreciate if it can be incorporated into the article in an appropriately structured manner. Thanks in advance for any help.

According to a Reuters/Ipsos public opinion poll among 892 registered voters released on July 2, 2024, Michelle Obama was the only listed Democrat option who would defeat Trump in a confrontation, with 50% of the votes for Obama versus 39% for Trump. 55% of the voters also had a favourable view of Obama versus 42% toward Trump.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ "Only Michelle Obama bests Trump as an alternative to Biden in 2024". Ipsos. 2 July 2024. Retrieved 5 July 2024.
  2. ^ Kochi, Sudiksha. "As calls grow for Biden to drop out, new poll shows Michelle Obama would beat Trump". USA Today. Retrieved 5 July 2024.

David A (talk) 05:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until she declares her candidacy, this would be totally irrelevant. HiLo48 (talk) 06:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she is the only available major candidate who would conclusively beat Trump, I think that it seems very relevant for the public to be made aware of. Of course, the poll in question did not ask about Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but nevertheless. David A (talk) 08:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many candidates like that. But they just haven’t declared candidacy. Qutlooker (talk) 16:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are? Can you provide any examples please? David A (talk) 18:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly WP:UNDUE. Michelle Obama is not receiving significant speculation of running. Even if she was, Biden has already said he is not dropping out of the race. Prcc27 (talk) 21:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Obama herself has said she is not running for office at all BlackBeauty42! (talk) 20:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • These results of polling are not so much about Michelle Obama as about the chances of the Democratic Party, and the overall situation in the election. Therefore, such info is relevant and interesting for a casual reader like myself. That's why it was widely published in media at the first place. I think this is OK to include. My very best wishes (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not seeing a consensus here for the trivia about Michelle Obama to be included. The onus is on those seeking to include it to get consensus per WP:ONUS. The paragraph in question should be removed; David A should not have re-added their BOLD edit. Prcc27 (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we should finish our discussion here first, before removing the information, but maybe I am mistaken. David A (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have now undone my revert, but ask all opposed to this to please reconsider, as this seems extremely relevant for a clear perspective regarding the currently only known way that Trump can be defeated. David A (talk) 12:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn’t really concerned with “what if” scenarios (please see WP:CRYSTAL). Biden is going to be the nominee, as long as he wants the nomination. If he does step aside, I can guarantee you Michelle Obama will not be his replacement. The information you seek to include in the article is irrelevant. Prcc27 (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is relevant, but potentially undue. Indeed, one needs a WP:Consensus for inclusion. I am not sure if we have one here. She could be a fantastic president, maybe better than anyone, but she said she has no such ambitions on several occasions. Unfortunately. My very best wishes (talk)
WP:UNDUE is certainly the issue here. The article is already long, and we don't want it to become unwieldy. There are many facts that are in this vein that are tangential and could be mentioned if readability was not a concern. Also, there is an almost universal phenomenon in polling where approval is higher when someone is not actually running. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. That is very unfortunate. I had hoped that we might have some positive impact here.
Btw: I love your Superman-referencing (or rather Perry White-referencing) username. David A (talk) 04:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting or assassination attempt?

There is a move request discussion on whether 2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally should be renamed and moved to 2024 assassination attempt of Donald Trump. Prcc27 (talk) 02:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean when theres a gunman who fired at the president specifically and didn’t just start mowing down people, I’d call it an assassination attempt. Los Pobre (talk) 05:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any reliable source to confirm this? The closest thing to a confirmation I heard was that the FBI said they were treating this as an assassination attempt, but they also said a motive has not been confirmed. Prcc27 (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Multiple RS's refer to it as an assassination attempt. Does anyone think it *wasn't* an assassination attempt? The guy went on the roof and wasn't trying to hit Trump but got his ear by pure luck? Call it what it was. SeanusAurelius (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://apnews.com/article/trump-vp-vance-rubio-7c7ba6b99b5f38d2d840ed95b2fdc3e5
AP has declared it an assassination attempt. SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cljy6yz1j6gt
And the BBC SeanusAurelius (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is someone able to edit the only instance of the word "pubic" to "public"?

I found this typo when reading the page. It's located in Background --> Political Violence around the 3rd line. 2A02:20C8:4120:0:0:0:0:A01D (talk) 14:23, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, thanks for letting us know. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 14:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Shanahan Portrait?

Is there a usable Nicole Shanahan Portrait that can be used for the VP spot in the Candidate box for the Kennedy-Shanahan ticket? 216.163.7.201 (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked. Haven't found anything with the right license yet. TheSavageNorwegian 20:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thesavagenorwegian okay
btw, I posted as the IP because I forgot to login Buildershed (talk) 22:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, someone please upload a licensed picture of her ASAP. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is Trump/Vance the official nominee or presumptive?

Is Trump the official nominee yet, or is he still presumptive? Doesn’t Trump have to accept the nomination first? I definitely still think Vance is presumptive, he has to be nominated at the convention for it to be official. Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@6218946rr: Trump is NOT the nominee until the roll call of states is completed. Noah, BSBATalk 19:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is correct, the (presumptive) should be added back until the roll call Jbvann05 19:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Vance should be removed as well until the roll call, Trump may have announced Vance is his pick, but he's not presumptive in the same way Vice President Harris is Talthiel (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vance is presumptive, we generally take presidential candidates at their word and do not usually wait for the convention vote before calling their running mate the VP nominee/presumptive nominee. I do think we should add “presumptive” back to Trump until he accepts the nomination. I would do it myself, but I already made my revert for the day. Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Roll call has been completed. Donald Trump and J.D. Vance are officially the 2024 GOP candidates for President and Vice President of the United States 2001:569:7899:5000:F194:9B80:130D:60C7 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is now the presidential nominee. [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did Trump accept the nomination yet? Prcc27 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
J. D. Vance has not been formally nominated, just unofficially. Prcc27 (talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may take awhile, due to teleprompter problems. The band is still playing. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then I still feel like he isn’t the official nominee, but I am not sure what the RNC rules are or whether acceptance is required. Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaker Mike Johnson has just declared both Trump and Vance as the official Republican nominees for President and Vice President of the United States. GandalfXLD (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 325 typo

"rump picks JD Vance for VP". The Hill. BenDoleman (talk) 00:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we add Kennedy/Shanahan to the main infobox?

Kennedy has emerged as one of the highest polling independent candidates since Perot and he has a very reasonable chance of getting a good percentage of the vote. Wouldn't it be a good idea to put him on the main infobox due to this? Sendbobspicspls (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have long resisted attempts to add RFK to the infobox prematurely. My key arguments were a) ballot access is hard and should not be assumed, and b) early polls are not indicative because most people are not engaged in the race. The passage of time and recent events (the debate, the shooting, and the RNC) have changed the latter; we are now in the true campaign stage. None of these events have caused his number to recede further from the floor of 8% he hit in March. He now has access to 9 states and 99 EVs[2], including 3 purple states (MI, FL, & NC) where he's polling at more than double the 2020 margin. His claims to additional states (a total of 390 EVs, including purple states like PA, NV, GA and TX) are also now more credible in light of those certified. We have already agreed to add him if he is at 5% when BA hits 270, but that standard was just a way of saying "still relevant when the campaign starts in earnest." In any case, he will get to 270 and he'll be well above 5% when he does it. I think the time to add has come. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy now has ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots. (Which you can see on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.
He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait". But he has 270 (or slightly less) at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria.
It's over. He has the ballot access and polling numbers. KlayCax (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kennedy is not on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, so it is mathematically impossible for him to win the presidency.
LV ✉ ✎ 13:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Longestview I'd like to propose that they be an exception to the ballot access portion. Not out of bias but out of practice.
The campaign has been reported to submit double to even quadruple the amount of signatures necessary in states to gain ballot access and this has so far worked.
While I understand WP:CRYSTAL, it seems extremely unlikely he doesn't reach the ballot threshold by the middle of next month, especially September.
He's already totaling almost 400, turn-ins, nominations, certifications included, even if one or two petitions are somehow rejected, the others are extremely likely to get him there.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4689340-rfk-jr-new-york-robert-f-kennedy-jr-donald-trump-joe-biden/
https://tennesseelookout.com/briefs/independent-presidential-candidate-robert-kennedy-jr-submits-tennessee-ballot-petitions/
if you need more examples, I'll provide them Buildershed (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe this is a case of WP:IAR. The consensus is clear that it would be premature to add RFKJR to the infobox at this time. Prcc27 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Totaling almost 400" what? Accessible electoral votes? That isn't accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu I didn't say accessible now, I said WILL be accessible by mid August or September.
Like I said, I know about WP:CRYSTAL but an exception maybe granted in an additional RFC potentially. Buildershed (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. We do not need an additional RfC. We already had an RfC, and multiple attempts afterwards to add RFKJR have failed. It is a waste of time. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the definition of WP:DEADHORSE. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFK Jr. and Cornel West ticket tables

I propose removing the part of RFK Jr. and Cornel West ticket table header, the "title" of the ticket table, that state that they are in the ballot in some states under their self-created party because they are mostly known as independent candidates and they are in the ballot in other states under different parties, so it would be unfair to only include their self-created party but not other parties Punker85 (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with this. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Republican nominee photos

The current photos look a bit mismatched (one candid and one official); how about these published last month? They were taken at different events, but I think they complement each other better. GhulamIslam (talk) 20:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC) [reply]

I agree, we shouldn't use Vance's official portrait whereas Trump's portrait isn't used. I think it should either be all or nothing (we use both official portraits or we use two candid pictures). I'm personally in favor of using both official portraits. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's official portrait is pretty out of date, though. It's almost seven years old. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hence why if we're not using Trump's portrait, we shouldn't use Vance's. I agree that it looks weird that one has an official portrait and not the other. The proposed Vance portrait above looks better as they do complement each other IMO. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am okay with using Vance’s official portrait. Vance is a current elected official; Trump is not. Prcc27 (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. There's no need for running mates to match when there is a mix of candids and portraits for the other candidates. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Portrait

Why aren't we using Trump's official portrait, but still using Biden's? A consistent choice needs to be made (Aricmfergie (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A consistent choice has been made. We've had multiple discussions about the topic and have decided that a new picture of Trump that better reflects his current appearance is the best choice for the article. Should he win the election and receive a new Presidential portrait it is almost certain it will be changed to that new image. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the 2020 election page uses his 2017 portrait. so does the 2016 page. same (plus 4 years) for Biden's portraits. But it's been almost 8 years since then. If Trump wins the election then his portrait will be updated to his 2025 Portrait GameCreepr (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same with Biden or whatever Democrat is the nominee. Whoever wins will get their 2025 portrait in use. SDudley (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox News projections?

Should we consider using Fox News projections as one of our news sources we use to update the infobox and map in November? Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is not reliable with regard to politics. I would actually lean in support of using Fox News projections, if the Fox News Decision Desk was 100% free of influence from the network. But in 2020, the network did not allow their Decision Desk to call Nevada for Biden, even though they were ready to make the call. Yes, the Arizona call was bad and was part of the reason the network stepped in; but nevertheless, it is still concerning when a network does not allow their Decision Desk to operate independently. Consequently, I think we should not use Fox News projections when we update our infobox and map, albeit we should give due weight to their projections in the article and lead. Prcc27 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Prcc27 Yes Buildershed (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is your reasoning for possibly continuing to use the Fox News Decision Desk? Prcc27 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume there are a quantity of sources used? If Fox is unique in holding out for calling a state for Biden, we should absolutely ignore that and proceed. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In 2020, the criteria for adding a state to the infobox and map was to wait until all major media outlets make a projection for that state. If we adopt the same criteria in 2024 (although that is still TBD), I absolutely agree with you that we should add a state’s electoral votes with or without Fox News’s blessing. Even if we move forward with a less strict criteria, I still think many users and readers will take Fox projections with a grain of salt, so maybe the best course of action is to avoid Fox projections altogether? There are plenty of other networks Wikipedia can rely on for election projections. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone from the city with the proud history of having given Rupert Murdoch to the world, I can say that I trust his media outlets 100% with the football scores. I don't think he has ever let us down there. Beyond that, no. We should stick to policy and ignore anything Fox News say on the election. And before anyone asks, no, we don't want him back thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biden drops out

https://x.com/joebiden/status/1815080881981190320

Could someone remove him from the infobox? CoryJosh (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, in the Democratic Party section, it has him and Harris as presumptive nominee Infobox. Removal should be quick! IEditPolitics (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one knows who gonna be the Democratic nominee. Plz remove Harris from the info box !! 2600:1011:B07D:8492:9D15:5606:C546:C85B (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one knows who gonna be the Democratic nominee. Plz remove Harris from the info box !! 2600:1011:B07D:8492:9D15:5606:C546:C85B (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People, please keep the Democratic nominee blank for now. This has never happened before and we do not have confirmation that Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee. Per WP:CRYSTAL, please be patient and not use the page to speculate about what probably will happen. BOTTO (T•C) 18:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1235882272"