Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Proposed merge of Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries into 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Compare draft and article Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This was a very malformed page, merely duplicating the content on the main 2024 article. It is redirected until there's actually material warranting a separate article. Reywas92^Talk 07:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Think of this as a very big stub. Once the electoral college meets there will be some big changes, so chill...Arglebargle79 (talk) 02:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

mandated revert statement

Due to an unwarranted punishment I received for doing good, I must make the following statement: We all know that Joe Biden is president-elect of the United States, not India, France, or the northern Maldives, and there is no reason to have that mentioned. A mere 'president-elect' will do for now, then it should be 'President Biden'. having the title of "President-elect of the UNITED STATES" on the page makes it sound pompous. Keep things short. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Why was this unredirected?

Vrivasfl, the redirect as it existed here just a few days ago worked just fine: [1]. With this article, it essentially doubles the effort that has to be done. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The idea is to do the work on this page only. There is enough information out there that it deserves its own page, and now seemed a good a time as any. We were never going to leave it as a redirect forever. Vrivasfl (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

As on the 2024 Presidential Election page, Kamala Harris does not appear on the list of potential candidates, but should. 212.250.188.197 (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

John Fetterman

Should John Fetterman be listed as a potential candidate? A few people have suggested making him the Democratic nominee.[2] 98.20.128.29 (talk) 17:20, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

My feeling about whether to include him is no, at least for now, because what we have for Fetterman is similar to the issue regarding Ron DeSantis on the Republican side (a lot of speculation {even more so for DeSantis than Fetterman}; but nothing from either of the two has to date surfaced to suggest any actual interest in a campaign for President). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Is Biden "declared"?

On this page it lists him under "Declared", but the overall election page says "Publicly expressed interest." So is he still considered to have declared intent to run? --ForeverStamp (talk) 05:01, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The section heading was changed from "Declared intent to run" to "Publicly expressed interest" by this 13:35, 23 October 2022 edit. – wbm1058 (talk) 17:44, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

other candidates

what happened to jerome segal and camila atwater? they are running too. Liminalspaaces (talk) 15:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Liminalspaaces I'd like to know more about them. I came to this page hoping to learn more about obscure candidates. I've heard that hundreds of people are running. Nogoodbooks (talk) 17:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The only sources we have for Segal's candidacy currently are self-published ones, which are not accepted. No media outlet, even local ones, seem to be reporting on his campaign. There is one local article on Carnita Atwater's intent to run, but she is not notable enough for her own page, and thus will not appear here. Kafoxe (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Segal does not have an FEC filing at this time. I feel he should not be linked as declared without having officially filed to run. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.58.52.208 (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Considering that Segal does not even have an FEC filing I'd say to pull him at least from declared. I have a hard time saying he should be placed in any of the other groups though since he's just not that notable at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipsyfishing (talk • contribs) 05:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I would be fine with removing Segal from the "declared" section. He hasn't filed a 2024 declaration of candidacy with the FEC, and his campaign website seems to cover only his 2020 campaign, with no mention of 2024. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

Noticed that Marianne Williamson keeps getting taken down. Why? She’s a major candidate who’s qualified for debates and received national media coverage for decades. She’s formed an exploratory committee for 2024. Why is she being erased from this page? 2601:8A:C100:AD50:0:0:0:ED50 (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, Marianne Williamson keeps getting taken down because the when but she has been moved to a new title called explaniton committee. :) Zander123sims4 (talk) 02:18, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

((Excuse my angles)) Zander123sims4 (talk) 02:19, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson Category

I don't think it's appropriate yet to classify as Williamson as declared. The interview she gave was more of a intending to run on a specific date rather than a declaration announcement of her run today. The date for her official announcement is on March 4th. Also, she has yet to file with the FEC nor has she stated on her social media platforms that she's a candidate yet. I think she should be moved back to the announcement pending category. Alexjjj (talk) 01:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

• I agree that she should be under "Announcement pending". Her announcement is supposed to be on March 4, so let's wait until then to move her up. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• I also agree that she should be moved back to "Announcement pending" until she formally makes her official announcement. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• Agreed. Williamson's 'declaration' yesterday was essentially a slip of the tongue. That shouldn't really qualify as the beginning of her presidential campaign. ~ EditDude (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
• She should be moved back to the "Announcement pending" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

so many candidates

Most of these people are in their first term 💀 or have yet to assume office, they wouldn’t run for president so stop adding insufferable amounts of candidates. PresEisenhower (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Obama was literally elected President as a first-term Senator. He had been elected to national office just four years prior to assuming the presidency. Anything is possible. Why be so closed-off? 2601:8A:C101:4E50:8C23:175F:3CD6:E6E1 (talk) 00:50, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Relax, Ike, we’re still in the dreamland phase of the campaign. The President is 80, and thousands of Democrats are still podcasting their dreams of their ideal candidate all over the place. We all know it’s fantasy, but there’s enough evidence to show that these people are flattered enough not to say “no” just yet.

The high muckymucks of the party (Jim Roosevelt, Jr, grandson of FDR has been on the DNC for decades) well remember 1968 and 1980, and have changed the rules to reflect that. HOWEVER, in the unlikely event Biden withdraws, or god forbid, dies, then all Hell will break loose. Hence the huge list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.176.147.6 (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Bread and Roses

Didn’t the founder of the Bread and Roses party announce a bid for president? If Marianne is notable enough he should be aswell.

This post is made on my phone, so excuse any grammar errors or IP address overlap 2603:6000:C90D:BFA0:FC52:8D93:A4B7:7D5E (talk) 21:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Categorization for Biden

President Biden has been categorized under "Decision pending" for some time, which is regarded as those potential candidates who will be deciding to run or not within a definitive time period. Biden has said he's "not ready" to make that decision [3]. They article refers to the presumption that he is expected to announce in the coming weeks or months, but that seems to be WP:CRYSTAL. I think he should be under a "Publicly expressed interest" category, which is used throughout articles for presidential primaries, because that is really all he has done. I am happy to hear the input of others. Estar8806 (talk) 04:08, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Fetterman

Is it worth it to keep Fetterman here? Given everything that's happened with his clinical depression today. I think a presidential campaign is the last thing on his mind. Mtobar2002 (talk) 05:12, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

Padilla

Sen. Padilla is serving as DSCC Vice-Chair for the '24 cycle. I don't think he'll be running for President. Mtobar2002 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson graph color

Her color is pretty close to the gray color used for others/undecided, perhaps a teal color would be best? 2601:249:8E00:420:ECE5:2C89:626D:50C3 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

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.

---

Does anyone have any update on Jimmy Carter's decision? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.45.94.82 (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

What "decision" are you referring to? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

According to the campaign website set up for him he hasn't declared yet. I would lean towards putting him in potential candidates category rather than decision pending category though. 31.52.117.63 (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

US map of states

Like its Republican counter-part. We should have a map of the United States, just below the candidates box. GoodDay (talk) 03:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

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.

---

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. formed an exploratory committee and already has a website (https://www.teamkennedy.com/) You can read on the website that he formed an exploratory committee (Paid for by RFK Jr. Inc. Exploratory Committee). 2001:1C00:A16:7F00:0:0:0:FC31 (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

https://news.yahoo.com/anti-vaccine-activist-rfk-jr-211213096.html 98.22.34.247 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. major candidate?

I'm not sure that RFK JR. should be listed as a major candidate. Unlike Williamson, he hasn't gotten serious coverage in reliable sources. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

He's appeared in 6 polls on FiveThirtyEight including reaching 10% in a morning consult poll. He appears to meet the polling criteria used during the last Democratic primary. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:24, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

His announcement was covered by many, many reliable sources, including; ABC, BBC, Bloomberg, CNN, Daily Telegraph, deutsche Welle, Guardian, The Hill, NBC, New York Times, Politico, Reuters, Vanity Fair, Wall street Journal and Washington Post. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 00:31, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson

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.

---

Calling her a major candidate is a stretch in my opinion TRJ2008 (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that she isn't named in a single poll taken, nor is really noteworthy. I think that knocks her off as a major candidate. Tipsyfishing (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Her announcement got coverage in several reliable sources. I think she’s fine as is. Esolo5002 (talk) 07:52, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

She has not been included in virtually any polls, she's never held significant office, and her announcement didn't even get 1 million views on Twitter. I don't think she's anywhere close to "major" TRJ2008 (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this. I don't see her really as any more serious then Segal. I don't recall the last time that we had someone who got media coverage, but is not included in any polling. If I recall, polling was the general decider if a candidate was deemed "major", assuming nothing else applied. Tipsyfishing (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The media coverage rule was introduced during the 2020 Democratic primaries, because prior to the first debate both Williamson and Andrew Yang were clearly being treated as major candidates by the media but a dearth of polling meant that they had not reached the 5-poll criteria. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:32, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that having run in 2020 qualifies her as a major candidate. Mtobar2002 (talk) 22:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Williamson is very obviously a major candidate, she meets the criteria of having received substantial media coverage. You don't see Jerome Segal's run getting tons of coverage in international media outlets. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:27, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Williamson has clearly gotten the substantial media coverage needed to be listed as a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Devonian Wombat and TulsaPoliticsFan that she has gotten more than enough national/international coverage from reputable media outlets to qualify as a major candidate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

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.

I think there's something to say in favour of an additional criteria for selecting 'major' candidates. Namely, anyone who ran (for some serious time) in the previous (2020) primary, i.e. participated in some of those debates. Using this criteria, Williamson automatically qualifies, as many probably instinctively recognise. Just a thought.2001:1C02:280A:5600:DD91:A307:BBDF:DC14 (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Is there much point in the potential/declined candidates sections existing?

They seem to be pretty arbitrary speculation, largely about the hypothetical situation of Biden pulling out/ I'm not sure if the existence of those sections is useful or adequately reflects the nature of the race. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 20:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Image for Kennedy

Like what was done for the 2024 Republican primary article, this article could use a new image for Kennedy, I suggest this one from this AP article.

HurricaneKappa (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It would look a bit odd if all the candidates on this page and the 2024 Republican primary article have professional looking airbrushed photos (or portraits), but Kennedy has a normal one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.91.188 (talk) 20:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Biden in declared section?

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.

---

President Biden has yet to announce a run for president in 2024 yet or file with the FEC, so I'm not sure why he is being put in the declared section? Today, Biden said in a NBC Today interview with Al Roker that he plans to run, but he hasn't confirmed that he will run yet. President Biden should go back to the decision pending section until we get a filing with the FEC or an official announcement from him. Alexjjj (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe we should have a plans to run section. Biden campaign sources say the decision is made but he isn't ready to announce yet. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 17:59, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Biden says he has made the decision and will announce run for re-election soon. We need an announcement pending section. [4]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/biden-says-he-will-run-re-election-2024-2023-04-14/ 79.78.91.188 (talk) 00:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Once there is a set date, then we can add him to the Announcement pending section. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

Bernie Sanders endorses Biden?

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.

---

Given his endorsement of President Biden due to source noting Biden moved leftward as President compared to his time as a Senator; does this suggest that Bernie Sanders is not running (and should be moved to the "Declined to be candidates" section) or leave him in the "Potential candidates" section pending whether Biden officially announces his candidacy or not? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I would wait until he formally declines to run for President ~ HistorianL (talk) 00:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this count as another source to put Bernie back in the potential candidates section? (https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/03/will-bernie-sanders-run-for-reelection-in-2024.html/) Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I think relevant here as well is whether reliable sources consider the endorsement to mean that Sanders isn't running Przemysl15 (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

As long as Biden has not formally declared and - more importantly - Bernie has not formally ruled it out - I see no reason why he should be excluded as a potential candidate, or should be treated in any other way than other candidates. The text in the potential candidate section literally says: "Most of these candidates are viewed as potential replacements if President Biden does not seek re-election, while some are viewed as potential primary challenges even if he does." So Bernie fits exactly in this category. I added him again accordingly with additional sources.2001:1C02:280A:5600:DD91:A307:BBDF:DC14 (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

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.

There is a lot of work to do formatting this article, please do not make these mistakes going forward

We cannot include inline links, please convert these to references with appropriate information and per MOS:TABLECAPTION and other accessibility guidelines, all data tables need to have semantic markup. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

What constitutes experience?

The democrat candidates other than Joe Biden have some questionable stuff as experience. I'm fine with activist, but how is "Author" and "Spiritual leader" relevant? Additionally, should we list CEO-ships and Host-ships under experience? Aaron Liu (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Created a map template, and am creating pages for each of the individual state primaries.

Feel free to add on to my work. I've created a page for the South Carolina primary, for starters. WorldMappings (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Aaron Rogers Green Bay Packers endorses RFKjnr

check Information you will probably find this correct. TDunne20 (talk) 14:16, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This has been added and removed from the endorsement section many times. The removals are because it never met the guidelines at WP:ENDORSE. The endorsement must be covered by a reliable source (and not just Twitter) and must be specifically articulated for the 2024 primaries (not just a generic note of approval). The one who adds this to the article is responsible for ensuring it meets the guidelines (policy at WP:BURDEN). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-vaccine activist" listed as RFK Jr's experience

Although he does appear to be an anti-vaccine activist, all the other candidates' mostly have offices listed in the experience section, rather than political positions. RFK Jr's anti-vaccine position is just one example of his activism, and is already covered by his listed position as founder of Children's Health Defence. Therefore, the addition listing of "anti-vaccine activist" appears to be biased and selective. In my opinion it should be removed. El819 (talk) 23:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I second this. I agree that the language is biased, but even if it weren't it's redundant given his experience as the founder of the anti-vaccine nonprofit. That conveys the same information in a more neutral and significantly more helpful way, I think. Vrivasfl (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Nina Turner as a potential candidate?

Hi all, fairly recently the article included Nina Turner in the potential candidate section. Was she removed because her articles were more than six months old? Or was there another reason? I don’t believe she has declined to run. Thanks!! EPBeatles (talk) 05:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

6 month rule I believe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Defining "Major" Candidates

I think the word "notable" should be used instead of major. In my opinion, "major" implies a decent chance of winning the primary, even though for both the Dem primary and Rep primary most of the candidates have less than a 1% chance of winning TRJ2008 (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem with "notable" is that could be confused with Wikipedia's general notability guidelines, which is much broader than what the chart is intended for. Perhaps the best word is "serious," as in, individuals who are treated as serious candidates by the reliable sources we use, and are not treated as a joke or an afterthought. The problem there is that "Serious candidate" sounds like a judgment call, which it is. The media is making that judgment call. After all, what makes Marianne Williamson more serious that Joe Exotic? I wouldn't mind a rebranding, but I think "major" is the least bad option. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

She qualified for the 2020 dem debates. I think that gives her a bit of credibility as a "candidate." Doesn't mean she'll hit more than 5% in Iowa and NH, but she deserves a spot in the major candidates category.Trajan1 (talk) 03:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Experience

Can we please limit the experience section to 3 occupations? Anything over that is an eyesore. Seems a little WP:UNDUE to add older, less relevant experience to the table anyways. Prcc27 (talk) 04:33, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom as a potential candidate?

It seems that, while he has endorsed the re-election campaign of President Biden, there still seems to be a good bit of speculation over Gavin Newsom possibly running for President in 2024; such as this article. This might be something to watch over the next few months, but I don't think there's enough (at least not yet) to move Newsom to a "Potential candidates" section. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• If they declined, they are not a potential candidate, unless they rescind their declination. Prcc27 (talk) 01:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Experience Additions

The experience for the candidates mention a lot of jobs and organizations with very little context about what those are. Adding too much details will create an eyesore and make it hard to read, but right now, this page doesn't optimally describe the candidate's experience. Politicdude (talk) 00:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Cynthia Mendes endorsement

@Tipsyfishing I disagree with your reversion. Per WP:TWITTER, Twitter (and other social media) are an acceptable source for non-exceptional personal claims. Cynthia Mendes' official Twitter confirms the endorsement that Marianne Williamson announced, this making it a personal claim — and it's not at all exceptional. The entire point of Template:Cite tweet is for citing Tweets— if Twitter was never acceptable as a source, the template wouldn't exist. Unknown-Tree (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

I've just undone the reversion. Unknown-Tree (talk) 14:16, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

@Unknown-Tree As has been discussed heavily via WP:ENDORSE. Individual endorsements via an individuals own social media/website is not sufficient. It requires a reliable third party source. Twitter is an acceptable source in regards to political endorsements in regards to verified and notable organizations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipsyfishing (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Ah, okay that's my bad (I disagree with the policy, but whatever). Unknown-Tree (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Vaush endorsement

Removed a claim that Vaush had "Endorsed" Marianne Williamson which was just a link to a youtube video where he voiced positive opinion of her running and the impact it could have. Fake endorsements is a very obviously an effort to use Wikipedia to astroturf an appearance of support for their favored candidate/use Wikipedia to drive news articles, and should be resisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4600:b0f0:f589:84b4:2049:d059 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Unintentional Bias

Is it biased to write:

"anti-vaccine activist and environmental attorney Robert F. Kennedy Jr."

as if it is his official occupation as being an anti-vaccine activist?

"Anti-vaccine" is very loaded language, and RFK Jr's own article on Wikipedia has claimed that he has vaccinated his children, not to mention every interview he gets asked about this, he states that he is not an anti-vaccination.

It would be no different to calling Marianne Williamson an "Abortion activist" - which sounds completely ridiculous of course, but given her pro-abortion statements and views, how is that any different to calling RFK Jr an Anti-vaccine activist?

- Peace, Unbiased random Australian who has no vote in the US presidential election :) 106.71.78.171 (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Potential Candidate Information

Rep. Dean Phillips has been in the news about running for president (MinnPost, New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post). His article does not say what he stands for! His article needs his positions and more about him. —- BekLeed (talk) 23:59, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Accidental Vandalism by me (oops)

@Jgstokes I was trying to restore the text that User:Davidrh1 deleted about RFK Jr. being a vaccine skeptic — he had also put in that "if he avoids jail" text about Biden in the previous revision. My intention was not to restore that text, but rather to restore the "vaccine skeptic" label to RFK Jr. (as I've just done) and to remove the unnecessary FDR mention (as an IP user previously did); I apologize for accidentally adding the vandalism back. Unknown-Tree (talk) 04:29, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

No worries. These things happen. No harm, no foul. I've been editing here for 15 years or so, but only just recently started watching and contributing to political articles, and I've made a few mistakes and missteps along the way too. Thanks for clarifying your intent here. Keep up the great work! --Jgstokes (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

RfC: polling criteria

A new rfc has been started on whether the polling criteria should continue to determine whether or not we consider a candidate to be “major”. Please go here to discuss. Prcc27 (talk) 04:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Intentional Bias

Despite the earlier attention to the bias in this article with regards to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. it would seem that the bias still persists and is intentional. "vaccine skeptic" is still listed as the primary descriptor, secondary is his actual profession. Skepticism of vaccines is a belief, not a profession; no other candidate on this article has any of their beliefs listed. Additionally, the "reference" used to qualify RFK's status as a vaccine skeptic is a NYT article that just refers to RFK as such while providing no actual proof, the actual subject of the NYT article is simply that RFK filed his paperwork to run. The bias in this article would appear to be a smaller part of a larger effort to suppress RFK's viability as a candidate which can be viewed in the RFK Talk page.

"vaccine skeptic" needs to be removed. 2600:8800:9289:4B00:8988:60F7:77C5:84C9 (talk) 11:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

You’re right, “vaccine skeptic” should be removed. And replaced with the original descriptor of “anti-vaccine activist”, as is supported by numerous sources on his own article.--UhJennyP (talk) 11:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Ehh no, it's even more biased, factually wrong, and seems to rely on circular reasoning. Unless you can provide real sources that either have RFK making that claim or proof that he makes his living advocating against all vaccines. Reality shows otherwise as he has consistently stated he is not anti-vaccine and that he's an environmental lawyer/politician. If it's so important to have his activism listed then why not just have "Other candidates include environmental attorney and activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr."? That describes him in a way that is completely factual and free of bias. Stop injecting opinion, why is it so bad to have a zero-bias article on this website? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:9289:4B00:8988:60F7:77C5:84C9 (talk) 12:25, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Added POV-section to highlight and discuss the "well poisoning" rather than just attempt an edit war like UhJennyP seems to want to do by just making changes on something actively being discussed.2600:8800:9289:4B00:8988:60F7:77C5:84C9 (talk) 13:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Found lots of sources that he is a vaccine skeptic. Maybe anti-vaccine is too far but he's clearly a skeptic. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Marianne pic

Proposed pic

There's something about the Marianne pic used here that looks a bit awkward in comparison to the Biden/RFK Jr pic used. It's too much of a close-up and really focused on her face. How does this pic work? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• Idk about in relation to the other candidates, but the current pic for Williamson is better. In this one, her eyes are wandering. Prcc27 (talk) 03:02, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

It seem as if...

Cenk Uygur wants to run for president, why not add him to the list of people pending a decision watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ApGYSRgV38, maybe it´s not a proper source, but then why not cite the equivlant that Patrick Bet-David put out for his show? StrongALPHA (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• I believe to add a candidate to publicly expressed interest they need one reliable source (YouTube is not a reliable source). Plus he's not a natural born citizen of the U.S. so not sure how we could handle this should his interest to run be proven. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
  • We’ve listed ineligible candidates before, so if he does express interest, I would say we list him. Prcc27 (talk) 03:03, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Recurring vandalism

There has been recurring vandalism by IP addresses over the past 24 hours removing sourced info.

[5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14],[15],[16],[17].

Would WP:RFPP be too drastic at this point? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:48, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

That's been a recurring problem for weeks, actually. The frequency of it is clearly increasing. So, IMO, that would not be too drastic a move. I would welcome it. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:34, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't oppose page protection, but I disagree with the characterization of vandalism. It is an editorial difference, and some who delete the information make arguments in their edit summaries. Ignoring those arguments and just appealing to sourcing is an insufficient response when reverting, in my opinion. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

RFK, vaccines, and conspiracies

Please use this space to discuss a resolution to the edit war regarding RFK's description. I'd like to see some sort of actual consensus forming before unprotecting the article. Joyous! Noise! 00:12, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I find it unnecessary to list three descriptors for one person in the lead section. Others on this article and the companion article for the Republican primary include a single descriptor when listing candidates in the lead section. I lean towards using a description based on the person's main or most recent profession. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is; it's the reason for which he is primarily notable per the lede of his article, so it's fair to include. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

Cenk Uygur of the Young Turks has announced that he is considering a 2024 run. A user posted him on the "decision pending" category but it was removed for the source being YouTube. He's some more reliable sources about Uygur's speculation of running: https://www.mediaite.com/politics/cenk-uygur-is-so-frustrated-by-bidens-slagging-poll-numbers-that-hes-staffing-up-for-a-2024-run/ https://www.tag24.com/politics/us-politics/cenk-uygur-creator-of-the-young-turks-drops-big-2024-bombshell-2968527 https://tyt.com/shows/the-young-turks/2023-10-02/clips/is-cenk-really-going-to-run-for-president Additionally, Uygur's possible run is already on his own page. For all of these reasons, I believe Cenk Uygur should be on the potential candidates list. Colin.1678 (talk) 17:42, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing aside, Cenk was born in Turkey [18] and likely wouldn't even be eligible to run for president (depending on whether his parents were US citizens at the time). David O. Johnson (talk) 17:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's job to decide whether he is eligible run for president. Reliable sources, including Politico (which did mention your birth concerns), are covering him considering. It should be included. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

Bias

Why is it significant to describe RFK as an "anti-vaccine" activist when no similar descriptors are used for the other candidates? Noting that no incumbent president has lost a DNC primary in the opening article is also unnecessary.142.44.116.131 (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree, especially with the sentence on no incumbent losing in 'modern history'. I always have a chuckle when I read that. Well yeah, But LBJ dropped out when he appeared to be on track to lose, also no president in 'modern history' has been as old as Biden and not many if any as unpopular, especially within their own party. What does modern history even mean? Wiki has its meaning as anything after the middle ages, which surely makes the claim absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.97.60 (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

• A lot of the sources mention his anti-vaccine activism, which is why we give due weight to it. Stating that no incumbent has lost the Democratic nomination seems significant enough for inclusion, and not just trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 03:06, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

"Within a set timeline"

The given criteria on the potential candidates in the "decision pending" section states 'candidates who are expexted to make a decision within a set timeline." Manchin has a deadline, but Phillips and Uygur do not. Unless a timeframe from a reliable source can be added, should they both not be moved to "publicly expressed interest" instead? Colin.1678 (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion re.: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. endorsements

Now that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has switched from running for the Democratic nomination to running as an independent; does anyone else think it would be a good idea to move (or alternately, copy) the list of his endorsements to his own campaign article? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, that would be a good idea and a practical move, given that he is no longer a Dem. candidate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:05, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Just finished the move for those reasons. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 00:33, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Terrisa Bukovinac and Joe Exotic: Really Notable?

The only RS coverage of these campaigns I can find was mentioning their beginning. Neither of them are in any major poll, and neither of them have any real funding. I think we may have to remove them from the article until this changes. TheAwesomeAtom (talk) 17:07, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

My understanding was that the “Other Declared Candidates” section was for otherwise WP:NPEOPLE who announced they were running for President. If there was sustained media coverage of Bukovinac and Joe Exotic, they would be major candidates, so if that’s also a requirement for the “other declared candidates” section, then there’s no reason to have that section.

If you look at other similar pages like 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries this is what there is too.

Politicdude (talk) 21:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Ballot access table

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.

---

The text and table below was added to the "Primaries and caucus calendar" section. I have moved it here while it is in a user's draftspace (see WP:USERPAGE). Alternatively, it can be added to the article with substitution. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

I moved it to the template namespace, so it should be good now. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

The following is a table for which candidates have received ballot access in which states. If a state does not appear in the table, the filing deadline in the state has not passed.

Candidate	IA	NH	SC	NV	MI	AL	AR	CA	ME	UT	TN	OK	FL	States	Possible Delegates
Major candidates
Joe Biden	✔️	❌	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	12/13	1,132/1,155
Dean Phillips	✔️	✔️	✔️	❌	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️		✔️	❌	10/12	832/1,092
Marianne Williamson	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	❌	✔️	✔️	❌	✔️	❌	✔️	❌	9/13	752/1,155
Candidates on ballot in two or more states
Stephen P. Lyons	❌	✔️	❌	✔️		❌	✔️	✔️	❌	❌	❌	✔️	❌	5/12	550/1,038
Armando Perez-Serrato	❌	✔️	❌	✔️		❌	✔️	✔️	❌	❌	❌	✔️	❌	5/12	550/1,038
Gabriel Cornejo	❌	✔️	❌	✔️		❌	❌	✔️	❌	✔️	❌	❌	❌	4/12	513/1,038
Mark R. Prascak	❌	❌	❌	✔️		❌	❌	✔️	❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	2/12	460/1,038
Eban Cambridge	❌	✔️	❌	❌		❌	❌	✔️	❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	2/12	447/1,038
President R. Boddie	❌	✔️	❌	❌		❌	❌	✔️	❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	2/12	447/1,038
Frankie Lozada	❌	✔️	❌	✔️		❌	✔️		❌	✔️	❌	❌	❌	4/11	120/614
Jason Michael Palmer	❌	✔️	❌	✔️		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	2/11	59/614
Donald Picard	❌	✔️	❌	✔️		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	2/11	59/614
Other notable candidates
Cenk Uygur	❌	❌	❌	❌		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	✔️	❌	1/11	36/614
Terrisa Bukovinac	❌	✔️	❌	❌		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	1/11	23/614
Paperboy Prince	❌	✔️	❌	❌		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	1/11	23/614
Vermin Supreme	❌	✔️	❌	❌		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	1/11	23/614
Joe Exotic	❌	❌	❌	❌		❌	❌		❌	❌	❌	❌	❌	0/11	0/614

References

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.

Marianne Williamson Alabama

Williamson on Instagram claimed that she was on the Alabama ballot [19], Ballotpedia was the only source I found that said she wasn't [20]. Anyone have any ideas what's up here? Esolo5002 (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

If no one knows the answer I'm just going to note this on the main article. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

The Alabama Democratic Party did not include Williamson in their list of qualified candidates ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Alright seems pretty clear. Thanks. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Joe Manchin in Decision Pending Section?

The latest articles and interviews I've seen/read with Joe Manchin is that he's considering running as a third party candidate under the No Labels party, not of getting in the Democratic primary against Biden. The ones sourced in Manchin under decision pending also doesn't mention anything about him running as a Democrat. Also many ballot deadlines for the state primaries would have passed as well as ones even beyond Super Tuesday. I believe he shouldn't be listed as a potential candidate. Please contribute your thoughts. Alexjjj (talk) 01:33, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree that he shouldn't be listed as a potential Democratic candidate, for the reasons outlined above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I also agree that Manchin shouldn't be listed in the Decision pending section here. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

If his “decision pending” is by March 2024, a good portion of the states will have already had their primaries and the filing deadline will have passed in most of the rest. That’s a pretty clear indication that he’s only going to run for No Labels, so unless we get a source saying otherwise, we should remove him. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd say there's unanimous consensus to go ahead and remove him from the Decision pending section of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates article. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I removed him. To be clear, he’s still listed as “Decision Pending” for a No Labels run at the appropriate articles, but not for the Democratic Party nomination. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:00, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Should the polling be on its own page?

At this point, there's so many polls that the article is uncomfortably long. The Republicans have had their own article for so long, and now they have two - nationwide and statewide. What's the line for when the Democrats will get their own page for polling? Colin.1678 (talk) 15:49, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

PER WP:Article size, 100,000 bytes is the upper limit for splitting and this page is at 130K. I think the polling should be split. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Based on a quick look at that guideline it says These rules of thumb apply only to readable prose and not to wiki markup size. I haven't properly checked how much readable prose this article has, but according to the xtools Page statistics, it's currently at 1588 words, and not WP:TOOBIG until it's over 6000 words. But I'm completely new to this guideline, so I might be wrong, and I wouldn't actually mind if the polls were moved to a template like the ballot access table was. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 21:58, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm rather new to the guidelines as well. However, I think even just for the sake of uniformity we should split off the polling. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:57, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur Oklahoma footnote verifiable?

The ballot access table has a footnote Uygur is not eligible to be President under the natural-born citizen clause of the United States Constitution. His placement on the Oklahoma ballot is under review. I'm not disputing the first half, but I have not seen a single source for the second sentence about there being a review about him appearing on the Oklahoma ballot. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

To state another way, has a reliable source actually said Uygur will appear on the Oklahoma ballot? The source cited said Uygur "filed." In other states, Uygur was removed from ballots after his filings were initially accepted. As Oklahoma affirmatively requires presidential candidates to be natural-born citizens, the state's review and removal of Uygur seems inevitable. --Weazie (talk) 19:40, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Oklahoma newspapers are reporting he's on the ballot with no mention of a state review or potential removal from the ballot:

• The Oklahoman Democrats on the primary ballot in Oklahoma... Media personality Cenk Uyger, 53
• Tulsa World At least one of those filing for the Democratic primary is ineligible for the presidency under the generally accepted interpretation of the Constitutional requirement that chief executives be “a natural born Citizen” of the United States. Californian Cenk Uygur, 53, is a naturalized citizen who moved to the U.S. at age 8. He reportedly claims eligibility under the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

So @Weazie, WP:RS only say that he will be on the ballot in Oklahoma and no reliable sources discuss a challenge in the state. At least as of now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Both articles listed who had "filed." As with previous articles about Uygur, they noted he had filed and claimed he would appear on the ballot. But after similar articles about other states' filing deadlines, he later was excluded from ballots. This genre of articles is poorly written, as Oklahoma (like other states before it) only listed who filed, as Oklahoma did not say anything about who will appear on the ballot. But, at this moment in time, no reliable source says anything about a challenge. It seems like a pointless exercise to temporarily include Uygur's appearance on a ballot when he will be inevitably removed. Weazie (talk) 23:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

That's my fault. I misread the Tulsa World article, although it's possible that that was the wording when the article originally came out. It's still possible that he will be removed from the ballot, but "under review" is not supported by sources. I removed it. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

He also might not be removed. (This is OR) Skimming the elections statutes in Oklahoma I found sections on challenging and removing state office candidates but not one for presidential candidates. I'm not sure Oklahoma law requires a candidate for president meets the federal requirements for the office. The removal statutes I saw only mention state law as a basis for removal, not the US constitution. There might be a court case eventually, but there isn't a single court case filed involving him in Oklahoma I can find on OSCN as of today. Thanks for the fix, I'll update if I see anything filed in Oklahoma. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

In Oklahoma Candidate's Filing Packet[21], each candidate must swear/affirm their qualifications, and the packet specifically quotes the natural-born-citizen clause. States have the inherent authority to remove ineligible candidates; like other states before it, Oklahoma won't need to file a lawsuit to exclude Uygur. Weazie (talk) 01:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

@Weazie, sorry but you're reading it wrong. And to be clear, you're not wrong about each state having the authority to handle it differently, but you are wrong if you are implying that every state will use their authority to remove him. In regards to the Oklahoma packet, those are two different excerpts of law put together. When 26-20-102 says The candidates shall be required to swear an oath or affirm that they meet the aforementioned qualifications, and their signatures shall be witnessed by a notary public. It's referring to the prior sentence in the same section of the statute outlining qualifications, i.e. Such candidates shall be members of political parties recognized under the laws of the State of Oklahoma and shall have filed a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission and shall have raised and expended not less than Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) for the office. The section in the context of the code makes no mention of the U.S. Constitutional qualifications and the phrase "natural born" does not appear anywhere in Title 26, Oklahoma's election statutes.

Further, (again, this is OR) the section authorizing the secretary of the election board to remove a candidate from the ballot, 26-5-117, does not authorize the removal of a candidate for violating the U.S. Constitution. It only authorizes removal for failure to meet qualifications in the Oklahoma Constitution, statutes or resolution calling the election. So it's not out of the question they don't remove him because they don't think they're authorized to under the current law.

TLDR: It's too soon to know what they'll do. We should wait for them to announce what they are going to do. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur should be a major canidate

Despite being ineligible to serve as U.S. president, his campaign and its build-up have received substantial media coverage (From just the most notable sites alone):

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4251265-young-turks-host-cenk-uygur-announces-primary-bid-against-biden/

https://news.yahoo.com/cenk-uygur-challenge-biden-democratic-000237023.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAC_I6j6DTiIiSiYYr6arRMFZDYLMF23kJCswcZUcE5QsW1sClW8kMqvnEABaJMg3x4LerTKoUJl2L73nxD-DyLjboF_uIDKqcXOOx_n3MY19H_SrLm6IIE0pwwvmp_oLQUh2t43lMn0-Car_-tkbL7vgIxiBrixaME3mxEemIXY2

https://www.newsweek.com/mr-president-youre-going-lose-trump-were-begging-you-step-down-opinion-1829100

https://consent.yahoo.com/v2/collectConsent?sessionId=1_cc-session_57213796-ff13-4eab-b828-5a277e945767

https://www.politico.com/newsletters/west-wing-playbook/2023/09/28/the-case-for-wetting-the-bed-00118730 Expoe34 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If consensus favors Uyger as a major candidate, I suggest we use       as his canidate color — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expoe34 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)^logid

This is a good list of sites, but I don't think that this is what "substantial major media coverage" means. Getting buried in a Politico newsletter is not that. The Hill piece is a good start, but I think that there should be a mention by a major cable news company and/or sustained coverage by news sites before we get that far. Bukovinac also got coverage from major news sources following her announcement and nothing since, and I don't think that there's anyone talking about her as a major candidate. — Preceding unsigned/interpolated comment added by Politicdude (talk • contribs) 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agree. His media coverage is on a par or above other major candidates, Elder, Johnson, Binkley, Williamson. The polling criteria is a lagging indicator which I have no doubt he will meet but it seems unnecessary to meTwentytwenty4 (talk) 17:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC).

TheGuardian Axios Forbes NYT — Preceding unsigned addition also by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I also think that it is not a good idea for Wikipedia to include Uygur as a major candidate if he is ineligible for President. I propose a new requirement that major candidates be natural-born citizens.

Politicdude (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

I think we should wait to see some polling, however I believe the coverage is enough and should he appear in 5+ polls he should be added.

NonHydranary (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The article pretty clearly states that you only need one of the criteria to be considered a major candidate.

Politicdude (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Not sure if he meets the threshold for "substantial media coverage". But we do not need to wait for polling once that threshold has been achieved. Prcc27 (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The criteria is so laxed right now, if Stapleton and Binkley are major candidates, so should Uygur. The press coverage for his campaign should already be enough. I don't think it's relevant that Uygur cannot take the office of President, he's still allowed to run and it's not Wikipedia's place to exclude him from a list of candidates when reliable sources proclaim him a candidate. Ballotpedia already lists Uygur a major candidate (not saying that we must follow that, but it does show other already consider him to be.) The coverage alone should place Uygur as a major candidate. What colors are being considered for the gradient? Colin.1678 (talk) 21:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The coverage is borderline. I think we should wait and see if it is sustained before then. (and we also need to change the requirements)--Politicdude (talk) 02:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. It's premature to list him as major. Let's see how the coverage unfolds in the coming weeks before doing that. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times has classified him as Major, this should be noted and put into consideration.--Microplastic Consumer (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

He has now been included in two polls. (Echelon Insights Oct. 23-26, 1% & Quinnipiac Oct. 26-30, 2%) Still short of five. I would agree that the media coverage is still borderline, but I disagree with adding the natural-born citizens requirement to determine whether someone is a major candidate or not. I think the current three criteria are sufficient. (And about the table; I was unsure about editing the news links above, so I just added them below for clarity in evaluating the "substantial major media coverage"-criterion.) BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated table. I think the media coverage might be getting there. NYT and now the BBC are listing him among the four main candidates, although Reuters, AP, NBC, and WaPo aren't. The Hill, the Washington Examiner, Forbes and Newsweek are mentioning him along with Williamson and Phillips, which certainly seems to be more coverage than the other three Other declared candidates. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 14:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Interestingly, Axis doesn't list him on their list of 2024 candidates despite their article about him. (Although they do list Ryan Binkley as a major GOP candidate, so I'm not totally sure what their criteria is. Corey Stapleton is not listed in the withdrawn major candidates section.) Personally, I think Uygur should be added, but he did just enter the race and I think it's also ok to respect precedent for now. Barring something weird, he will almost certainly meet the polling threshold for it. With that said, I have to agree that it's a bit weird to list him among a couple other candidates I doubt a single person has heard of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantedino88 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

It appears that Axios added him to their list yesterday. Updated table. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Updated table. I think the media coverage is sufficient. Several news outlets are mentioning him as one of Biden's three primary challengers, and in addition to the coverage of his announcement and articles listing the candidates, there are several local outlets covering his ballot access difficulties. He's also included in three polls now, which is likely to be four once Quinnipiac publishes this month's. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Media coverage of the Uygur campaign (feel free to add to this table)

Reliability	Topic of the article	Mentioned
Generally reliable	Guardian Axios Forbes Boston Globe Associated Press	NBC News BBC The Atlantic Deseret Axios Forbes – Oct 16/27 Nov 7 Guardian – Nov 8 14 The Nation – Oct 27 Nov 22M New York Times – Oct 13 27 Politico – Sep 28 Oct 12 13 Nov 27 Dec 5
	The Hill – Oct 11 Nov 25KS	The Hill – Oct 12 15 26 28 29 Nov 2 2 W 9W 9 9K D 12 16 29 Dec 1AM 5 7 8
No consensus	HuffPost (Daily) Mirror Mediaite Newsweek Daily Dot Daily Beast Daily Beast Washington Times Washington Examiner Independent Journal Review	Ballotpedia Mediaite – Oct 18 24 Nov 29 Newsweek – Oct 27 Nov 5 17 30 Dec 1M 2M Washington Examiner – Oct 21 Nov 1Gzt 5 16Gzt 19 Gzt 25M 08M
Generally unreliable	Daily Kos Western Journal Meaww Fox News The Blaze – Oct 11 Nov 28	Statista MeawwMSN Western JournalM Fox News – Nov 10 15M 20M
Not listed	Semafor Tag24 CheckYourFact Daily TargumAbt Nevada Independent WAOK Radio Atlanta NHPR WHBY (Radio) CollegeToday	Oct. – MinnPost NY1 Spectrum News Nov. – Santa Fe New Mexican Post and Courier Siasat Daily Tag24 ICT NewsW Medill News ServiceRSSM WFIN NH Union LeaderAOL WPEC (CBS12)MSN Truthout LamronRSSM Salt Lake TribuneMSN The Center SquareA NewsNationNow Dec. – Florida Phoenix States Newsroom The Messenger American Prospect Tampa Free Press Tampa Bay Times Miami HeraldM IVN Network Orlando Sentinel/Sun-Sentinel Tulsa World State of the Union
		(Northwest) ADG – Nov 13 (NWA)ADG 14 20 (NWA) Semafor – Oct 27 Dec 1 7
Questionable (Not listed)	The Politics Watcher Wealthy Living Democracy Paradox Weis BollyInside Joe.My.God. A. Nicole(QS/News) – Wealthy Living Career Step Up Fistful of Dollars	ELB America's News DeskQS Shore News Independent Australia12,20,23 Barrett UBS Group AG CTM News RealLoadedNews MenaFN The Politics Watcher – Oct 13 Nov 3 19 24

Most of these sources are discussing his announcement. My understanding of the criteria is that he needs substantial coverage on the trail in order to be a major candidate. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:42, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Uygur was invited to a televised debate on December 6th alongside Williamson and Philipps. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

To be fair, that forum was hosted by The Young Turks, which Uygur founded. He claims that he has stepped down as CEO and that Ana Kasparian is editor-in-chief. He has been interviewed "as a guest" on the network several times,^TTDRITT though I wouldn't say that makes him any more notable in terms of this article. But he has also been interviewed in media independent of himself, such as the Washington Journal on (Nov 26), The Breakfast Club (Nov 30), and Breaking Points (Nov 21), as well as by notable individuals such as Karen Hunter (Nov 7), Piers Morgan (Oct 23), Anthony Scaramucci (Oct 21), and Dan Abrams (Nov 29) and apparently also Chris Cuomo on NewsNation. BucketOfSquirrels (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates

I started a discussion there to reignite this thread, since that's now the appropriate spot. Please check it out. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:51, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Where are the criteria for major candidates? I don't see them anywhere on the page. MonMothma (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

On the 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates page. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Should there be a 2024 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums article created?

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.

---

Hi,

What are your thoughts on merging the current debates section in the article into a new article, titled 2024 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums? There's enough info to be spun-off, I think. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

After the debates. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 17:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's see if there is significant media coverage of these debates. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:26, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say there's been fairly significant coverage of the first debate; there's The Boston Globe[22], New Hampshire Union Leader[23], WMUR[24],NH Journal[25] and Politico[26]. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

USA Today has an article about it as well. [27].David O. Johnson (talk) 00:11, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I created a draft article at Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential debates and forums. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 01:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Awesome. I appreciate it. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done. I have moved the page to mainspace, as it is encyclopedically written and formatted as well as extensively/reliably sourced, and clearly a notable topic. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:33, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

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.

Separate section for "uncommitted"

Many primaries have an "uncommitted" option for voters. Is that part of "Other" or should it have a separate section? ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:26, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

It Should Have A Separate Section or Be Put in the Info box along with the other Canidates. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

"Primaries and caucus calendar" section

This seems redundant with Results of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I think the section should be moved to that page or removed entirely. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Ballot access table (accessibility)

The check mark colors being used in the Ballot access table to indicate "candidate was on the ballot" vs. "candidate was a recognized write-in candidate" are difficult to distinguish for people who are colorblind or who have other types of visual impairment. Would anyone be able to find two check mark images that provide a slightly higher contrast color scheme that we could implement here? I'm not sure where to find these, or what colors would be acceptable. Kalem014 (talk) 01:36, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The ballot access table comes from this template, so it would probably be best to open a discussion on that talk page.

This seems like an easy fix, the green checkmark is available in at least 7 different shades. Click here and scroll down to "other versions" to see them side-by-side. You might also be able to find other options by searching "file:check". Since I don't have red-green colorblindness I can't really weigh in on which would work best. Jamedeus (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Articles that need to be created

Hi,

Here are the articles that currently redirect to the Primaries and caucus calendar section of this article (i.e. articles don't currently exist for them):

• 2024 Democrats Abroad presidential primary
• 2024 Northern Mariana Islands Democratic presidential caucuses
• 2024 Kansas Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Missouri Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Delaware Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 New York Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Rhode Island Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Connecticut Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Wisconsin Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Alaska Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Hawaii Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 North Dakota Democratic presidential caucuses
• 2024 Puerto Rico Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Indiana Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Maryland Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Nebraska Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 West Virginia Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Kentucky Democratic presidential primary,
• 2024 District of Columbia Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Montana Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 New Jersey Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 New Mexico Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 South Dakota Democratic presidential primary
• 2024 Guam Democratic presidential caucuses
• 2024 United States Virgin Islands Democratic presidential caucuses

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I created 3 of them. I usually will create one when a filing deadline has passed and I am updating the ballot access table for that state. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 03:53, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Creating a map?

Is anyone able to create a map for the contest results? Presumably, it would look similar to the map at 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries and be included in the infobox. I don't have the knowledge to create it myself, but it someone has a tutorial I would also be happy to give it a shot! Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I just made one. It doesn't give anybody the ability to to click on the states and see the results (I dont know how to do that). It has both pop vote and delegates so that people can distinguish between results of New Hampshire and the delegate allocation. Trajan1 (talk) 19:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Ballot access table (new)

The Iowa caucuses are held as a mail-in primary in 2024, between Jan. 12 (mail ballots sent out) to March 5 (last day to send it back).

Iowa even says Jan 23 in the table, which is NH's date. It should be March 5, because this is when the results are announced. The Jan. 15 caucus is just formal party business and involves no voting on candidates. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The footnote that was added, is also incorrect: "Note that these are the options on the mail-in ballot sent to Democratic Party voters in addition to an "Uncommitted" option. Those who attend the caucus in-person could hypothetically vote for whoever they like."

The first sentence is correct. But the second sentence is wrong: there will be no in-person voting, it is entirely vote-by-mail. In person caucuses on Jan 15 will only be party business and no voting on the 3 candidates or uncommitted. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Fixed ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:15, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, but the footnote is still not correct ("mail-in voting from January 15 to March 5.)

It must read "Mail-in voting from January 12 to March 5."

A large "M" for Mail voting because sentence starts and voting starts on January 12 already. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

 Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey Spiffy: thanks.

California footnote is missing a " after generally recognized presidential candidates. It should read "generally recognized presidential candidates".

Can you fix this too ? Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey I don't know how to edit the Ballot table, can someone please add WA state? it's March 12, and Dean Phillips DID get on the WA ballot. 98.174.80.99 (talk) 04:25, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Dude

 Not done

The table is currently a template, so you can edit it at Template:Ballot access in the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, although you have to use wikitext to do so. We can probably remove the template part but that's another discussion. The filing deadline for Washington state is January 9 (January 6 to file with the state party, January 9 for the party to file with the Secretary of State), per Ballotpedia. As it hasn't passed yet, it shouldn't be included in the ballot access table. Additionally, at this time I cannot find any news articles about candidates making it on the ballot, and the candidate list on the Washington Secretary of State's website does not show any candidates having filed yet.

The table will be updated when the filing deadline passes and sources show which candidates made the ballot. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Good to see someone is monitoring it. Dean Philips also got on the Ohio and Rhode island ballots, but the final deadline on Rhode island has not passed, although Biden and Phillips both met all the criteria and are awaiting the rubber stamp. 50.34.166.2 (talk) 23:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Dude

Could someone update the table please. Rhode Island announced who is on the ballot. https://rhodeislandcurrent.com/briefs/heres-the-list-of-candidates-who-made-ballot-for-the-rhode-island-presidential-primary/ . 50.34.166.2 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2024 (UTC) Dude

 Done ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

MS, NC, and TN as Biden victories?

In the three states listed above, Biden is the only person on the ballot. Can these states be counted as Biden victories at this time? Florida has already been counted as such, but is there anything different about these states? Longestview (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The states differ in their election procedures, with some allowing write-in votes or including something like "none of the above" on the ballot. I believe in Florida's case, an uncontested race does not appear on the ballot, which explains the possible cancellation of that primary and why some already list it as a Biden victory. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In Florida, the primary is definitely cancelled, so that is a Biden win, although we might want to wait to add it to avoid confusion.

In Mississippi, uncontested primaries are not cancelled, so there will still be voting, but according to the delegate selection plan (page 5), write-in and uncommitted votes will not be allowed, so Biden will win. Given that Wikipedia frequently labels uncontested legislative races as wins, this could also be a win for Biden. However, there’s no reliable sources that say that, and the delegate selection plan is a Google Doc which probably can’t be cited.

In Tennessee, write-in candidates are allowed, and “uncommitted” will appear on the ballot, while in North Carolina, write-in candidates aren’t allowed but “uncommitted” will still be an option. This means that while Biden is the only candidate on the ballot, it isn’t technically uncontested and someone else (or no one) could still win, so these can’t be wins for Biden yet. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 19:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Per this info, FL & MS can be called but TN/NC cannot I would say. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors don't "call" victories or award delegates. We wait until the governing bodies or reliable sources do that. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

We don’t call victories, but if an election is uncontested, we can label it as a win for a candidate. As a quick example, here’s Mississippi’s state senate election page prior to the election last year - uncontested races rated a “hold” based on the fact that they are uncontested. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Right that's semantics you know what I mean Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 21:35, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Yet in Results of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, delegates have been added to Biden's column despite the fact that no reliable source has done so yet, as far as I can tell. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:57, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I added those based off of the fact that they were added to the main page after this discussion. If there isn’t a consensus after all, then they all can be removed. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

What's happening:

In Florida, the primary has been cancelled, with Biden declared the winner and receiving all the delegates.

Meanwhile, in Mississippi, voting will still be held, but only Biden's name was included on the ballot, and there is no option for write-in's or uncommitted.

While these have both been documented by numerous reliable sources, most reliable sources have not yet taken that information into account for their delegate trackers. In other election pages on Wikipedia, candidates running unopposed have been listed as wins or losses for those candidates prior to the election. It's also worth noting that in Florida, there's a lawsuit trying to un-cancel the primary, although WP:NOTCRYSTAL applies.

I'm pinging editors who have been at least somewhat involved with this dispute.. @GoodDay @Dogperson160 @Reddithater56 @NathanBru @Tipsyfishing @Bobertrobert0709. Should we count Florida and Mississippi as wins for Biden? ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I believe we should wait until they are officially called by reliable news sources. NathanBru (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Even if he's the only candidate? We should wait until 'after' a primary/caucus is held, before declaring his victory. If Florida's sending delegates to the convention? then the state should be in Biden's blue. As for states 'not' sending delegates 'or' their delegates won't be accepted? color them black. GoodDay (talk) 01:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Florida will be sending delegates for Biden, but not holding a primary. NH is holding a primary, but not sending delegates. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 04:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah we should definitely not award the delegates from FL and MS for Biden. Absolutely not. For all we know, he could drop dead tomorrow and someone else wins those primaries. Is it likely. No. Is it possible? Yes.

We don't say Alabama has beaten Chatanooga because we know what the outcome is. We let it happen (Bama won 66-10) Trajan1 (talk) 19:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We should also keep in mind (though changes can be made later), the DNC has in the past punished states for when they've held primaries (against the DNC recommendations), but later excepted a portion of their delegates. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I get your point, but even if Biden drops dead, he still wins those primaries because there's no way another candidate can get on the ballot and no recourse. What would happen would be that the delegates likely vote for someone else at the convention, but that could happen for all primaries, but we still count them. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

actually this is true in Mississippi write-ins *do* count if a candidate on the ballot dies before the election (they don't otherwise). https://law.justia.com/codes/mississippi/2019/title-23/chapter-15/article-13/subarticle-b-other-elections/section-23-15-365/

I believe Biden would still win Florida even if he died tomorrow though. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 23:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

https://floridaphoenix.com/2024/01/16/federal-judge-confirms-no-fl-dem-presidential-primary-in-march/

"Florida law says that when a party submits only one candidate, that candidate is deemed the winner, and there is no primary election."

What else do we need to call him the winner? The election literally isn't happening... Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 23:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Florida

So, shall we color Florida 'black'? Or wait & see if the DNC changes its decision. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a DNC decision, and we can color Florida black on the popular vote map, but it would have to be Biden blue or blank on the delegate map, since delegates are still being awarded. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:23, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Let's color it Biden 'blue', then. GoodDay (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

IMO it should be black for popular vote since there is no popular vote happening. Blue on the delegate map. That's part of the reason for having two maps after all; sometimes the popular vote (or lack thereof, in this case) doesn't match the winner of the delegates.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Very well. GoodDay (talk) 04:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Update map

The NV primary victory of Biden has not been added yet. Also, pretty sure the vote count/percentage will need to be updated to factor the NV results in SecretName101 (talk) 11:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

For the vote count/percentage, we're waiting until the results are final. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, but why the holdup on the map still? SecretName101 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, we need the map to be updated. We already mention that he's won 3 contests, in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I updated the file but I can't get the template page that links to the interactive map here to update. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Changing the px to 399 worked, not sure why. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

NH in popular vote total

Green Papers has been the source for popular vote totals in past primaries, however they are not including New Hampshire in their popular vote totals in the 2024 Dem Primary as it is (as of now) not a delegate allocating contest. Thus I propose we follow the precedent and do not include it either.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P24/D Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 18:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The NH primary is little more than a state-run straw poll ATM. Since we're not including the NV primary for the Republican primary page, we shouldn't include it here either. Longestview (talk) 19:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong include. Whether or not it was a delegate allocating contest it was a primary and it seems weird to just ignore it. The South Carolina primary had ~4% turnout so it's not like New Hampshire was simply ignored. Also not a situation like in Nevada where there were two competing contests, one that actually mattered and one that didn't. At best there should be some note with the total +/- the New Hampshire numbers. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose including NH votes in the popular vote total as it is a non-binding contest that did not allocate delegates (so far). If the delegates are seated at convention I could see this changing. However support including them in a footnote; see the footnotes for 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries as an example. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I recommend that we look to 2008 as precedent with its treatment of the un-sanctioned Michigan primary, where the national vote total if it were factored-in is noted through a footnote linked to in the infobox SecretName101 (talk) 00:21, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Popular Vote Source

Should we look into getting a different popular vote source? Green Papers still hasn't added Nevada for some reason Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Regardless of the source we end up using, propose adding a reference tag directly into the infobox so readers can be clear about where the data is coming from. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Biden Picture

In every case where the President ran for re-election, the Wikipedia page for the primary has used their official White House portrait in the infobox, I couldn't find where the file could be changed on the page so unless there's any disagreement would someone be able to swap the picture currently being used to his official white house portrait?

• 
  Biden's Portrait
• 
  Current Picture being used

TheFellaVB (talk) 05:59, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Support but please post at 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Support SecretName101 (talk) 18:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Support per OP. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:22, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

indicate Cancelled primary states on maps

Since the two cancelled primaries will have their delegates go to Biden; I think they should be added as Biden states to the delegate allocation map. And that a different (darker shade) of grey should be used for them on the popular vote map to indicate that they will not be holding a popular vote contest. SecretName101 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Support including Florida and Delaware as Biden delegate states (primary has been cancelled with Biden as the winner)

Neutral on including Mississippi as a Biden delegate state (primary will still be held but Biden is unopposed with no write-in or "uncommitted" votes allowed).

Oppose including Tennessee and North Carolina as Biden delegate states (Biden could still technically lose those to "uncommitted" or, in Tennessee, write-in candidates).

Support darker shade of grey on popular vote map. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I have taught myself enough SVG to be able to update the maps whenever a consensus is reached - see most recent updates in the infobox. I have not yet added Florida and Delaware as Biden delegate states, but I support that change. I would also oppose including TN, MS, and NC as Biden delegate states yet, per the reasons noted above. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC) 03:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I went ahead and updated Florida and Delaware to be blue on the map. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Uncommitted draft

In light of recent events I have created a draft for the Uncommitted voting option in Presidential primaries. If anyone wants to assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Draft:Uncommitted (voting option). Esolo5002 (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Misleading Verbiage

There are several statements in this article that could use correction. For one, The statement that Biden "might not seek re-election due to his age and low approval ratings." The question has not really been his age, but rather his mental acuity. Two, the three Democratic challengers are listed in a non-biased manner, with the exception of RFK Jr. Were the words "anti-vaccine activist" and "conspiracy theory promoter" necessary, or objective? I submit that they are not, and are intended to skew the perceptions of the reader. These types of terms were not applied to Williamson nor Phillips, rightly so. Thirdly, "Williamson dropped out" is not accurate, as she has actually "suspended" (but not ended) her campaign. She continues to be on 30 ballots which have yet to vote in the Primaries. If voting results improve, there could be a chance she may continue the campaign. On Item #2, I see that I am not the first person to address this. The "reliable sources" themselves are subjective, as a conspiracy "theory" is only a "theory" until it is exposed. The very nature of a conspiracy is to keep it hidden. It remains to be seen whether these conspiracies are merely theories, or not. Those words should be removed. So should "anti-vaccine activist". Kennedy's vaccine activism is actually an effort to promote long-term studies, not to remove vaccines. Kennedy has received every single vaccine, except for Covid, for which there was no proper testing. Grace38383 (talk) 01:28, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Please provide a reliable citation that suggests Biden might have opted out due to "mental acuity." 2) Kennedy is an anti-vaccine activist and conspiracy theory promoter. The appropriateness of these terms has been subject to prior discussion and consensus. It is true that this may skew the reader, but that is not a reason to conceal objective facts. 3) "Suspending" a campaign vs. dropping out is a technical distinction related to campaign finance. Much like the Kennedy labels, you are advocating for inaccurate, euphemistic language that clouds the reader from the truth, and you will not find support for that here. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

1) Biden's mental capabilities have been in question long before Robert Hur's report, which recently confirmed what most could clearly see. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/-nightmare-special-counsels-assessment-bidens-mental-fitness-triggers-rcna137975 You have suggested that I am using euphemistic language; however, saying Biden's "age" is the reason he may not have sought re-election is highly euphemistic. 2) Kennedy questions the long-term effects of vaccines. This is the objective fact, which you are concealing, not me. Which also supports the legitimacy of the conspiracy claims. 3) I see you changed the language to "suspended" after all, so I have no further issue here. Grace38383 (talk) 14:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point. It is clearly true that Trump and Biden are elderly, and there are unquestionably reliable sources that report instances of age-related mental decline in them. The question here is a concept called "voice": who specifically is saying Biden considered not running on the basis of mental decline? We cannot attribute such thoughts to Biden unless he said so. Attributions to some other person should be specific, as it would be (in the Wikipedia sense) controversial. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

NPOV disputed in adjectives qualifying RFK Jr

Hello, I have placed the Model:POV on adjectives qualifying Robert F. Kennedy Jr in this article, even though these adjectives are sourced. Did I do well? Please feel free to tell me your thoughts, this is an opportunity for me to learn about NPOV conventions on english wikipedia. Blocktomo (talk) 07:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert F Kennedy

which was followed by anti-vaccine activist, environmental attorney, and conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

should he be called a conspiracy theorist?? Not really factual statement feels like an opinion 71.125.27.118 (talk) 21:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

: Partly done

Kennedy as a conspiracy theorist is exceptionally well documented by reliable sources.

References

"Not really factual statement feels like an opinion" is an opinion in and of itself. However, I did change it to "promoter of conspiracy theories" to avoid assigning a label. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Marianne doesn't have similar information or titles about her. And Dean Phillips is simply labelled as "Representative Dean Phillips". Is the added information relevant to the context of RFK Jr's announcement? If not I think it should be removed or we should include some more information everyone. Marianne is a best-selling author. Dean Phillips is one of the wealthiest memebrs of congress. 76.147.146.144 (talk) 09:46, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor. The fact that it is sourced is beside the point. We don't need to place these labels in every article he is mentioned. What is the reason for including them here, given that others aren't treated similarly? --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

We’ve had this discussion on other RFK Jr. - related articles before, but I won’t oppose removing it on this article per the lack of relevancy. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:06, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I am only a passer-by of Wiki and I am very put off by the process/politics involved in editing a page. I'd just like to follow up with my request. Can I simply remove the extra labels from RFK Jr? Is your absence of opposition the sole factor involved in allowing me to make those changes? Would you be willing to make them in my place? 76.147.146.144 (talk) 08:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

This page is unprotected, so you can be bold and make any edits you want, even before consulting the talk page.

The point of the talk page is to find consensus on contentious edits. If you make an edit and the edit is reverted, it’s best to not revert back and start an edit war, but instead seek talk page consensus. If an edit is believed to be contentious or you want to check with other editors first, then it’s always a great idea to start a discussion here, but you don’t have to. Consensus is not necessarily based on votes, and no editor’s opinion is worth more than anyone else’s, and consensus does not have to be unanimous. Consensus can change, but it usually requires some time and a formal discussion.

After a consensus is reached, edits against the consensus will likely be reverted without much further discussion. We’ve had previous discussions on RFK. Jr. related articles which resulted in the wording that is currently on his main bio page, which states that he “promotes anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories.” My intention of the original edit was to state and enforce that consensus, but it seems like other editors agree it’s not relevant on this page, so I’ll strike my original post. My opinion, for or against, has no bearing on the decisions of this page other than being another voice in determining consensus. I’m not an administrator, and even an admin’s opinion doesn’t count for more than other editors when determining the content of a page. I’m simply another Wikipedia editor who is highly active on this page and happened to stop by your comment with a quick response, and I’m sorry for any confusion I may have caused. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 15:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I’m going to agree with the statement calling RFK Jr a conspiracy theorist. He may not have always been one, but he certainly has been for a few years now. EPBeatles (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The question isn't whether or not RFK Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, as there is sourcing that indicates that, but whether that is relevant to be listed in a cursory description of him. I agree with Politicdude that it's not needed in this instance. Kafoxe (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2024 (UTC)