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 Joecompan (talk | contribs) at 00:03, 22 July 2024 (→Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024 (2): Reply). 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]
  • Now Biden has dropped out, there is no "candidate" as no other person has announced candidacy. The polls show however Michelle Obama is the only Democrat that can beat Trump, and by far. Ironically, Barack has not endorsed Kamala Harris but congratulated Biden on dropping out. [1] I would say that this should be included in the article. Maybe, Michelle is the Democrats' Hail Mary. Swintonswims (talk) 20:29, 21 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. [2]. 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[3], 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]
Has biden even released his delegates? Plutocow (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta love how people are gung-ho to shove Biden into an infobox, but not Kennedy Jr. Lotta bias on Wikipedia it seems. Borifjiufchu (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He was the presumptive nominee from a major party, and now he's not. Feel free to participate in the next discussion if/when RFK has majority EV ballot access. TheSavageNorwegian 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gladly will. I remember the 2016 infobox wars, where people were just as pre-emptive. Biggest difference is that here people change the goalposts, but make every level of accommodity for presumptive nominees from major parties and keep finding ways to skew logic around write-in calculus. Borifjiufchu (talk) 21:03, 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]

UPDATE: Biden has endorsed Harris. We can include that, at least. BOTTO (T•C) 18:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to piggyback on this: lots of editors will not be reading the talk page and editing out of turn. If you care enough to be here in the lean times, keep the main page clean and refer the rogue editors here with controversial edits. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is too early to include Harris in the infobox. She shouldn't be included until reliable sources refer to her as such. Gust Justice (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost and Gust Justice: I've taken the liberty of adding a note to the infobox. I await the day in which we can remove it and replace it with the presumptive nominee. BOTTO (T•C) 18:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When is the DNC? The article should say. Richard75 (talk) 19:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard75: It will run from the 19th to the 22nd of August. BOTTO (T•C) 22:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy on the infobox?

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.

Most sources consider him to be a major candidate, he is about to hit 270 electoral votes.

Lukt64 (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Most sources" whom? Plutocow (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Zogby had him at 22% this month. Thats ross perot levels. Lukt64 (talk) 19:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He hasn't hit 270 possible electoral votes though. When that happens then you can bring it up again TheFellaVB (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Expect it very soon. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop bringing this up until he does. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we hat this already? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:54, 21 July 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.

Brent Peterson

Where is Brent Peterson? He is Running as a Third party candidate 

Evan F (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you're aware of this or at the very least I hope you are but Brent Peterson is not on the ballot in any state, nor has he filled any FEC forms in order to be a candidate. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

Can we add that former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama has repeatedly refused to enter the race but beats Trump according to polls, and that media reports that senior Democrats and donors have asked Obama to step in? The media shows Obama at 50% against Trump at 39% [4], [5], [6]. Swintonswims (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump portrait changed

Once again, someone had changed Trump's image in the infobox despite the fact we decided that a more up to date image should be used of him. Would someone be able to undo this change TheFellaVB (talk) 20:22, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would, but I've already used up my 1RR for the day.
Maybe we should add a hidden note to dissuade future editors from changing it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP: UNDUE section surrounding January 6 and its aftermath

Over the past month or so there's been a massive addition to the "election interference" section talking about Trump's reaction to the 2020 presidential election and January 6. It has grown so much that it composed 1/4th of the article's total content by word count. (2,000 words - depending on how you count it - vs. the ~8,000 or so in the total article.) In total, it has more words given to it than, in total, the combined words given to the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Biden's withdrawal from the race, the 2024 Democratic nomination process, and more. Even worse: a majority of it simply reporting various variations of what came before. All of this could be condensed into this:

Current and former U.S. officials have stated that foreign interference in the 2024 election is likely. Three major factors cited were "America's deepening domestic political crises, the collapse of controversial attempts to control political speech on social media, and the rise of generative AI."[35] Donald Trump has made false claims of voter fraud in the 2020 presidential election, and has continued denying the election results as of June 2024.[36][37] Election security experts have warned that officials who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 presidential election may attempt to impede the voting process or refuse to certify the 2024 election results.[38] In the lead up to the 2024 election, the Republican Party has made false claims of massive "noncitizen voting" by immigrants in an attempt to delegitimize the election if Trump loses.[39][40][41] The claims have been made as part of a larger election denial movement in the United States.

In simply 148 words. It's the definition of WP: UNDUE, in my opinion, as this article is about the 2024 presidential election, not speculation of what might happen in it.

Even purely symbolic elections in authoritarian regimes do not go into this much detail. Tagging @BootsED:. In my view all of this is absolutely an obvious violation of Wikipedia norms surrounding political articles.

I'm fine with perhaps a longer version of the section. Yet it's indisputable that the other is an absolute mess that under no circumstance should be in the article. KlayCax (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polling has also been inconsistent in whether Democrats or Republicans favor political violence more. Using a single poll, that asked whether "patriots" (red flag) could be violent in X circumstances, could easily bias it against the Republicans.
(As "patriot" could easily be coded to be a right-wing position.) I'm going to be honest, and state that the entire section comes across as an editor trying to convince users to vote for a certain way. It's at least WP: UNDUE; probably WP: NPOV as well.
Open to alternative suggestions than that above. But this article is already long enough to the point where it's breaking for some users. KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely opposed to removing mention of January 6th. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that, @Prcc27:. It's that the text is 1/4 to 1/3th of the article. That's clearly WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why have you marked the "Interference by foreign nations" section with {{very long}}? It's barely 120 words long. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timing of dropping out

I believe Biden is the first incumbent to drop out after the primaries & before the convention. Perhaps that could be mentioned. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree this is a good piece of trivia to include Dkaloger (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there sources to back this claim? Is it WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Referencing errors

The recent hasty deletions and incomplete reversions have left behind several referencing problems in this article. I think I've fixed them all, but I've only replaced those that generated undefined referencing errors. Were more references dropped when these edits were made? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of campaign issues

Leading campaign issues are expected to be abortion, border security and immigration, healthcare, education, the economy, foreign policy, LGBT rights, climate change, and democracy.

The order of this list of issues should either match opinion polling showing the general order votes say or at the very least be alphabetical. The currently listing is pseudo-random or at more than likely trying to push bias.

The economy is listed sixth here despite economic concerns being by far the #1 issue on voter's minds. NPR poll showing economy overwhelmingly the #1 issue, mirrored by every single other poll on the matter [7] Zaqwert (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have always wanted to see it in alphabetical order, but have been too lazy to make the change myself. Prcc27 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm alright with either, @Prcc27:. I lean towards the priority of voters. Yet it seems likely that many polls were differ on what they poll and how they phrase the question.
Wouldn't be surprised if we see substantial variance on what issues are considered to be the most important. KlayCax (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's been a lot of POV-pushing in this article, @Zaqwert:, unfortunately.
Substantive parts of the article seem written to convince the reader to vote for Biden (and now the generic Democratic candidate) rather than being a neutral recounting of policy. The present "election interference" section being the most egregious example of this. More words are given to it than a recount of the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Biden's withdrawal from the race, the 2024 Democratic nomination process, and more combined, while making statements not agreed upon in reliable sources.
This article is badly in need of a revision. Not only does it have substantial WP: DUE, WP: NPOV, and WP: ADVOCACY issues, its length is now breaking the page for many users. KlayCax (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly agree. Dire need for revision. Joecompan (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LEAD

Why is the lead mentioning the conviction of Donald Trump? It seems misplaced and not relevant. 2604:2D80:4307:BE00:F0F1:DB4E:F325:2C5 (talk) 22:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the leading candidates for president is a convicted felon, that seems very relevant and unprecedented. Prcc27 (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. I would argue that it is a key fact that Trump is the first felon to be such a popular candidate, for better or worse. Mittzy (talk) 23:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024 (2)

Add a line or several lines to the lead along the lines of "Biden's withdrawal has resulted in the first Brokered convention since 1952". It's pretty noteworthy SVeach94 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC) SVeach94 (talk) 23:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SVeach94, I could be missing something here, but from what I have read a brokered convention occurs at the parties convention which is yet to occur. Feel free to correct me but this doesn't seem correct. Joecompan (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1235932085"