Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Canidate Colors/Gradients (Updated)

With Matthew McMullin, the former head Wikipedia editor responsible for updating the candidate color shading page, stepping away from the project due to disputes and conduct disagreements with other users, the page has remained neglected for nearly a month. Since the page hadn't seen any updates, discussions among Wikipedia users took place on the talk page, resulting in an agreement to overhaul the candidate colors. However, this overhaul wasn't executed, leaving the page outdated in terms of new entrants and prominent candidates such as Hurd, Johnson, and Binkley.

In light of this situation, I, a frequent contributor to this Wikipedia page, have taken the initiative to undertake the task of overhauling the candidate shadings. The goal is to provide a more accurate representation and include additional shading for candidates who have garnered prominence and have been featured on the main candidates page.

As a result, I have restructured the original "Candidate colors/gradients" section, to remove it as the main discussion, as it has since been abandoned. This separation acknowledges that this space now serves as the primary hub for discussions concerning candidate color representation. - Expoe34 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (CST)

All colors are taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/USA_legend_colors/proposals/2023a_all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/USA_legend_colors/proposals

·Edit 1: With Saurez out of the race, I gave his more distinct brown color to Binkley, whose shading was a tad too similar to DeSantis and Burgum.- Expoe34 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (CST)

·Edit 2: Removed Suarez and have given his color to Ryan Binkley (Previously light red) Expoe34 (talk)

·Edit 3: I have removed Hurd and Given his color to Perry Johnson, as per the Wikipedia page. In addition, I have given Stapleton a more distinct red shading - Expoe34 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 3: With Corey Stapleton out of the reace, I gave his color to Perry Johnson. - Expoe34 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 4: Removed Perry Johnson - Expoe34 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 4: Removed Binkley along with all withdrawn candidates so far - Expoe34 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2023 (CST)

Chris Christie

Hex code	Percentage
#ebf8f1	<30%
#d7f1e3	30–40%
#a6d9be	40–50%
#77c29a	50–60%
#45ac75	60–70%
#08974a	70–80%
#06763b	80–90%
#04582b	>90%

Ron DeSantis

Hex code	Percentage
#fdecee	<30%
#fbd9dc	30–40%
#f0abb0	40–50%
#ea7982	50–60%
#e04350	60–70%
#cb1d2b	70–80%
#ab000e	80–90%
#81000b	>90%

Nikki Haley

Hex code	Percentage
#fceee6	<30%
#fadece	30–40%
#ebb494	40–50%
#de8a59	50–60%
#d05c18	60–70%
#bc4c0b	70–80%
#9b3900	80–90%
#762b00	>90%

Asa Hutchinson

Hex code	Percentage
#feeffe	<30%
#fcdffc	30–40%
#efb6ef	40–50%
#e68ce6	50–60%
#dc63dc	60–70%
#cd39cd	70–80%
#a526a5	80–90%
#7b1b7b	>90%

Vivek Ramaswamy

Hex code	Percentage
#f0e8be	<30%
#d7c877	30–40%
#CEB948	40–50%
#c0a92f	50–60%
#a88c00	60–70%
#906f00	70–80%
#735700	80–90%
#563f00	>90%

Donald Trump

Hex code	Percentage
#eef1fd	<30%
#dee3fb	30–40%
#b5bded	40–50%
#8d9ae2	50–60%
#6778d7	60–70%
#4156cd	70–80%
#3343a2	80–90%
#243179	>90%

Expoe34 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that Suarez has withdrawn before the primaries, should we free up his color and give it to someone else? Maybe Burgum or Binkley because they have fairly similar colors. QuailWatts (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Idea! I've since made the tweak to Binkley's color Expoe34 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The colors for DeSantis and Haley seem fairly similar to me. Could one of them be assigned a different color scheme? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, especially as Haley and Ramaswamy look similar as well, but do you have any suggestions of what to change it to? I'm having trouble finding a better color for Haley. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Przemysl15, can you be more specific, which shades do you find similar? Expoe34 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, do you mean for the <30% shade, as by comparing them directly, I can see where there's some confusion. However, for the deeper shades, they're starkly different even when I tested color blind settings. Expoe34 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

U.S. territories ballot access

The table on ballot access for each candidate should include primaries and caucuses in the U.S. territories as well (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). I'm not sure how to edit the table myself. FireflyNV (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

States and territories are only added when the state GOP or secretary of state announces who is on the ballot. I'm not too sure on how the "territorial conventions" work, though. Longestview (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump Colorado ballot access status change

Due to recent developments in legal cases, I believe it's pertinent to change Donald Trump's primary ballot access status for the state of Colorado.

Trump has formally appealed the Colorado decision to SCOTUS on January 3rd.

Per the Colorado ruling, Paragraph 7:

"Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court. "

As review has been sought before the deadline, the stay will remain and Trump's name will appear on the ballot.

While it may be inaccurate to say Trump is definitively on the primary ballot in Colorado, stating that he is not is also misleading. Therefore I believe that Trump (and in turn, Ramaswamy) should be at least marked in a yellow color to most accurately signify this status. 97.116.41.53 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll go ahead and change Ramaswamy and Trump to the green checkmark for the Colorado listing in the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates#Ballot access. (I'll also revise the wording in the footnote regarding Trump). If anything changes in the future, we can update it at that point. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump is officially on the Colorado ballot

This must be changed to light green, but leave the footnote in.

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2024/PR20240105BallotCert.html

Trump will be printed on the ballots for now, because yesterday was the final day to finalize the ballot. If the Supreme Court of the US rules after February 8 (their hearing) that Trump is not qualified, his votes will not be counted according to Sec. of State Griswold. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

VP speculation article

Hi,

Scu_ba, re: your edit summary [1] asking about the Republican VP speculation article; it was moved to draft space [2] after an AFD about it back in September [3].

Hope it helps. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson Ah thanks! I must've missed that! Scu ba (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Christie on the Ballot Access table

What's the deal with Christie remaining on the ballot access table with his name italicized? Shouldn't he just be moved to the Others column since he's dropped out before voting even started? Kevingates4462 (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe the rationale is that Christie dropped out past the various deadlines to be removed from the ballot, so even though he has dropped out, his name will remain on the various ballots. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

John Anthony Castro

I see that John Anthony Castro has been removed from the major candidate's section, yet I cannot find any discussion on this removal plus with his recent arrest he has generate drew headlines.  Casper king (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe Castro has been listed as a major candidate here. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Castro was never in the major candidates, and probably never will be. Scu ba (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Binkley (and other Candidates in General.)

So. Is Binkley a Major Candidate? I Saw He was put there for a short while. Maybe we should put a "Other Candidates" or something. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

He is not. There was a discussion about it last year [4] (there were a few, in fact). The "Other candidates" section already exists at the Candidates article: [5] article, but that portion is intentionally not included here on the primaries article, as I believe it would give them undue weight, per WP:UNDUE. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on the UNDUE point). David O. Johnson (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Alright. Noted. Thanks for Clarifying. InterDoesWiki (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Binkley and Hutchinson on the infobox

I saw someone added Ryan Binkley and Asa Hutchison on the infobox and I have removed it as both candidates got 0.7% & 0.2% respectively in Iowa which is not even somewhat significant, I'd like to get consensus though on making it so that candidates at the very least need to obtain delegates to get onto the infobox. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Why not put (withdrawn) underneath Ramaswamy's name in the infobox?

In my opinion putting something like "[a]" next to his name would confused too many people who don't read further into the page, and instead think that he ran all the way until the convention. Plus, "(withdrawn)" was used in the infobox for the 2016 Republican primaries, so why not 2024? CY223 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Should Binkley be considered a major candidate now?

Ryan Binkley received 0.7% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, beating former Governor Asa Hutchinson and outperforming Rick Santorum and Martin O'Malley's 2016 showings. I wasn't a fan of Binkley being considered a major candidate before tonight but now I think it's at least worth a discussion. 2601:18D:C180:7D20:3C0F:E662:302B:37A7 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There was an RFC about it last year [6]; the conclusion of it was that he is not a major candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The question is whether he should be considered major now, not last year. In my opinion it's pretty clearly inaccurate to include Hutchinson as a major candidate but not someone who's had four times as many votes as him. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hutchinson was a major candidate, as he was the governor of a state. He unequivocally fits the criteria. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I think that moreso represents a failure on the part of Hutchinson than a success on Binkley. 774 voters is not a lot of people. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Still, he defeated Hutchinson - who actually attended one of the debates, and served as Governor. It's ridiculous not to add him after that. 181.194.228.243 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

True. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It would be ridiculous to include him. He is, by no stretch of the imagination, a major candidate. the only reason why anyone would ever talk about him, especially in the media, is a quick "haha look at this random Texas pastor who beat a governor who spent millions running" and that's it, there is nothing more to Binkley, and there never will be. Scu ba (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

To Binkley become a major candidate, he would need to have substantial media coverage. Recently, he had articles on Politico, Yahoo News, The Washington Times, USA Today (twice), Des Moines Register, the Telegraph, Newswire, C-Span and was mentionned by the Independent Punker85 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That Yahoo article is just a republication of the Des Moines Register article, so it wouldn't count. The NewsWire article is a press release, so that one likewise doesn't count. The article from the Independent is a "kitchen sink" listing of all candidates, so that one wouldn't make the cut either. The rest of the articles look good, at first glance. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Still. The Rest of the articles along with the Iowa caucus should be enough evidence or close to enough for Major candidate status. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

No. If you get less than 5% of the vote, in an election with 15% turnout, you aren't a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

How many votes did binkley get? 174.106.224.196 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Binkley Got 774 Votes on the Iowa Caucus. More than Hutchinson. Who got 191 votes. Christie (who withdrew Beforehand) and others. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

We are talking about 774 individual votes, I've had college lectures that where close to that. Binkley got 0.70% of the total vote share and I know from my use of Template:Infobox election that you need to get 5% or more of the vote to be considered a major candidate, unless other qualifications where established. And we did the latter. And we determined that Binkley isn't major. Scu ba (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Binkley is unequivocally a major candidate 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

He should have been considered such even before Iowa. He consistently polled ahead of Hutchinson and Burgum even then. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of how he was polling, we determined that it is media coverage that determines notability, and as such, Binkley should not be counted as a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Open up another RFC, until then, he isn't a major candidate, and I will personally revert any attempt to go against the RFC that I see. Scu ba (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

This belongs on 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates, and I say wait until he earns at least one delegate. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If the consensus is that Binkley is a major candidate then i'm fine with him being classified as such, however if he ends up dropping out right after New Hampshire then we should probably remove him TheFellaVB (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Given Binkley's results in the Iowa caucuses, and the coverage above, I think that's enough to be considered a major candidate now. I would like to see the NH results first (and it's not just because I live there!), just to confirm. But regardless of how quixotic his campaign is (to paraphrase Politico), I do think he's on the board, and should be considered a major candidate as such. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconded. Greene Mr. (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I would also note that several very reputable news outlets including the New York Times, Axios, Politico, the Guardian etc., include him on their list of major candidates. I can't speak for all of these sites but Politico has had him listed since July-August or so. He arguably could've met the criteria a bit ago, now that is he running a clearly active campaign and has a Wikipedia page, I think it's hard to argue he should not be added. 104.173.208.16 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

True. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Right now in NH he's received less votes than Pence, Ramaswamy, & Christie (whom all have dropped out) & is currently has gotten less than 0.1% of the vote, based on this info I am very weary of classifying him as a major candidate TheFellaVB (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Alao In NH. He Beat Hutchinson (Again) As Well as Scott. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Also

47.20.46.230 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hutchison and Scott are both withdrawn candidates. As of this moment he's received less votes than Mary Maxwell TheFellaVB (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Adding popular votes

Now that we have finally gotten some votes we can discuss adding the popular votes each candidate has received. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

New Infobox Info?

Hi everyone,

In the info box, we have put a contests won marker. Trump has one, since there has only been one. Others show 0. Should we make a (0/1) contests won?

Trumps would be 1/1 (changed after contests) and everyone else would be 0/1 (also change after contests)

Think this is needed to not make people confused who don't regularly look at this stuff. IEditPolitics (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree, good idea. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Won't change it until I get one or two more agreeing. It makes obvious sense so I'm tempted to do it now but I want there to be consensus. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a good idea. I support it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree Punker85 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree, if you look at other primary infoboxes it does not list the amount of contests contested so far nor did they while the contest was ongoing. I highly doubt people are going to be confused seeing it as it normally is TheFellaVB (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. This hasn't been done in previous years and there's a reason for that, it doesn't look good. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Infobox broken on mobile view

The top left and bottom left candidate images (Trump and Haley) appear smaller than they should. Kk.urban (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The sizes are different, no matter whether it's viewed on the Wikipedia app or mobile view on a browser. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, but we can change it. How? Kk.urban (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

We can't? Doesn't Wikipedia need to patch the mobile app for this to be fixed? Scu ba (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

When should candidates be added to infoboxes for each primary?

There have been a few reversion on the primary pages already, so it's probably best to discuss here instead. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I would say either 1 to 4 weeks before the primary or when they are registered on the primary Punker85 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I thought the consensus for Iowa was it is going to be too much of a pain to work out who should be in the infobox before the votes are cast, and that we should just wait until votes start coming in. However, now that the field of candidates is slimming down to just 3 major candidates, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to just have all three of them. Scu ba (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Suggestion

I can't edit the page, but why not write (withdrawl), just like that, in parentheses, under Vivek's name? It makes understanding and reading easier and makes footnote b unnecessary. 138.121.65.101 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidates

BottleOfChocolateMilk you linked me [7] specifically saying that this justifies the complete removal of the "Other candidates" section that I added. This discussion was clearly about major candidates, as stated by the discussion title "RfC: Polling criteria for “major candidate” status". I did NOT add these candidates to the "Major candidates" section. I opened a new section called "Other candidates" for those still in the race. Therefore, this archived discussion does not justify this removal, as that discussion was about major candidates, not other candidates. It was also discussed before any results came in. We now have results where Ryan Binkley received more votes and a higher percentage of the vote than Asa Hutchinson and all those within the "Withdrew before the primaries" section. So, to include Hutchinson who received less votes and a lower voter percentage than Binkley plus a list of candidates that haven't received a single vote but to totally omit Binkley from this section is completely wrong. Remember, I'm not saying he or Stuckenberg should be in the "Major candidates" section but their own separate section titled "Other candidates" , as I set out in my edit. A section for other candidates also exists on 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates so I don't see the problem with also including such a section here. To deny this just omits correct and factual information for no good reason. Helper201 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The New York times includes Binkley in their list of Republian candidates running and includes a blurb about him and his campaign. If the New York Times considers him a candidate worthy to display along the others, I feel that Wikipedia should as well. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/presidential-candidates-2024.html#binkley MannyMammal (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

In the sentence below, "where" is used 2 times. The word that should be used is "were", both times.

2024 January 2024

Additionally, it was found during Sicknick's autopsy that the blood clots in his brain which resulted in his death where not the result of any physical trauma during Jan 6, nor where they caused by allergic reactions to pepper spray as initially claimed, with the corner ruling that Jan 6 had no bearing on Sicknick's death.[150] 2604:3D08:7389:6900:1C1C:CA97:BD8B:4F5D (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Map on main page is still blank grey.

Shouldn't it show Iowa as blue to represent trump's victory? CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The map has been updated. You may need to clear your browser's cache. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep that was it. Thank you! CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Campaign Finance needs updating for Q4

Can someone update finances for Q4? I believe (correct me if wrong) they got released on Jan 15. NathanBru (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

They weren't released. They will on January 31 Punker85 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. NathanBru (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

Change

| candidate5 = [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] <small> <br>(withdrawn)</small>

to

| candidate5 = [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] {{refn|Withdrawn after Iowa caucus<ref>https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/2024-republican-iowa-caucus-results-explained-with-6-key-precincts/72245358007/</ref>}}

References

207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Not done. Ramaswamy withdrew after the Iowa caucus.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/2024-republican-iowa-caucus-results-explained-with-6-key-precincts/72245358007/

David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

​ Changed the note.207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think that much information is needed in the infobox. PianoDan (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Trumps home state

It isn’t Florida, it’s New York 2601:14B:281:56D0:6012:8111:3285:454E (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump changed his residence to Florida in 2019: [8]. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Delegate Count Discrepancy

Hello, I was looking at some numbers on this page and found something that didn't make sense to me.

So, the Republicans originally had 2,467 delegates (pledged and unpledged) across all contests, as stated in the article in the "Delegates" section under "Primaries and caucus calendar" tab.

There are two instances in which contests got the delegate counts reduced:

First, for running their caucus too early, the US Virgin Islands had their totals reduced from 9 to 4. A net loss of 5. Second, for running their primary too late, New Jersey had their totals reduced from 49 to 9. A net loss of 40.

That means that 45 delegates should have been removed from the original total and there should now be 2,422. However, at the top of the article its listed that their are 2,429 delegates up for grabs in total. Where are these 7 extra delegates coming from? 97.116.41.53 (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

"2024 GOP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 GOP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 23 § 2024 GOP until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The color coding of candidates is in error

The color assignments are wrong. Trump, leading in the Republican polls for a very long time should not be assigned the color blue, but "Red", the color of the Republican Party. Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article has Biden, who also has been leading polls for his party, as "Blue", which is the color associated with the Democratic Party.

Whoever set this up needs to fix this "misalignment". Channard (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump has been colored blue on Wikipedia since the 2016 primaries. Each website and news org have different colors they assign to each candidate. Biden was also colored blue in 2020. This is how it's been, there is no "wrong" color to assign. Longestview (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The logic of "this is how it has been" is a straw man argument. The Republican party color is Red. The leader of the Republican Primaries should be Red. The leader of the Democratic Primaries is currently Blue, which also happens to be the color associated with Democrats. Channard (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump is given a blue color because that's Trump's specific shade.

• Hillary was yellow in 2016
• Romney was orange in 2012
• Obama was purple in 2008

It's not party colored, each candidate gets their own color. Colin.1678 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Trump needs to be edited to only winning 1 contest as of 1/23. 2600:1004:B154:E006:2096:4CD1:603F:25A2 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s pretty much already over and trump won Reddithater56 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. He has been declared the winner of a 2nd contest as of Jan. 23. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorsement maps

Whoever is in charge of updating the endorsement color coded maps.. sucks. 69.141.156.218 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Desantis and Ramaswamy's place on the infobox

Desantis and Ramaswamy got 9 and 3 delegates respectively, using previous primaries as a reference this seems far too insignificant to warrant them being on the infobox, right now they're relevant and the primary just started so I think it's alright for now however we should probably decide on when (and also on whether they should be removed if there's a strong case for it) they should be removed, personally I would say after Super Tuesday but that's just my thoughts. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Bill Weld Literally Got 1 Delagate. 4 Years Ago. And He is still on the Infobox. So your claim doesn't stand well 47.20.46.230 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

2020 Democratic: Klobuchar got 7 delegates & Gabbard got 2 and they were omitted from the infobox

2016 Republican: Carson received 9, Bush 4, & Paul, Huckabee, & Fiorina at 1

2012 Democratic: Randall Terry 7, Jim Rogers 3, Keith Russell Judd 15 (but only 1 since he didn't register delegates)

2012 Republican: Huntsman 3 & Bachmann 1

2008 Democratic: Edwards 28

Bill Weld is on the infobox for 2020 because he was the primary opponent to Trump, historically when there's a sitting President the primary opposition is listed even if they only receive one delegate, I listed more than enough precedent for removing low delegate receiving candidates. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In previous years, the consensus has been to include candidates in the infobox if they (1) win a contest, (2) get 5% of the popular vote, (3) get 5% of the delegates, or (4) are the second place challenger, even if they don't meet the other criteria. (This explains why Bill Weld is in the infobox for the 2020 primary season). I see no reason to change it, and would remove Ramaswamy and DeSantis if (when) they fall below the 5% threshold for total votes. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured there was some consensus but didn't know what it was, removing them when they fall bellow those criteria seems more than reasonable TheFellaVB (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we should just wait for things to pan out. If Haley pulls out in the near future I would keep all four of them up there. But if the race, somehow, gets competitive between Haley and Trump then we should just have those two on the infobox. Scu ba (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

E. W. Jackson suspending his run should be on the timeline

I see that both Steve Laffey and Corey Stapleton dropping out are listed on the timeline. E. W. Jackson apprently suspended his stint for office on December 14, 2023. https://boxcast.tv/channel/g5czazrflmhsbd30kmj7?b=swcoopti7qbunry3da9n This should be noted in the timeline if we are going to mention both Laffey and Stapleton as well. TruthplusFacts (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Laffey and Stapleton both had a big back and forth over if they should be major or minor candidates, and their inclusion in the timeline was a byproduct of this. None of these three should be in the timeline. Scu ba (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor Candidate nonsense

Why are we listing just one of the minor candidates alongside the actual candidates? Binkley, who hasn't gotten even 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire, is persisting due to his RfC concluding that he is a minor candidate, and not a major one, and as such should still be listed in the minor candidates section. However, the minor candidates section hasn't existed for months, so he is just awkwardly crammed between active and withdrawn candidates as if he was a major candidate, and there is no mention of any of the other minor candidates. In New Hampshire he polled worse than Vivek and Pence, who both withdrew, and polled comparability to Mary Maxwell, a minor candidate so minor that nobody has even mentioned them on this page. Binkley only passed the media notability guidelines in the initial debate we had because he is buying interest out of pocket. Politico only brought him up recently to point and laugh at him when he said he would get "a few points" in the New Hampshire primary. The only argument for his relevancy is that he did better than Asa Hutchinson in Iowa because Hutchinson is so out of touch he thought appearing in lengthy interviews on regional cable news was a better investment than internet ads. The only time Binkley crops up in regional news are followed by words such as "nonfactor" and "little to no national name recognition" and "Why?". Why indeed. Why are we keeping him on this page? Scu ba (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Minor candidates do not need to be listed in this article. That is what 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates is for. The RfC in question concluded that he should not be in the table for major candidates and should be considered a minor candidate, but the RfC made no additional requirement that there be a prominent table for minor candidates. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean respectfully, past wikipedia articles like the 2020 Republican Primary have listed people like Rocky de la Fuente as major candidates. I think the standards have been inconsistent, but most people have made the point that many major outlets have named Binkley a major candidate by their standards and wikipedia is an exception to that. You mention that his media coverage is more mockery than anything but that is still media coverage by the standards of the website. In the past Wikipedia has taken a pretty expansionist view of what qualifies as a major candidate, and I think that is what's creating the questions for Binkley. 2603:8000:A642:5100:E027:BDE0:B283:5980 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I can name a couple of reasons why.

- Similarities to Major Candidates.

- Polling or Results. (The less than 1% part is also a stretch. Considering he got more than some major Candidates. And was better than expected.) 47.20.46.230 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Bring back vice presidential selection?

Since it’s just Haley and Trump left I feel like we should bring the infobox back Reddithater56 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree WorldMappings (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's in draft space right now:

Draft:2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, after an AFD discussion last :year Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection.

Hope it helps. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. We should bring back the vice Presidental selection. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What To Do About the Nevada Primary and Caucus

As some you may know, Nevada is holding both a primary and a caucus. The primary is on Tuesday of that week and the caucus is on Thursday. The Republicans do not want the primary to happen, for various reasons. They have decided that only the results of the caucus will count towards delegates. Trump and Binkley (who is touching 0%) are on the ballot for the caucus. On the other hand, Haley is the only candidate on the ballot for the primary.

For how to map the results of Nevada, here is my suggestion:

The map should be split into two groups (as it normally is) between popular vote and delegate allocation. For the popular vote map, Nevada should be split into two, with the results of the primary colored in on one side (either with Haley's color if she wins or black if "None of the Above" wins the most votes) and the winner of the caucus' color (it is almost certain to be Trump) on the other half of Nevada.

As for the delegate allocation map, the winner of the caucus' color will fill the whole state (almost certainly to be Trump).

What do y'all think? Trajan1 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The competition that actually binds the delegates should be the competition used. If the RNC/Nevada GOP ignores the primary, we should ignore the primary too, at least on the map and for the contests won section. We can still mention it with an efn if need be. Scu ba (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of times in other primary elections where the popular vote results don't match the delegates, and the map still shows it. It's not that hard of a thing to add in. Trajan1 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The Nevada primary does nothing, It awards no delegates. It is little more than a state-run straw poll. The caucuses is how the delegates are getting distributed, that is what this wikipedia page should concern itself with. Sure Haley is running unopposed in the unoffical popularity contest on the side of the actual election, but she isn't participating in the actual election that has actual results. Scu ba (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The GOP nomination is based on delegates. A candidate who gets the majority of the delegates becomes the nominee. Therefore, a contest that does not award delegates is meaningless. We should only be using the caucus for the map and info box, as this is the contest that actually awards delegates. The non-binding primary can be discussed in the main body of the article.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. In the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries there were a few states including Washington and Nebraska that held both caucuses (where delegates were awarded) and non-binding primaries with no delegates. As far as I can tell the results of the non-binding primaries were disregarded in the maps and the vote totals, only the caucus results were used Kevingates4462 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good, but what about popular vote. Do we count what Haley earned, or do we disregard it? NathanBru (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Disregard it. The primary has nothing to do with the nomination; only the caucus counts. If they release any popular vote data from the caucus, though, that should be included. See the footnotes in the infobox for 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries as examples. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! NathanBru (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Lede problems

I have made edits to the lead section to address a few issues. My edits have been undone multiple times. User:David O. Johnson has asked that I gain consensus here before making these edits. The edits can be viewed here.

My concerns are:

1. Length. MOS:LEADLENGTH indicates, as a general guideline, that lead sections of Wikipedia pages of more than 5,000 words should be three to four paragraphs long. Currently, the lead is five paragraphs long. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway". Even if my edits are made, the lead would still be five paragraphs long. If anything, my edits do not go far enough in bringing the lead down to an appropriate size.

2. Excess detail. Per MOS:INTRO, "editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Details about the candidacies of Vivek Ramaswamy and Mike Pence (which I removed) would fall into this category.

3. Verifiability and accuracy. Currently, the lead states that four major candidates remained in the race until the primaries. The source that is cited near this sentence is from June 2023 and cannot possibly verify this statement. Also, Chris Christie was still in the race in Iowa. Was he not a major candidate? I propose to remove this statement.

4. Clarity. The lead includes the following sentence: "Some Republicans have expressed concerns about Trump's nomination due to..." This sentence is confusing. It makes it sound like Trump has already received the Republican nomination. I edited the sentence to refer to Trump's "potential nomination".

These are the reasons for the edits I made, and I am seeking consensus to reinstate them. MonMothma (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all proposed changes. You have done a good job at explaining the way your changes follow Wikipedia's policies. I agree that the lede is much too long. (And the whole article could probably deal with a bit of shortening, too). Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. MonMothma (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have reinstated the above-referenced edits. MonMothma (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove DeSantis from infobox

The infobox makes it look like DeSantis is running as a candidate. He is not. Even if technically he has only "suspended" his campaign, reliable sources say he "ended" his bid or "withdrew." Reliable sources about this contest are now only talking about Trump and Haley. The 5% rule is not relevant because it is for third-party candidates and DeSantis is not even running any more. His 5% was achieved when he was running. Bill Weld being included in the last primary infobox is also not relevant because the rationale for that was that we are demonstrating it was a "contested" primary (though I don't necessarily agree with that rationale either). --Jfhutson (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a issue with DeSantis being in the infobox, since it clearly indicates that he has withdrawn. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to favor keeping candidates who received delegates in the infobox. Especially considering there may only be 4 candidates with delegates this cycle. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. In the past, for U.S. primary elections, consensus has generally been to include in the infobox: (1) candidates who win a contest, (2) candidates who get 5% of delegates, (3) candidates who get 5% of the popular vote, (4) a second-place finisher, even if they meet none of the other requirements. I think these are good conditions in order to provide due weight to the top candidates. Getting only about 10 delegates out of 2429 (0.4% of the total) is not enough to consider someone important in the grand scheme of the race. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In 2016 there were nine Republican candidates who received delegates. But I don't think some kind of complicated (and IMO largely arbitrary) set of rules is what we need for this anyway. There is plenty of reliable source coverage on this race. It is pretty uniform in treating it as a contest between Trump and Haley. -- Jfhutson (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends on how long the race drags on for. Desantis and Vivek only contested one race and promptly dropped out, if Haley amasses hundreds of delegates then I don't see why their collective 12 delegates and sliver of the popular vote should be included. I'm in favor of keeping them until Super Tuesday and from there we can decide what should be done with the infobox TheFellaVB (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with TulsaPoliticsFan that there is no reason in this context to not have all 4 candidates who won delegates. Rlendog (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I just don't see the reasoning of why they should be on there, they won less than half of the delegates in a single state and promptly dropped out. In the event Haley drops out immediately following Super Tuesday after winning few delegates than theoretically I could support keeping them on there but even then they still don't feel important enough. TheFellaVB (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

Should Sam Sloan remain listed as a minor candidate? He has only recieved 7 votes for president so far. Out of over 400,000 NathanBru (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The minor candidates section is meant for candidates who have a wikipedia page and are running, vote totals usually don't matter. It's just to say "Hey this person is somewhat notable and they're running, but they aren't significant" TheFellaVB (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And why would you do something like that in an encyclopedia article? -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it's semi relevant information? It's practically a footnote in the article, I see no reason why it shouldn't be there in the way that it is. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I know, candidates would also need to have a reliable source to be able to be a minor candidate Punker85 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The delegate count after New Hampshire

I'm noticing a lot of confusion among the various media scores and making edits when it comes to what the current delegate count is out of New Hampshire. The AP and the NYT say Trump won 13 delegates and Haley 9, TGP says Trump won 12 and Haley won 10, NBC and Google say that there's still a delegate yet to be allocated.

If you do the math, Trump should win 12 delegates to Haley's 10. This is what the results should amount to according to TGP.

Trump: 54.352% of 22 = 11.957. Rounds to 12 delegates. Remaining 10.

Haley: 43.237% of 22 = 9.512. Rounds to 10 delegates. Remaining 0.

Trump having received the most votes, receives the remaining 0 delegates. Total: 12.

So I guess the question is are we entrusting the media or are we entrusting the math? Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The NH Sec. of State website says that "The 2024 Presidential Primary results posted are subject to change due to corrections issued from cities or towns." The math for Haley's total is close enough to 9.5 that any small change could tip it to the other side, meaning it could round down to 9 instead of up to 10, in which case Trump would get the leftover delegate. In fact, The Green Papers currently shows two different popular vote totals for New Hampshire (324,860 vs 323,590), which give different delegate results. At this point, the safest bet is Trump 12, Haley 9, with 1 remaining, as you say for NBC/Google reporting. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In New Hampshire, any unallocated delegates are awarded to the top vote-getter, which in this case is Trump. This is sometimes referred to as a “winner’s bonus.”

Please do some research next time. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)