Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Michelle Obama

Hello.

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Given that Biden has dropped out, and Michelle is the only known Democratic nominee who would overwhelmingly beat Trump, is it fine if we include this information now? I think that it might do a lot of good for western democracy. Also, Barack Obama has not endorsed Kamala Harris yet. David A (talk) 05:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Nicole Shanahan Portrait?

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

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

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

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

I have long resisted attempts to add RFK to the infobox prematurely. My key arguments were a) ballot access is hard and should not be assumed, and b) early polls are not indicative because most people are not engaged in the race. The passage of time and recent events (the debate, the shooting, and the RNC) have changed the latter; we are now in the true campaign stage. None of these events have caused his number to recede further from the floor of 8% he hit in March. He now has access to 9 states and 99 EVs[1], including 3 purple states (MI, FL, & NC) where he's polling at more than double the 2020 margin. His claims to additional states (a total of 390 EVs, including purple states like PA, NV, GA and TX) are also now more credible in light of those certified. We have already agreed to add him if he is at 5% when BA hits 270, but that standard was just a way of saying "still relevant when the campaign starts in earnest." In any case, he will get to 270 and he'll be well above 5% when he does it. I think the time to add has come. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy now has ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots. (Which you can see on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.
He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait". But he has 270 (or slightly less) at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria.
It's over. He has the ballot access and polling numbers. KlayCax (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy is not on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes, so it is mathematically impossible for him to win the presidency.
LV ✉ ✎ 13:12, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Longestview I'd like to propose that they be an exception to the ballot access portion. Not out of bias but out of practice.
The campaign has been reported to submit double to even quadruple the amount of signatures necessary in states to gain ballot access and this has so far worked.
While I understand WP:CRYSTAL, it seems extremely unlikely he doesn't reach the ballot threshold by the middle of next month, especially September.
He's already totaling almost 400, turn-ins, nominations, certifications included, even if one or two petitions are somehow rejected, the others are extremely likely to get him there.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4689340-rfk-jr-new-york-robert-f-kennedy-jr-donald-trump-joe-biden/
https://tennesseelookout.com/briefs/independent-presidential-candidate-robert-kennedy-jr-submits-tennessee-ballot-petitions/
if you need more examples, I'll provide them Buildershed (talk) 17:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe this is a case of WP:IAR. The consensus is clear that it would be premature to add RFKJR to the infobox at this time. Prcc27 (talk) 17:44, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
"Totaling almost 400" what? Accessible electoral votes? That isn't accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu I didn't say accessible now, I said WILL be accessible by mid August or September.
Like I said, I know about WP:CRYSTAL but an exception maybe granted in an additional RFC potentially. Buildershed (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
No. We do not need an additional RfC. We already had an RfC, and multiple attempts afterwards to add RFKJR have failed. It is a waste of time. Prcc27 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the definition of WP:DEADHORSE. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Republican nominee photos

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

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

Trump Portrait

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

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


Biden drops out

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

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

Additionally, in the Democratic Party section, it has him and Harris as presumptive nominee Infobox. Removal should be quick! IEditPolitics (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
No one knows who gonna be the Democratic nominee. Plz remove Harris from the info box !! 2600:1011:B07D:8492:9D15:5606:C546:C85B (talk) 18:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 18:23, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
No one knows who gonna be the Democratic nominee. Plz remove Harris from the info box !! 2600:1011:B07D:8492:9D15:5606:C546:C85B (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Harris has been removed from the infobox for the time being. I agree that we should wait until she's the presumptive nominee. :) KlayCax (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Has biden even released his delegates? Plutocow (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Gotta love how people are gung-ho to shove Biden into an infobox, but not Kennedy Jr. Lotta bias on Wikipedia it seems. Borifjiufchu (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
He was the presumptive nominee from a major party, and now he's not. Feel free to participate in the next discussion if/when RFK has majority EV ballot access. TheSavageNorwegian 19:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Gladly will. I remember the 2016 infobox wars, where people were just as pre-emptive. Biggest difference is that here people change the goalposts, but make every level of accommodity for presumptive nominees from major parties and keep finding ways to skew logic around write-in calculus. Borifjiufchu (talk) 21:03, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Kennedy on the infobox?

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

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

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

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

Brent Peterson

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

Evan F (talk) 19:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sure you're aware of this or at the very least I hope you are but Brent Peterson is not on the ballot in any state, nor has he filled any FEC forms in order to be a candidate. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:24, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Awh man, i wish he was! 52Timer (talk) 01:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 July 2024 ==

Can we add that former First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama has repeatedly refused to enter the race but beats Trump according to polls, and that media reports that senior Democrats and donors have asked Obama to step in? The media shows Obama at 50% against Trump at 39% [2], [3], [4]. Swintonswims (talk) 20:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC) — Swintonswims (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of TheBishopAndHolyPrince (talk · contribs).

 Not done for now: This seems to be a duplicate of a similar request above. The general conclusion in that request was that inclusion of such a statement would be WP:UNDUE. Garsh (talk) 00:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump portrait changed

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

I would, but I've already used up my 1RR for the day.
Maybe we should add a hidden note to dissuade future editors from changing it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I have added hidden notes to the two pictures of Trump in this page Punker85 (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

WP: UNDUE section surrounding January 6 and its aftermath

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

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

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

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

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

Polling has also been inconsistent in whether Democrats or Republicans favor political violence more. Using a single poll, that asked whether "patriots" (red flag) could be violent in X circumstances, could easily bias it against the Republicans.
(As "patriot" could easily be coded to be a right-wing position.) I'm going to be honest, and state that the entire section comes across as an editor trying to convince users to vote for a certain way. It's at least WP: UNDUE; probably WP: NPOV as well.
Open to alternative suggestions than that above. But this article is already long enough to the point where it's breaking for some users. KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely opposed to removing mention of January 6th. Prcc27 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not that, @Prcc27:. It's that the text is 1/4 to 1/3th of the article. That's clearly WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
If anything, I would add a sentence or two more about January 6th and remove the entire “Republican efforts to disrupt election” section (or at least condense it down to a few sentences). Prcc27 (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with some flexibility, or even another sentence or two about it, but it needs trimmed either way. KlayCax (talk) 02:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
So there's a couple of points you raised. First, regarding the length of the section I do not think that these concerns are relevant in this instance, as the article is still well under Wikipedia's recommended size of articles. Likewise, a lot of content was recently removed from the page as Biden just dropped out of the election, so the election interference section taking up "1/4 of the page" concerns are a bit misleading and will likely be addressed as information on the new Democratic candidate is added, making the section take up less of the page in the coming days. I do think, however, that the "Republican efforts to disrupt election" subsection should be shortened and have some of its content moved to another page. I know previously there was pushback on creating a separate page for this as there was not enough information to warrant creating one, however, with the amount of RS that have discussed this, the creation of a page called Republican plans to contest the 2024 United States presidential election is likely warranted at this point.
Second, concerns about speculation are addressed by additional sources describing how that speculation has come to pass. For instance, the "Interference by foreign nations" subsection has three sources, two from the NYT and one from NBC News about how foreign nations have already begun using social media to influence the election. As other editors have stated, that section in particular is barely 120 words long. I intentionally did not add the political violence section until after the assassination attempt on Donald Trump to avoid "speculation" concerns.
However, I disagree with your assertion that the section is an "absolute mess" and in violation of NPOV. I am also confused if your NPOV complaint is merely related to the poll, or on the whole section in general. You have added in NPOV templates to the entire election interference section and the political violence subsection, which makes me think your concerns with NPOV is related to the entire section and not just about the poll in question. BootsED (talk) 00:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not just the poll. But I'm just using it as an example of how the citations are either WP: UNDUE or being manipulated. Wanted to avoid a "too long, didn't read" scenario.
At best, it'll still be 1/6th of the article and be vastly longer than an assassination attempt, an unprecedented last-minute drop out, the ongoing 2024 Democratic primary, and other events.
The "interference by foreign nations" section is the least egregious but seems WP: TOOEARLY. Iran reportedly favored a Biden victory and attempted an assassination attempt. There's nothing wrong per se. Yet it seems clearly cherrypicked. I think it would be best to simply leave it to "expected interference" and then we'll see what happens.
The rest is assorted clippings of Republicans saying X or Y that are already conveyed by the previous sentences. It, as others stated above, needs drastically cut. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I recommend moving this into WP: DRAFT while seeing what happens after the election, @BootsED:. In the event of a Trump victory or landslide loss the article will almost certainly be non-notable and fail the 10 year test. Yet it's far too long on an article that is supposed to be primarily about the 2024 United States presidential election. This is a question of WP: WEIGHT and random sayings of X or Y official which speculation surrounding voter ID (for the reasons stated above) fails.
Does that work for you? Some of this could be transferred elsewhere. But we shouldn't have a substantial minority or majority of this article not even relate to the election itself. KlayCax (talk) 02:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What in particular do you suggest moving into DRAFT? I support trimming the "Republican efforts to disrupt election" section to a few sentences and moving those sentences into the prior subsection. I think, however, the rest of the section is fine and is well-cited. If the poll is really bugging you that can easily be reworded to state what poll said that, or removed outright. I don't think the singular poll is a hill worth dying on. BootsED (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Much of the "Republican efforts to disrupt election" section is what I support moving to WP:DRAFT. If it becomes an issue: it can be reinstated. KlayCax (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It could also be split into a new article. If need be. KlayCax (talk) 11:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Cool. Once I get home from work I will make the changes if no one objects by then. BootsED (talk) 15:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I see Prcc27 went ahead and removed the section ahead of me. I also removed the poll as discussed earlier. BootsED (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Why have you marked the "Interference by foreign nations" section with {{very long}}? It's barely 120 words long. -- mikeblas (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
The quotations. But that part could be kept. I also think it's too early to summarize what way authoritarian countries are going to swing the election. Best if specific examples are left out until after. KlayCax (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Timing of dropping out

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

I agree this is a good piece of trivia to include Dkaloger (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Not*, per MOS:TRIV Qutlooker (talk) 02:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
MOS:TRIV explicitly states it’s only providing guidance on style - specifically, recommending against trivia lists. Including a single piece of trivia as part of the rest of the article’s prose is not contrary to the style guide AFAIK. John298 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Are there sources to back this claim? Is it WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
LBJ dropped out just at the beginning of the 1968 Democratic primaries, as did Truman at the beginning of the 1952 Democratic primaries. Indeed primaries only began in 1912 & didn't begin choosing the majority of the delegates, until 1972. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Referencing errors

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

Order of campaign issues

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

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

The economy is listed sixth here despite economic concerns being by far the #1 issue on voter's minds. NPR poll showing economy overwhelmingly the #1 issue, mirrored by every single other poll on the matter [5] Zaqwert (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have always wanted to see it in alphabetical order, but have been too lazy to make the change myself. Prcc27 (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm alright with either, @Prcc27:. I lean towards the priority of voters. Yet it seems likely that many polls were differ on what they poll and how they phrase the question.
Wouldn't be surprised if we see substantial variance on what issues are considered to be the most important. KlayCax (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree on alphabetical order, will make the edit in a sec. It's how we order that section in the body of the article anyway. Maybe we think (for a clear example) the economy is more important than education, but it saves us having to get into spats ranking every single issue compared to each other on more marginal cases. Endwise (talk) 12:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
There's been a lot of POV-pushing in this article, @Zaqwert:, unfortunately.
Substantive parts of the article seem written to convince the reader to vote for Biden (and now the generic Democratic candidate) rather than being a neutral recounting of policy. The present "election interference" section being the most egregious example of this. More words are given to it than a recount of the assassination attempt against Donald Trump, Biden's withdrawal from the race, the 2024 Democratic nomination process, and more combined, while making statements not agreed upon in reliable sources.
This article is badly in need of a revision. Not only does it have substantial WP: DUE, WP: NPOV, and WP: ADVOCACY issues, its length is now breaking the page for many users. KlayCax (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Strongly agree. Dire need for revision. Joecompan (talk) 23:38, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Joecompan:.
This sentence is also particularly egregious: "Polling has shown increases in Americans supporting the use of violence to achieve political outcomes, with such support greater among Republicans than independents and Democrats"
Based on this October 2023 article from Axios asking whether: "American patriots may have to resort to violence in order to save the country" and then tries to tie it into the attempted assassination of Donald Trump.
The issues with this, needlessly to say, are quite obvious to me, someone who has never majored in economics, politics, history, or international relations.
  • Opposition to the government while the opposite party in power is almost always raised. Therefore, one would expect questions like this to be naturally raised for the party outside the White House.
  • "American patriots" is almost certainly codeworded in this context to mean "right-wing" Americans. It's not surprising that more Democrats would oppose something like this.
  • Public Religion Research Institute is a decent (not on a Siena/NYT level but decently good) but increasingly left-leaning partisan polling institute. Unfortunately, they've become like Rasmussen by asking "leading questions" like the above.
  • Implicitly, albeit but said, but it comes across to me as attempting to nudge the reader into believing that the assassination attempt was caused by Trump's words.
  • Even if all of these, among other problems, didn't exist: it's still a single poll. And not only that: but it's WP: OR from that poll. Meaning that we're two to three chains of complicating factors for this to ever be put in Wikivoice.
The Marc Elias quote, like two of the present paragraphs, is just speculation that the Republicans will engage in "voter suppression" in order to win the election. I definitely think this is a valid contention 10 years ago. Yet now, due to the Republican base becoming far more racially diverse and far more working-class, there's substantial evidence to conclude that policies such as stricter Voter ID laws now actually help the Democratic Party due to partisan realignment.
A seasoned editor of the website knows better than this. Yes, the vast majority of this needs to be thrown in the garbage can of Wikipedia. I'm frequently accused of having a left-wing bias on here and this is absolutely horrendous writing.
Without getting into the other problems not listed in this... the other sentences in the sections in question are similarly problematic. (To say the least.) KlayCax (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
When election articles surrounding Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong Un, and Rwanda's Paul Kagame seem to have more of a "neutral" and "detached" position than this article...
...Something has gone horrendously wrong. KlayCax (talk) 02:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Literally every single poll on issues has shown the economy and inflation to be the leading issue. That needs to be mentioned first for due weight purposes. All of the other issues are subsidiary pursuant to the reliable sources cited.XavierGreen (talk) 16:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

LEAD

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

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

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

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

@SVeach94, after some research I have determined that this is false as a brokered convention occurs at the respective parties convention which is yet to occur.
 Not done --Joecompan (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits

Can something be done about KlayCax's recent edits? I believe their push for Kennedy and the constant RFCs have crossed over into Wikipedia:Disruptive editing.

I'm not sure where would be the best Wikipedia venue.

Any guidance would be appreciated. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I oppose adding Kennedy into the article, per the RFC, until he meets the qualifications specified within it. (270 electoral votes + 5% polling aggregate.) KlayCax (talk) 03:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
All I was pointing out is that we're close enough that it's only a week or two away. It's perfectly reasonable to note that. KlayCax (talk) 03:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Both of you please stop. Please act civil. Thank you. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you and @Lukt64: on him being added... but your post a few hours ago saying "Expect it very soon" comes across as baiting them. Didn't see it until now and didn't realize what I'd be dragged into. KlayCax (talk) 04:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It's definitely something that should be discussed now - so it's good timing, anyway - because I can easily see this spilling into another debate like last time.
The New York Times exempts third-party ballot access. (Such as in Florida) While most representations count that. Even if it's technically unofficial. Was this ever addressed by the RFC? KlayCax (talk) 04:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@David O. Johnson WP:ANI is what you want. This user has been disruptive in the past but I haven't looked into their editing recently. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll let others weigh in first. I appreciate it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@David O. Johnson I suggest a report at AE. Doug Weller talk 10:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:AE is the link, if we go that route. Prcc27 (talk) 16:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
After speaking to an admin who has warned KlayCax before for disruptive editing I have been told to do this... One Problem, I don't have those diffs so I don't currently have an open AE request. Qutlooker (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I already warned KlayCax at their talk page, and I think it is time to report their disruptive behavior to an administrator. @Doug Weller: mentioned that Arbitration Enforcement would be the next step if KlayCax continued to disrupt this article (and they have). I think a topic ban is warranted; maybe even a full permanent ban given their disruptions on many other articles as well. Prcc27 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The talk page discussion related to adding Robert F. Kennedy Jr. into the infobox without consensus. I absolutely haven't. GreatCaesarsGhost and many other editors have suggested that it is time to add him as he appears to have achieved or come very close to achieving the requirements of the RFC. This absolutely was not me overriding the RFC. Asking for feedback in the talk page is not disruptive. It's what we're supposed to be doing in a case like this, @Prcc27:.
In no regards is asking for feedback on the talk page disruptive. KlayCax (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
My perspective is that the multiple discussions seem disruptive, but I think you only started the one. I will say I am confused by the RfC part, but I assume it is this one. If so, then why not wait until RSs report that he has 270? (Currently, the Decision Desk HQ-The Hill tracker shows him at 99 confirmed and maybe up to 384.) Using CALC can be fine, but it seems like there are questions on if he made the ballot or not in multiple states. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Because reliable sources are counting the numbers in different ways, @Super Goku V:, with some listing him as almost getting 270 electoral votes and others not even giving him 90.
Several users misinterpreted what I was writing above and interpreted it to mean that I was going to add it into the article without consensus. That's not at all what I was doing. I wanted to make sure that all editors were on the same page before anyone added anything. Lostfan333 wrote "Expect it very soon", which I didn't see until now, and that appears to have stirred up a hornet's nest. The last discussion I made about the topic was two months ago - more than 60 days - and simply asking on the talk page is not "disruptive" and "nothere". (As I've written on dozens of articles on Wikipedia, greatly expanded articles, and made other contributions on here all since then.) And that's correct. I meant that RFC.
The only states I'm counting are:
  • 1.) Nominated by a third-party with ballot access (Florida, Delaware, Michigan)
  • 2.) Independent ballot access certified by the state in question. (North Carolina) Not merely ballot petitioned states.
GreatCaesarsGhost (who was strongly against adding Kennedy Jr. until the requirements were met) and others thought that the criteria by the RFC were almost met.
So this is certainly something that needs to be addressed before someone adds it in/removes it. Wouldn't have made the section if I knew what a mess this would turn into. KlayCax (talk) 11:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
(Personal attack removed) I agree that their behaviour has crossed over into WP:DISRUPTIVE as well as WP:NOTHERE. GhulamIslam (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Lostfan333 and Lukt64 are not me and you're free to do a checkuser. KlayCax (talk) 11:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I myself haven't had a problem with your contributions, but you definitely should consult the talk page when making major changes. Otherwise, it's unilateral and is like buying a Lexus without consulting your partner. It looks like you've had contention with other editors & administrators for this on other pages, so now is a good time to sit & talk. BOTTO (T•C) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Please stop blaming me for your disruptive edits. I only made one comment regarding the Kennedy Ballot situation and you're the one who's turned the whole thing into another argument. If you wanna save yourself from any bans, please just WAIT until Kennedy actually reaches 270 Electoral Votes, which yes, could be very soon. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Another user made a personal attack and they were trying to defend themselves from it. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Although I do not know how to make a request for it. A temporarily topic ban may be good for @KlayCax IF their edits are viewed as WP:DISRUPTIVE by an admin, then a topic block should be warranted. Qutlooker (talk) 16:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

TBC - Democratic Party

Good morning or afternoon depending when you are reading this,

I thought Biden endorsed Harris, his vice, as party nominee? It has been confirmed on his social media handles and CNN, or are you all waiting from another official confirmation?

Thanks for the hard work! SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 07:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He has endorsed her, but she's not officially the candidate yet – the DNC isn't for another month. — Czello (music) 07:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh okay, now I understand
Thank you once again. SferaEbbasta87 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

If in November 5 RFK get over 9% in the election while you guys add him in the infobox like Ross perot in 1992 and 1996 .

In 1996 Perot get over 8% of the vote in 1992 he performed better with 16% of the vote and he has his own infobox 5.122.91.198 (talk) 10:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

He will be added if he gets 5% or wins a state. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2024

2406:3003:2006:2F24:C402:D458:8A34:5C68 (talk) 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When Biden dropped his reelection bid, he endorsed and gave it to Kamala Harris as Harris is now the candidate with top two selected vice presidents, Andy Beshear and Pete Buttigeg - which one of them will become an running mate for Harris.

 Not done: Harris is not the candidate yet. — Czello (music) 10:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Harris is the presumptive candidate but not official 173.72.3.91 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

PSL Reaching 270

According to the Claudia-Karina campaign, the Party for Socialism and Liberation has reached at least 270 total available electoral votes for their campaign, per a post on their Instagram page. 71.254.82.230 (talk) 14:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Republican efforts to disrupt election"

Where did that section go? soibangla (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

1RR reminder

Just an FYI, this article is under the WP:1RR restriction. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Picture of Nicole Shanahan, RFK's VP has been added to Wikipedia

I noticed that a picture of RFK Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan has been added to Wikipedia. You can then add it to the ticket under their campaign: [[File:Nicole Shanahan in March 2024.png]] Leikstjórinn (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done I do not see any indication on the image source that it is actually under the claimed license. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that's been the main issue; Shanahan images keep getting uploaded that don't meet Wikipedia standards. I'm certain one of them in the past did have a CC license... David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see any creative commons licensing on that file, so I have proposed it for deletion as a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Nevada should be characterized as Grey/Gray on the Election Map

Nevada is a swing state, and giving it to democrats as a 50-55% (expected) is not true.

Source: https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/nevada/

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/

I couldn't find any sources for Kamala Harris, but it should be expected that it would be relatively similar or slightly beneficial to Democrats. Even with this taken into account it should still be characterized as a swing state.

108.20.37.25 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The legend indicates that the "shading of each state denotes the winner's two-party vote share, averaged between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections." It is not a rendering of any pundit's predictions for 2024. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On Multiple States RFK is listed to be part of Multiple parties

Multiple states such as California, North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado and more have RFK listed as different parties such as The American Independent Party, Natural Law, which dissolved in 2004, We The people and more. Makhnoid (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Natural Law: [...] [T]he national headquarters of the Natural Law Party closed effective on April 30, 2004 [...] Entities using the name are still active in some states. [...] Only the Michigan and Mississippi Natural Law parties remained as ballot-qualified parties. As noted in a discussion above, Kennedy is the candidate for the Michigan Natural Law party. It also covers the other six or so parties that Kennedy is a candidate for. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh Ok thank for clarifying. Makhnoid (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Trivial superlatives in the lede

We are continuing to see trivial superlatives added to the lede. The latest notes this is the first election since 1976 to not feature one of the members of three entirely distinct families. Biden appearing on a ballot is not connected to George Bush appearing on a ballot in any way, such that the absence of both is not worthy of note. Trivia in general does not belong in an encyclopedia. Superlatives are fine, but when you start adding multiple qualifiers, the relevance drops off very quickly. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

restore Republican efforts to disrupt election

XavierGreen, you mentioned only one paragraph but removed three.

Please restore all the content. Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1236136875 soibangla (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Mentioning the activities of Republican county party officers is entirely undue there are literally thousands of counties and nearly all of them have a republican committee made up of multiple officers adding over 10,000 bytes prose on a minor topic without gaining any consensus to do so is also undue.XavierGreen (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
you mention only one element of a broader topic that encompasses several aspects, yet you remove the entire section. this is improper. restore all of it. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
If coverage of a topic is too lengthy, we truncated it. Removing it all together is highly inappropriate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That is two users who want the content restored, and I will add myself as a third pending discussion. Can you please restore it, XavierGreen? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks pretty undue for this article. I'm okay with the see also mention, but not here. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia's left-wing bias on abortion

WP:NOTAFORUM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

On almost every page that I read on Wikipedia, abortion is framed as "abortion rights", while pro-life topics like personhood of an unborn child are minimized or absent. To me, this is clearly a bias from Wikipedia, and I notice this with many left-wing topics. It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media. If Wikipedia cares about balance, there should be two photos in this article, one for and one against abortion. Also, any politician talking about personhood or related topics should be properly cited, instead of using terms such as "against abortion rights" or "anti-women". It was easier when "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the common terms. In any event, please present the topic fairly. LABcrabs (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia cares about neutrality, that doesn't mean that 2 opposing sides get to be evenly represented, that's an inherently flawed philosophy for which Wikipedia has rules with WP:GEVAL. A group of people believe the Earth is flat, doesn't mean we have to dedicate half of that article to that believe. This is why we have WP:UNDUE. None of the phrases you take issue with are on this page (and as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia unless that is specifically the topic of the article/section) so there is no point of raising this issue here in the first place. And just to be clear: none of these phrases are biased language either. Being anti-abortion is not a popular opinion and as such, Wikipedia reflects that. Your own word usage here already shows you have your own biases, which is fine, but that doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. YannickFran (talk) 11:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"as far as I can tell "anti-women" isn't even generally used on Wikipedia" I have been using the English language as a second language since I was 9 or 10-years-old, and I have English-language certifications from the University of Cambridge and the University of Michigan. I have never heard of the term "anti-women", the term is misogyny or (for persons) misogynists. Dimadick (talk) 12:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false. Our article on the American abortion debate gives roughly equal weight to both sides. Note that about about half of Americans describe themselves as "pro-life" and half describe themselves as "pro-choice", and the vast majority of Americans support restrictions on abortion in some cases and not others. Endwise (talk) 12:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Unfortunately what you have said is incorrect. Our articles about Earth either give zero weight to flat Earth or describe the view as false." ...yes... that's what I said. Having said that, being "pro-choice" or against it isn't the same thing as being against abortion in general, and that divide is much broader, which the article you link also goes on to talk about. YannickFran (talk) 08:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You said we don't give equal weight to the "anti-abortion" viewpoint (because it is not a "popular opinion"), just as we don't give equal weight to flat Earthers. I was just saying that that's incorrect, because we typically do give equal weight to the anti-abortion viewpoint when the issue comes up in these contexts, unlike flat Earth. And I don't really know what you mean in your new comment being "against abortion in general"; most people who would be described as "anti-abortion" also support exceptions, for example for the health of the mother. Endwise (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
“Wikipedia cares about neutrality but we will admit straight up in the same sentence that we actually don’t care about neutrality” 2600:8801:1194:8D00:D98B:7EE7:88E1:DC98 (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Neutrality does not mean evenly representing all opinions, that's WP:FALSEBALANCE. Neutrality is accurately reflecting the weight views and opinions are given in independent sources. — Czello (music) 09:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
even as someone who’s pro choice I’m going to say just admit you have a bias here towards one side. Because if that’s going to be your response there’s no reason to hide it anymore. 2600:8801:1194:8D00:DDF5:3459:2395:2EBC (talk) 20:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, it is referred to as abortion rights in reliable sources. And anyway, that's pretty neutral. You can agree or disagree on whether or not abortion should be a right. Personisinsterest (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
On Wikipedia we decided to go with the "abortion-rights" and "anti-abortion" movements, which I agree is neutral. Both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are biased towards their respective sides. None of that is in contravention with this article though so I see no issue. Endwise (talk) 12:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media." So Wikipedia is working as it should. Our job is to summarize what reliable sources say, and left-wing legacy media are reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I do think it is unnecessary to say “abortion rights” when we can use a more neutral term like “the abortion debate”. We absolutely should be using “pro-choice” and “pro-life”; those are the common terms. Finally, why only a pro-choice picture in the abortion section? Are there any images of protests in front of the SCOTUS building with both pro-choice and pro-life protesters? Prcc27 (talk) 15:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The language of "abortion rights" is kind of preposterous anyway since the idea of a right to an abortion in the U.S. was nullified by Dobbs. "Abortion rights" is activist language much like how "pro-life" was twisted into "anti-abortion" because it sounds harsher and more negative. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Pro-life is itself a euphemistic self-applied term. It only very tangentially relates to what this group advocates for, which is making/keeping abortion a criminal offense. "Anti-abortion" is a much more accurate description of the actual policy position. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
We probably shouldn't re-litigate the issue on this page if it has been subject to more robust discussion elsewhere, but I personally find "debate" to be a non-neutral. It implies a discussion or deliberation of facts, which does not apply here. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Dimadick Last time I checked, no legacy media, including both left and right wing sources, are a reliable source of information. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 22:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
They are. See RSP with GREL for some of them. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with User:GreatCaesarsGhost that this is too narrow a forum to address an issue of sitewide concern. With respect to "debate" perhaps the question to be addressed—in a more appropriate forum—is whether this should be called the "abortion rights debate". BD2412 T 22:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Theoretically speaking

Theoretically speaking there is no way to know whether Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee, because she said she got enough delegates to agree to vote for her at the convention, but that's her own words. She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. So essentially Biden's old delegates don't need to vote for her, and there's no way to know if her own claims are fully true. Alexysun (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It's still an open nomination at the convention at the end of the day. Alexysun (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st. However, Ohio Democrats were pushing their party to pick a candidate sooner via a virtual roll call vote. That’s because Ohio voted to move the deadline for candidates to make the ballot from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1 to accommodate Democrats’ mid-August convention in Chicago. That law takes effect on Sept. 1. So the DNC will be doing a virtual roll call with all the delegates sometime in the next two weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
"But that's her own words" There are sources corroborating Harris' claims; media organizations have pages to track her delegates. Here's one from The Hill, for example: [6]. There are more that are sourced in the 2024 Democratic National Convention#Pre-convention delegate count subsection of that article, as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh interesting. Alexysun (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. How is that different from Biden? They were not locked in for him either. Biden could have won all 50 states and still have not gotten the nomination due to delegates voting for someone else. In both cases, the delegates are unpledged. So I am still baffled why this is a major issue for Harris, but didn't seem to be an issue for Biden.
Additionally, it isn't her claims. The delegates have made statements to endorse Harris that have added up to her having enough to win the first round vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, presumptive is a more than good term, so far it is deeply expected all or most of Biden's delegates go to Kamala Harris, and the definition of presumptive is "presumed in the absence of further information", and in my opinion holds the same nature as a primary with a lone candidate and a write-in option, in all theory, voters can just write-in someone else, and the lone registered candidate can be defeated as it has happened in the past (most notably Vermont where write-in candidates have defeated nominees), this is key reason why it is put as "presumptive nominee" and not outright as nominee, as all expectations and metrics indicate Harris being nominated, such as no formal opposition being in, multiple endorsements from notable figures, and Biden having gotten almost an absolute amount of delegates who has endorsed Harris, so even if some decided to vote someone else, it is expected most of them will be indirectly pledged to harris.
Presumptive nominee for Harris is a correct term, as almost everything indicates she will be the nominee after the primary and roll call, if she wasn't the nominee it would be an extremely big upset and a 360° flip, and absolutely no one expects it to change, and if it happened we can just remove Harris and put the final nominee, but putting Harris as presumptive nominee is very well fundamented.
Other story is for the VP, who at the current time is completely unknown and there is no going behind someone like last time. SuperGion915 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Wordiness

Any good editor knows that “led to a series of events that resulted in” means “led to”. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

You are correct, and I deleted those seven unnecessary words. Brevity is the soul of wit. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Tell me about it! I have a 130k word manuscript that I need to reduce to 100k! =o) --SFandLogicReader (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Putting Harris in the infobox as presumed Democratic nominee

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Harris has the endorsement of President Biden, and multiple big names in the party. On top of this, she has also secured pledged delegates, furthermore, nobody has challenged her and its unlikely they will.

I am aware some of these factors I have listed can change within a second, but I am proposing that if no challenge appears within the coming days, she is listed in the infobox as presumed nominee, just as Biden was before his withdrawal. Obviously feel free to give your input and start a discussion. Cheers. Aryan Persaud (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

When the sources call her the presumptive nominee, then we can add her. Until then, the infobox would have to be blank. Maybe once a majority of delegates say they will vote for her, then we can add her? It will depend on how the sources handle the situation. Prcc27 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this. I understand the argument for including her, but it has to be supported by reliable sources. So far, the situation is still being seen as undecided, even if Harris is the clear favorite. Gust Justice (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks likely that it will be her, but we don't know that for sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Prcc27 Majority of the delegates have just been secured 66.129.217.85 (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The ap put something out
https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9 Char3290 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
She does have one challenger, a woman, can’t remember her name. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 18:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Marianne Williamson? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I would wait until the convention, unless there is an actual public commitment made by a number of convention delegates sufficient to guarantee the nomination. Anything can still happen. BD2412 T 18:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I think you just expressed the two sides of this argument. We probably WILL see a public commitment of some kind, and there is a question of whether this group will accept it. I would just say we are in unprecedented times (for WP's lifespan), so no one should be invoking tangential precedence. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Aryan Persaud: Thank you for bringing this here - it's a great demonstration of collaboration & respect for consensus. Echoing what others have stated, while it may seem like this nomination is Kamala's to lose, we can't be for certain. There's still the possibility the DNC delegates will vote for somebody different altogether. BOTTO (T•C) 18:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Best to wait for sources. For all we know, the delegates may vote for Biden, which they still can. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I would say give it at least a few days minimum and wait for sources to call her the presumptive nominee. If no one relevant enters the race by the end of the week (or publicly expresses interest in attending the convention as an on-the-floor option), than it'd be fair to call Kamala Harris the presumptive nominee. RickStrate2029 (talk) 23:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, as many news organizations have called her the presumptive nominee. Rushtheeditor (talk) 09:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris Should Be Considered Presumptive Nominee WHEN the AP Delegate Tracker Shows Her Earning a Majority

Here is the link to the AP delegate support tracker. She should be considered the presumptive nominee when she inevitably surpasses the required 1,976 delegates needed. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ap-dnc-delegate-survey/ Trajan1 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The survey is an unofficial tally, as Democratic delegates are free to vote for the candidate of their choice when the party picks its new nominee. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Nothing is ever official until the delegates actually vote. But if the AP indicates a majority of delegates will be voting for Harris, I think that is sufficient for declaring her the “presumptive nominee” (assuming the reliable sources also concur with that). Prcc27 (talk) 00:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we should call her the "presumptive" nominee until RS do. And the AP counter isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. If the delegates were polled two weeks ago, this is not the answer they would have given, and we can't say for sure this is the answer they would give two weeks from now. It's a good guess, but the situation is dynamic. We should at least wait long enough to see if anyone else challenges Harris for the nomination, and whether there is any reaction to that. BD2412 T 01:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't change the fact that she is the presumptive nominee, and that the pages have listed presumptive nominees before. Presumptive nominees have always been able to change and they have been included nevertheless. Pledged delegates are pledged delegates EpochPirate (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Pledged delegates are pledged delegates" is meaningless here. There are no "pledged delegates" since they are pledged to Biden, and Biden has dropped out. As long as Biden was the nominee they were bound to vote for him in the first round. Now they are not bound to vote for anyone, even if they declare an intent at this point to do so. BD2412 T 01:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we should say she's the presumptive nominee. Until there's anything to challenge that, for all intents and purposes, she's the presumptive nominee. That's what the media is calling her. I think we should follow suit, there's no point in pretending like we don't know when we all know who it's gonna be. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
AP Tracker has her over the top now, and are calling her presumptive https://apnews.com/article/harris-biden-presidential-candidate-election-withdraw-9fbd153493cb3f088994854fe61a73e9?utm_source=copy&utm_medium=share. That's sufficient for an RS in my opinion. WanukeX (talk) 01:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
“the Associated Press is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee”. Unless other sources decide to call Harris “presumptive”, she should stay out of the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, had missed that line. Yeah, WP:CRYSTAL. WanukeX (talk) 02:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's a Bloomberg article calling her the presumptive nominee [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I now support including her in the infobox per Bloomberg and because it only makes sense that the person with a majority of delegates should be considered the “presumptive nominee”. Prcc27 (talk) 02:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
NYT now calling her the “de facto nominee” Dingers5Days (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Bloomberg is calling her now the presumptive candidate. Harris Crosses Delegate Threshold in Sign Nomination Is Hers - Bloomberg - Harris sealed her status as the presumptive nominee Monday night after crossing the magic number of 1,976 pledged delegates.
Since Bloomberg is another well reputable source per WP:RSN, this should satisfy it now to update it. Raladic (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - The delegates referenced in the sources mentioned here are unbound, unlike Biden (who had bound delegates) there can be no presumption that Kamala is the nominee until the voting actually occurs, because the delegates are free to vote however they please at the actual convention. For NPOV purposes, if Kamala is added at this juncture RFK Jr would have to be added as well since he has submitted more than 270 electors worth of ballot access petitions that are unchallenged and thus presumed to be valid at this juncture.XavierGreen (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Just to ask, since when did Biden have bound delegates? All he had were unpledged delegates to my understanding. (This sentence amended at 03:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC))
Additionally, while these delegates are unbounded, these delegates have made statements of support to Harris being the party's nominee. Enough of them have declared their support of Harris to reach the majority in a first round vote, which is why reliable sources have reported her as the presumptive nominee.
Furthermore, Kennedy has been discussed enough for an FAQ to be created. In short, Kennedy hasn't been said to have gotten to 270 in reliable sources yet. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, but reliable sources clearly state that he has submitted petitions to enough states for well more than 270 delectors. Since he has submitted unchallenged petitions to over 270 electors, it can be presumed that he in fact has ballot access to at least 270. That is literally the same logical equivalent to including Kamala in the infobox at this juncture. All she has is a list of folks who said that they will vote for her, that doesn't actually translate into real votes until the voting actually occurs. To include Kamala but not RFK, Jr. at this juncture therefore leads to an NPOV violation.XavierGreen (talk) 03:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a rehash of the other four discussions on here and it isn't the same. The Democratic Party is eligible for all 538 electoral votes. Kennedy is eligible for 99 electoral votes at the moment according to reliable sources. It isn't an NPOV violation to report that she is the presumptive nominee for the Democratic Party and to say that Kennedy has not been announced to have secured eligibility for enough electoral votes. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose -Kamala has no bound delegates and shouldn't be added until after.Magical Golden Whip (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - particularly given VP Harris has just released a statement titled “Statement from Vice President Kamala Harris on becoming the presumptive Democratic nominee for President”. By its very nature, being the ‘presumptive’ nominee indicates a formalisation which is yet to take place but it is essentially a foregone conclusion at this stage. The campaign is referring to her as the presumptive nominee, most of the media are referring to her as the presumptive nominee, and this page should too. Ted86 (talk) 03:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - she is not the nominee either officially, nor presumptively as she has no bound delegates. Should be left blank until the DNC. Statements from the Harris campaign are self-proclamations. Wikipedia is not a newspaper and just because some media outlets are calling her the presumptive nominee does not mean it reflects reality. User:WoodElf 03:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. we don't consider our own original thoughts. We report what reliable sources cite and we now have multiple very reliable sources that have said as much. The word wikt:en:presumptive means that it is Based on presumption or conjecture; inferred, likely, presumed, which is now supported by the polling of the delegates which have pledged their support for her. Raladic (talk) 03:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Should be left blank until the DNC. Definitely not. The roll call results should be completed by the August 7th deadline. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - According to multiple RS, Harris can now be considered the presumptive nominee. She should be referred in this article as the new presumptive nominee, but first and foremost the infobox must be updated so that the state of the race is visible. Pledged vs unpledged delegates are not relevant here as we evaluate RS. CrazyPredictor (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - Enough reliable sources are calling her the presumptive nominee, so she should be added to the infobox. Potentially we could add a note stating the AP line that the "delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice" as a compromise. Rogl94 (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support - Multiple reliable sources, including ABC News, Bloomberg, and New York magazine, recognize Harris as having become the presumptive nominee, due to her having gaining endorsement from the majority of delegates. Additionally, as mentioned above, Harris' campaign has itself issued a statement recognizing Harris as the presumptive nominee. — Jamie Eilat (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment - What is the point of the bounded/pledged versus unbounded/unpledged delegates anyways? Biden had unpledged delegates from the primaries and Harris has unpledged delegates from endorsements. What is the actual difference? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support, most RSes are already referring to her as presumptive nominee. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 04:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support only because sources have begun to call her the presumptive nominee. Yeoutie (talk) 05:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: No true reliable way of saying "I think person X will become candidate" before they become a candidate. Donald Trump almost died while being listed as presumptive here, so let's avoid a potential repeat of that. Only add Kamela when she gets the nomination officially. We don't list presumptive Oscar winners, so we shouldn't do it for presidential nominees Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment: In the meantime time, can we avoid edit warring over the info box? Thanks. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 09:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support Per Raladic above, it seems the oppose votes are confused about what the term presumptive means. She is unquestionably the presumptive nominee. There are no other credible candidates even running. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Do you think the Associated Press is also confused about what the term means? Still, the AP is not calling Harris the new presumptive nominee. That’s because the convention delegates are still free to vote for the candidate of their choice[8] Endwise (talk) 13:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
100%, they most certainly are. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
That one organization has chosen apply this meaning to their own reporting does not change the ordinarily understood dictionary definition of a term, nor its usage employed by everyone else. Please see our article on the subject. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, the delegates are unbound (regardless of whether or not Harris receives state endorsements). The delegates are unbound until the convention. State parties could endorse Harris and then change their view upon the entry of another relevant candidate. Or, "draft" movements could spawn for candidates who are popular but don't wish to enter the race for the nomination. Calling Harris the presumptive nominee at any point would be ridiculous. RickStrate2029 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Support: Per the Associated Press, Harris now has enough pledged delegates to be considered the presumptive nominee. As the editor who first placed the in-line notation for waiting until we had clarity, I am on board with having her named in the infobox. Proceed. BOTTO (T•C) 14:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The delegates are unbound, they are free to vote for anyone.XavierGreen (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
And reliable sources say they will vote for Harris. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Good thing we're saying "presumptive", then. BOTTO (T•C) 15:34, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Same with Biden, but we listed him. I don't see the difference here. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment:
--Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
(you dropped this comment in the wrong discussion section) That is fine, obviously you can restore. But just out of curiosity, what is the virtue of having something like that but masking it with the arrows? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per my remarks above. Prcc27 (talk) 18:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose If reliable sources cannot agree on whether or not she is the presumptive nominee—as others have pointed out there is not a consensus among them—then we should wait until such a consensus is formed to put her in the infobox. Dingers5Days (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support Most people in the real world treat her as the presumptive nominee, just add her. yeah_93 (talk) 10:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Support. I was surprised to see Harris removed. She's being called the presumptive nominee by RS, she has the delegates needed to be nominated(and there's no indication they will change their mind), there's no viable challenger/alternative. I'm surprised this is at all controversial. 331dot (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment It's been two days, the consensus for inclusion is consistent and overwhelming, and yet we still have an involved editor removing the image "per the talk page" GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    It isn't though? While more votes are present for showing Harris as the candidate, it is certainly not the WP:AVALANCHE you seem to depict. Many people have raised detailed points for and against to the point, and this discussion has not yet run it's course or had someone come in with an analysis. Again, read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    That seemingly fell on deaf ears, as someone has reverted it without commenting here. At this point I am tempted to bring this issue of people just walking past this discussion to ANI, because I'm not edit warring for days on end against users ignoring one of the most basic principles of Wikipedia. (That is, avoiding the people who have correctly waited for consensus to be decided correctly). Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 13:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    If you are involved, you shouldn't be removing anything, even if it's the right thing to do. You certainly shouldn't be claiming that there is a consensus "per the talk page" that doesn't exist. 331dot (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    I never claimed one? I said 'per talk page "comments" referring to this [10] where I responded to a user when they refused to elaborate on how they could decide consensus when they claimed he had one to readd Kamala to the infobox yesterday (an involved user in favour of adding Kamala). We are adding content or is this case different because it's been hammered into the article via means other than discussion?
Furthermore, referring to the quote above I would prefer if we all actually treated each other in good faith than taking unfinished statements and using them out of context to say something different? It's not helpful. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but not everyone is going to view that the same way- others are interpreting that as you asserting a consensus exists for your position. 331dot (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I also said ' discussion was closed prematurely' but to make it clear I don't claim any consensus or a authority to do so
The discussion is about adding to the article though, so I hope you understand I am quite frustrated when people avoid doing so and add it in anyway without engaging in discussion. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
With something that has high visibility like this, that's bound to happen. 331dot (talk) 15:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Unanimity is not required for there to be a consensus. Whether you agree with us or not, we gave a policy based reason for inclusion, which has overwhelming support. If you do decide to go to an admin, they will probably say that you were in the wrong for edit warring and editing against consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 16:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator and have reviewed this discussion. At this point I perceive sufficient consensus, by both numbers and quality of argument, to warrant listing Harris in the box as the presumptive nominee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

@Magical Golden Whip despite the presence of a comment right above the infobox asking for discussion to finish before adding a candidate to the infobox, you have decided to reinstate an edit that has been opposed twice now. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The discussion is currently 10-6 in favor. Why is the default to remove rather than add? GreatCaesarsGhost 12:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. We are adding new content, so there needs to be a consensus around it being added if it is removed, as per the revert-discuss cycle. As opposed to digging in, edit warring and avoiding discussion altogether. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
If you can find WP:NOTDEMOCRACY, you can scroll to the next section and read WP:NOTBURO. And perhaps take a gander at WP:SNOWBALL. The consensus of both editors on this page and the media and people living in reality is that she is the nominee. The only counter argument is that the AP has chosen not to update their priors to deal with an unprecedented situation. Their internal bureaucracy is making them look foolish. Luckily, we have policies in place to ignore bureaucracy when it threatens the quality of the project. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
In WP:NOTBURO it quite literally says "disagreements are resolved through consensus based discussion". A 10-6 is by no means an avalanche. If anything, you are using bureaucracy to push forward a candidate that may win a nomination, when there is no reliable source saying 'its obvious Harris is gonna win'. None of those voting for the next Democratic Party leader are bound to vote Harris either. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy, but consensus is established based on a reading of our guidelines and policies and the arguments in favor of inclusion here strongly favor our guidelines about supporting what a majority of WP:RS is reporting. We don't generally consider the original thoughts of editors that are opposed to the inclusion if their arguments are not supported by Wikipedia's guidelines. You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling. Raladic (talk) 16:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
And who are you exactly to decide the consensus, considering you have participated in the discussion yourself? Just because some sources say 'it is likely' doesn't mean it's a guarantee. For almost any other article, we do not include the candidate that is most likely to win the nomination. For example, for the recent 2024 United Kingdom general election, we didn't add a 'presumptive' winning candidate for a constituency simply based off polls

You may be interested in the essay about status quo stonewalling.

For your own sake, I'll ignore your little remark here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I have read the arguments. It's not just that some sources say 'it is likely' - we have multiple respected reliable sources using the specific word "presumptive", but it's definition in the English language.
Also, as for your last sentence, please avoid to WP:THREATEN other editors. I simply linked to an explanatory essay about reversions on status quo during a discussion if the arguments brought don't favor it based on our guidelines and policies. Raladic (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
This has been going back and fourth by several users adding and re adding her in for a few days. Since my last warning I just reverted back to the way it was before with her picture there. In seriousness you need to make up your minds on adding her or just waiting until the DNC. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
  • "I have read the arguments"

You have participated in the discussion in favour of including the image. This is like being the prosecutor and the judge at the same time.

  • "We have multiple respected sources"

And? We didn't add 'Succeeded by: Keir Starmer (presumptive)' to the infobox of ex-Prime Minster Rishi Sunak despite Labour being predicted to have a landslide before the 2024 United Kingdom general election. WP:CRYSTAL needs to be taken into account here and I would rather leave putting down a candidate for the Democratic party until the DNC. Then it is undisputable and there is no maybes or buts about it.

  • "Avoid WP:THREATEN"

Highly ironic you put this down after being quite WP:UNCIVIL by implying that I am "stonewalling" because I disagree with you.

If you want my position on this, I would rather wait to the Democratic National Congress before adding a candidate, because one thing Wikipedia is certainly not is a poll tracker. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
And what does the WP:OTHERCONTENT British election have to do with the US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate. After the DNC (though current news based, likely within the next few days based on a virtual roll call before August 7th) she won't be the presumptive, but the confirmed candidate.
I didn't imply anything, please remember to WP:AGF when interacting with other editors. I simply linked to a useful explanatory essay on when and when we may not remove content that is being discussed when a certain outcome appears to be currently favored during the discussion, such is the case here.
I then simply reminded you to please avoid to cast WP:ASPERSIONS. Raladic (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
You don't know what will happen at the DNC though, and nobody does accurately. There are plenty of things that could happen to Harris between now and August 7th, and a source isn't going to predict that.

  • "I didn't imply anything"
Textbook WP:ICANTHEARYOU behaviour. If you didn't imply anything, I wouldn't have flagged it. At this point I have shown full WP:AGF and never accused you yourself of casting aspersions, throughout the discussion, as opposed to you stating I am exhibiting status quo stonewalling, so i will now ask again what authority do you have in ruling on a consensus after clearly expressing support for one side?

  • "US election that has a specific use for presumptive candidate, not winner, candidate"
Where is this specific use from? Name the policy.
I don't think you have really got what I am trying to push across to you from this discussion, so here is a simple question: Is Harris the current Democratic Party leader, even in a de facto capacity? If yes, how? What about candidates such as Michelle Obama getting higher approval ratings against Trump[11]? There are so many things here that could change and making this page like a poll tracker is going to open up a massive can of worms that could be bypassed by simply waiting for the DNC to confirm. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps this should be brought to the Dispute resolution noticeboard? We're getting a lot of hot collars and are at an impasse. BOTTO (T•C) 21:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Probably. I did take this to RFPP the other day and the user who reviewed didn't think it was to the level of requiring FULL, plus there are good edits being made outside of the infobox situation. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
While I don't believe the article should be Goldlocked, we should at least semi-protect the talk page to prevent IPs from talking since they are adding too many sections that contain pointless topics in them. Qutlooker (talk) 23:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Not seeing that much evidence of topics breaking the rules. If it does, then we can get RFPP to lock the talk page a bit. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Thinking about it some more, there are multiple users who would likely be parties at DRN and I am less certain that would work out. Maybe we need a formal RfC rather than a discussion turned survey. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The issue with an RFC is that this issue will resolve itself soon. But something along the lines of it is needed, but it would need to be quick. @Raladic has decided to avoid participating in the discussion further despite being asked to respond by myself, something which is not helpful here. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 04:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't reply because I am not obligated to WP:SATISFY you.
The removal of well source information has stopped a day ago, so it appears an WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS has formed, so at this point, this thread is just rehashing of the above existing discussion. Raladic (talk) 05:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
You aren't obligated to satisfy me, but you are required to discuss and I asked you what authority you had to decide what way the consensus is (whether it was no consensus or something else) since you are involved - and it since you can't answer that, the answer is you have none to decide consensus. Dispute resolution is probably on the menu, but the biggest thing that can be done to solve is have a neutral editor who has not participated in the discussion to have a look at the discussion. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 05:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
To just focus on the RfC part, per RFCEND: An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent that it won't be & If one of the reasons to end RfCs applies, someone should end it manually, as soon as it is clear the discussion has run its course. Our deadline would be August 6th, so just under two weeks. If you prefer dispute resolution though, then feel free to go that route. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" should also be another Arbitration Remedy

Seeing the recent talk page discussions on edits, I believe this is something that should be implemented as another restriction. Comments? Qutlooker (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

We have multiple different ways on how we achieve consensus, whether it be through editing, which may include reversions (on this article by different editors due to the 1RR restriction in place), or discussion.
Forcing any editing disagreement to become a talk page discussion can sometimes needlessly slow things down, which is why instead we have WP:1RR which avoids the same editor making multiple reversions (or face a block from the page/Wikipedia).
This works quite well across Wikipedia, but if you want to propose changes to AE remedies, you should ask for feedback at WP:Villagepump or start an WP:RfC instead more centrally, rather than on this talk page here per WP:NOTFORUM. Raladic (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris portrait

For the picture of Harris in the infobox and elsewhere, should we use a more recent picture of her or her official vice-presidential portrait? Punker85 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I think a more recent picture of her should be used since it would be more representative of her current appearance than the 3 year old vice-presidential portrait Punker85 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm strongly opposed to this. There needs to be some consistency. We were fine with Joe's portrait being used (which is the same year Harris's portrait was taken). If we were fine with Joe, we should be fine for Kamala's official portrait. Plus, her appearance did not change that drastically between 2021 to today IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agree completely, Her Vice Presidential portrait is the best representation of her. It's the same as how Trump's 2017 portrait is used for the 2020 election. And should she win it'll be changed to her official Presidential Portrait, same as Trump. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    Exactly. If Trump's 2017 portrait was good enough for 2020, then there's no reason why Kamala's 2021 portrait isn't good enough for 2024. Three years isn't enough to warrant a change. Plus, the argument that Joe's portrait should be kept because he's the incumbent president (see Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries), but not Kamala's doesn't make sense since she's the incumbent VP and the portraits were taken in the same year. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    (+ @Punker85:) So the way I understand it, some of this comes down to copyright. The Vice-Presidential and Presidential portraits are government created, making them Public Domain. (At least in this case.) Public Domain images are wonderful on Wikipedia as they allow us to have an image that we should not be sued over. In the case of Trump, that image was taken in 2023. Thanks to the photographer's licensing, we have been able to use it as a suitable image that complies with copyright issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed; should Harris win and get a presidential portrait, that should become her infobox picture (which will be in 2025, closer to 2024 than the 2021 picture). Dingers5Days (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

"Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860."

@RaySwifty18 "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860." You mean one full term right? Alexysun (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

So what? He and Trump are both so old they should not be running at all. It's good he dropped out. Now Trump should do it. Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment to prevent running after 70. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It's a poorly-written sentence that needs revising, at a minimum.
First off, I'm in agreement that it should read "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one full term since 1880", on account of LBJ serving a little over a year of JFK's first term, running for and winning the 1964 Presidential election, then deciding not to run in 1968.
Secondly,1880 seems like a rather odd & arbitrary year to use as a comparison point. 1880 isn't exactly a defining election for the Presidency, like, say, 1912 (with Teddy splitting the Republican vote between him and Taft, and handing the Presidency to Wilson), or 1932, where FDR is elected and redefines the Modern Presidency. It's also not the first election where a Democrat was elected to the Presidency, or an election where a Democrat was elected at all - a Democrat isn't elected to the office until 1884, which is further complicated by Grover Cleveland's non-consecutive terms of office. I mean, there wasn't even a Constitutional ban on more than two terms in office until 1951. I'm sure this has to do with what the source originally says, but if that's the case, then I'll just say it's too poorly written to use in the article.
I get what the sentence is trying to convey: that's it's been a really, really long time since a President hasn't stood for reelection in his first term. But as is, the sentence is insufficiently conveying the that fact.
If kept, and not deleted, I'd rewrite it to convey something along the lines of "This is the first time an incumbent President hasn't sought reelection since 1964, when LBJ (etc. etc.)."
Might be some worth to mentioning the last time a Democrat incumbent chose not to run for reelection (LBJ, 1964) and the last time a Republican did so (Coolidge, 1928). Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 18:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
The lead of Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election states this far better than I can.
Biden was the first incumbent president since Lyndon B. Johnson in 1968 to withdraw from the race, the first since the 19th century to withdraw after serving only one term,[a] and the first ever to withdraw after already winning the primaries.[1][3] Northern-Virginia-Photographer (talk) 19:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Klassen, Thomas (July 21, 2024). "Biden steps aside, setting in motion an unprecedented period in American politics". The Conversation. Archived from the original on July 22, 2024. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  2. ^ Gendler, Alex (July 23, 2024). "US presidents who did not seek reelection". Voice of America. Archived from the original on July 24, 2024. Retrieved July 24, 2024.
  3. ^ Kenning, Chris; Samuelsohn, Darren. "'It's unprecedented': Biden's exit is a history-making moment in the American presidency". USA Today. Archived from the original on July 25, 2024. Retrieved July 23, 2024.

Left leaning Bias in the article

There are a large number of things which I find to be left leaning.

1. The hateful rhetoric of both sides is not represented equally. While the heated aggressive rhetoric of Trump is mentioned, the rhetoric of the Democrats ,who have referred to Trump as a dictator or Hitler is not present in the article , is not mentioned in the article at all. The heated rhetoric from the right alone is mentioned in the article.

2. The change in the number of illegal immigrants during both presidencies should be shown. In this article, the reduction of immigration during Joe Biden's presidency alone is shown while in comparison to Trump's immigration rate, Biden's rate would be very high.

There are many other left leaning biases which I will leave up to the discussion. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is late July in the year of the election, so it seems pretty obvious that people have already come up with "the article is too biased against Biden/Harris/Trump/Kennedy/etc", e.g. I don't think this is a particularly actionable complaint without some reason why previous discussions on the subject have been inadequate. jp×g🗯️ 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I would also observe that, being illegal, it is clearly going to be impossible to know how many illegal immigrants have crossed the border at any time, (even though Trump supporters seem to be 100% certain) so any claims on that front must surely be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@User:HiLo48 The official number of immigrants noted by the government can be used or cited. Or the number of immigrants observed by each side can be mentioned which will introduce neutrality as currently only the fact that the Biden administration has reduced the number of immigrants crossing the border compared to last three years has been mentioned while the immigration rate of this administration compared to the Trump's administration is high which is not mentioned in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
How can a number of illegals possibly be known? HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@HiLo48 The illegal immigrants are counted when the border patrol agents encounter them at the southern border and US customs and border protection (CBP) releases the data annually or sometimes monthly. Obviously the real number will be higher than the official count but still the official numbers are required to give the readers a perspective about it. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a perfect example of synthesis to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Prove it with facts JohseTheUnknown (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is US CBP's Enforcement statistics.
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG If there were previous discussions on this subject, then it appears to me that they were ineffective in achieving neutrality by showing all views of the subject. As I have mentioned using some examples which indicate the bias towards left, I think that the previous discussions on the subject are inadequate. I have made credible reasons as to why the subject is biased and does not show all views. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@JPxG If there were previous discussions on this subject, then it appears to me that they were ineffective in achieving neutrality by showing all views of the subject. As I have mentioned using some examples which indicate the bias towards left, I think that the previous discussions on the subject are inadequate. I have made credible reasons as to why the subject is biased and does not show all views. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It was Trump who said he would be a "dictator on day one", which this article includes. What Democrats are calling him "Hitler"? Doing a Google search for that, all I come up with is JD Vance calling him "America's Hitler". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
@Muboshgu That's true and should be included but there are also Democratic officials who also claimed that Trump is Hitler and they should also be included. In the case of JD Vance, he has retracted that statement but the others have not yet done it. This information should be included to provide neutrality in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Which Democrats? Provide sources please. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is a list of Democrats/democrat supporting organization which compares Trumps's rhetoric to Hitler.
https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/james-clyburn-trump-hitler-comparison/index.html
https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-that-s-hitler-s-language-biden-and-harris-slam-trump-over-unified-reich-ad-211392069957
https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immigrant-comments-hitler-mein-kampf-poisoning-blood-rcna130251
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4774363-democratic-campaigns-trump-hitler/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slGr9UEv5hw
My original goal was to point out that Trump's rhetoric is displayed, while all other's rhetoric is not. Both sides have made hateful rhetoric of the other and both should be displayed. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Here is a prominent one few days before the assassination attempt.
https://newrepublic.com/series/37/trump-2024-american-fascism-series JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
You seem to be comparing things Trump has said to what "any person opposed to Trump" says. It would certainly be appropriate to include comments made by Harris, but if we get into the comments of proxies and advocates, that would violate WP:UNDUE. Also, this would not benefit your side; see for example the MAGA candidate for governor in North Carolina advocating to kill political opponents.[12] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Comments made by Harris should be added. I understand that due to the recent change in the Democratic Nominee, the comments of Harris have not been added yet. But considering the political landscape, it would be better to include the views of each party's prominent members and thus possibly informing people about it through a neutral viewpoint and possibly reducing political tension among them. Also, I didn't try to approach this issue through the Republican side but through a neutral view point. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
See WP:NOTAFORUM Qutlooker (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I am fairly certain that I have a neutral point of view. If you found anything that is not neutral, could you reply with appropriate sources JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
How is comparing Trump to Hitler hateful? They are genuinely concerned at what MAGA has said and done. It's nowhere near as hateful as Trump saying immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our country" Jayson (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
This discussion is not primarily about comparing Trump to Hitler but the non-representation of the comments of Harris and Democrats, which include calling Trump Hitler, a threat to democracy, racist, etc. This view of the Democrats is considered as being false or hateful by about half of US population because they say that there are no objective facts to prove it. Thus, to represent both the views in a neutral point of view, the comments and view of Harris and Democrats should be mentioned in the article irrespective of your views.
Also, Trumps said that Illegal immigrants are"poisoning the blood of our country"
Even this article does not mention the fact that he is talking about illegal immigrant, which is an important distinction. This is also an example of left-wing bias which disregards the original facts and follows mainstream left-wing media to change the words of right. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 02:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
A previous discussion on "Left-Wing Bias" was closed for the reason I mentioned Qutlooker (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Alr good. Close this one Jayson (talk) 23:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Bias in Presidential Candidate Portrayal

There is already a similar discussion going on above regarding “liberal bias”. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

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.

While I agree with the vast majority of content in this article, I have found that some parts of the page display a degree of bias, primarily from the standpoint of an American Democrat. I may agree with statements like "Trump's comments come as part of violent, dehumanizing rhetoric Trump has increasingly utilized during his campaign", they clearly display such bias, and the majority of US Republicans would strongly disagree with this statement. As such, this sentence should be stated as the opinion of whatever organization it was sourced from, or else removed in order to create a less biased account. I am not against the statement as a whole, simply its portrayal as an objective statement agreed upon by the majority of readers. Nalixar (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

While we should obviously be careful about assigning "weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence in reliable sources, if Trump is using "violent, dehumanizing rhetoric" it is not biased for us to say so. It is in fact very unusual for recent elections in the developed role for a party to openly advocate for detention, deportation, and killing of the internal population of ethnic undesirables and political opponents. Fair and honest coverage of Trump will look bad to reasonable people because Trump is a bad guy. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:25, 27 July 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.

Are Swing States trivia?

I added swing states to the lead, someone with a potential conflict of interest in the article removed it, saying the matter of swing states is 'trivia'. Are swing states a key aspect of the election or are they trivia? Tom B (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

It is my understanding that they are key. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It was unsourced content; all claims on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. There is general agreement on some states being “swing”, but also some disagreement. For example, some forecasts say Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada are tossups, while others say they are lean R. Regardless, it is common practice on Wikipedia to add information to the body before we even consider adding it to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It was already added to the body with a source, and therefore does not need a source in the lead, Tom B (talk) 11:20, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Why did your edit summary say the issue of swing states was trivia @Prcc27? Tom B (talk) 11:21, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax discussion

There is currently a WP:AE discussion going on here. Prcc27 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden's COVID-19 diagnosis

The article currently states: "Following a widely-panned debate performance against Donald Trump on June 27, 2024 and a COVID-19 diagnosis in mid-July, Biden announced on July 21 that he would withdraw from the presidential race, allowing the Democratic Party to choose a new candidate."

It seems misleading to mention Biden's COVID diagnosis in this sentence, as if the COVID diagnosis was a major factor in his decision to withdraw, which I don't think any reliable sources have claimed. Hominid77777 (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Concur. There's a SYNTHY case to be made that he was sidelined for a long time at a crucial point which accentuated concerns about his health, but that's not in the RS. Separately, It is likewise misleading to suggest that debate performance led him to withdraw. It was the campaign to push him out (which in turn derived from the debate performance) that did that. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The main thing I see tying the two together was apparently a statement from an interview that "he would only consider dropping out of the presidential race with Mr Trump if he was told to do so because of a medical condition." Might be relevant, but it likely is better to remove given there isn't much from sources about his Covid diagnosis tied to his campaign. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 July 2024

wikilink age and health concerns of Biden where already written in second paragraph of lede. MattFry7 (talk) 04:48, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done Left guide (talk) 05:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Election date

Cyrobyte, it's absurd to list the election date as December in the infobox.

While it's technically true, it's not the general understood sense of the phrase "election day". I'm pretty certain that all previous US presidential elections have the November date, not the December date, in their respective infoboxes (aside from the 2020 United States presidential election article, which you changed). David O. Johnson (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is absurd to include both the actual date the president is elected and the date of the general election of the electors. I don't think that we should omit the actual date just because the public doesn't understand how the election actually works. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Look at the language that the US Constitution uses when discussing the presidential election:
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. [...] The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.
The electoral college election in December is the actual election. The November election is just an election in each state and DC to elect the electors. The constitution clearly says that the state legislatures can appoint electors in any manner they want. The average person is not aware of this because they are not educated, so they think that the actual election takes place on November 5. Why not just put both dates in? Cyrobyte (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
This detail can be added to the second graph under the "Procedure" where it is already mentioned. The lede should only note November, and I assure you that you will not find consensus here to modify that. I'll assume you are acting in good faith, but saying December is "the actual date" is creeping into Stop the Steal conspiracy territory. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The indirect election on November 5 is an actual election for president; on that date millions will vote for president (using the indirect process). Every reliable source is going to identify November 5 as the election day. A footnote might be appropriate, but it shouldn't say that the November election is not "actual." -- JFHutson (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
In the most technical sense the election of the president does occur in December, with the election ultimately being indirect. However no reliable sources describe it this way. They pretty much uniformally treat the election of electors in November as the actual election, with the subsequent vote in December being a mere formality, confirming the result which was determined in November. The fact that the election is technically indirect is not enough of a reason to depict the election day as being in December. Instead, this can be explained elsewhere in the article, namely in the lead and the procedure section. Gust Justice (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I believe in 2020 we had a footnote in the projected electoral vote field which clarified that the electors vote in December, and that the election is certified on January 6th. We should do something similar this November. But in the meantime, I am open to a footnote explaining when the electors vote in the election date field. Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Fox News projections?

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

@Prcc27 Yes Buildershed (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
What is your reasoning for possibly continuing to use the Fox News Decision Desk? Prcc27 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
They're generally not reliable. But the Decision Desk has substantially more autonomy than, say, WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS so I'm leaning against removing it. (Albeit not entirely.) KlayCax (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
They do not have enough autonomy, IMHO, per what I said above. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Even if there's lack of independence or bias in how they forecast the election: this is only really going to be a problem if we're basing it on how Wikipedia calls elections.
Otherwise, it's like saying that a projection from X (Nate Silver's model) doesn't have independence. For projections? I don't think it's a big deal. What's exactly the concern here?
The only time I can imagine this being a problem is if it influences Wikipedia coverage. KlayCax (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we need to redo how we call states for the purposes of Wikipedia. A "conservative" (in terms of calls) source like Reuters or New York Times seems best. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Associated press is the most basic and longstanding trusted source. 172.58.160.73 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I do not think we should use Reuters or NYT; that would be WP:UNDUE. We should stick to the major media organizations only, i.e. the National Election Pool (ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC) and AP VoteCast (AP only, Fox News [crossed out per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS]). If we want to be conservative about which states we call, we can simply implement a requirement that a state is not added until all major media organizations call a state. This is what we more or less did in 2020. We can worry about the criteria for adding a state later; right now, I just want to make sure we are all on the same page about Fox News being a no go. Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I assume there are a quantity of sources used? If Fox is unique in holding out for calling a state for Biden, we should absolutely ignore that and proceed. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
In 2020, the criteria for adding a state to the infobox and map was to wait until all major media outlets make a projection for that state. If we adopt the same criteria in 2024 (although that is still TBD), I absolutely agree with you that we should add a state’s electoral votes with or without Fox News’s blessing. Even if we move forward with a less strict criteria, I still think many users and readers will take Fox projections with a grain of salt, so maybe the best course of action is to avoid Fox projections altogether? There are plenty of other networks Wikipedia can rely on for election projections. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
As someone from the city with the proud history of having given Rupert Murdoch to the world, I can say that I trust his media outlets 100% with the football scores. I don't think he has ever let us down there. Beyond that, no. We should stick to policy and ignore anything Fox News say on the election. And before anyone asks, no, we don't want him back thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I also do not think that we should use Fox News projections. The entire network is a deliberately extremely unreliable and divisive propagandistic and manipulative extremist hate-machine. David A (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Again, this is not a policy matter, nor is it taking it as a reliable source. The proposal is simply to list their forecast of the election. WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS doesn't apply here.
Independence of the Fox News Decision Desk is much less of a concern when it revolves around forecasts. The vast majority of reliable sources include their forecasts, among others. Hard to say there's an issue.
I don't like Fox News either but I'm struggling to see what the deal is. KlayCax (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
How do we know Fox News isn’t going to tell their Decision Desk which states they should and shouldn’t make a projection for? I used to at the very least trust their Decision Desk, but now I have less faith in them after they were influenced by the network executives in 2020. I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Fox News Decision Desk is “independent” from the entire outlet as a whole. Prcc27 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
KlayCax, either you or I have misinterpreted Prcc27's request here. A "forecast" is what they do now. A "projection" is what they do after the polls close. My understanding is Prcc27 wants to remove Fox from the list of sources that we are using to confirm a candidate has won a state on November 5th. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies then. Wasn't sure what the intention was. I'm alright with that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. I think the Fox News forecasts should remain in the Electoral College Projections section.
I would support "[removing the Fox News Decision Desk] from the list of sources that we are using to confirm a candidate has won a state on November 5th."
We don't have to reuse the standard done in 2020. KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it could be worth to mention it, but of course if one network makes a call, and others dispute it, then it should not be solely used. I think this is rather common sense - as you want multiple networks to make a call before going ahead.
There's always a possibility of Fox breaking precedent, or weird deja vu 2000 scenarios occurring and I don't think it should be ignored either, as states can have their results contested for a week, or up to a month. I doubt this will be the last we will hear of this discussion. Borifjiufchu (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Democracy

In the Democracy section we have "Kennedy and Trump have claimed that Joe Biden is a threat to democracy". No reason is given for this claim. It looks like nothing more than unsubstantiated political rhetoric. Is it meant to look like this, or did the accusers actually give reasons for their allegations that we haven't reported? HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is weird and shortened it in half to try and reduce the WP:Undue it had. I would support deleting Superb Owl (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Biden dropping out is even more reason to remove those sentences from the article entirely. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Is it meant to look like this, or did the accusers actually give reasons for their allegations that we haven't reported? So what happened was that BootsED added it to the article back in April as the following: Speaking on Erin Burnett OutFront, Kennedy said that President Biden poses a bigger threat to democracy than does Donald Trump. Trump has claimed that Joe Biden is the "destroyer" and real threat to democracy, and has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him, of which there has been no evidence. (First edit, Second edit) That was how it was until a few hours ago when Superb Owl above edited it to: Kennedy and Trump have claimed that Joe Biden a threat to democracy, while Trump has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him. (Recent edit) In short, a recent edit gave it much more attention and the point seems moot given Prcc27's reply. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
It was a long time ago but if my memory serves it was added in to address balance concerns. If the consensus is to remove it I have no objection. BootsED (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Excessively bold edits

Maybe it's just me, but in an article with so much activity on the talk page and so many potentially partisan editors quibbling over individual sentences, WP:CAREFUL should be in play. I don't think anyone should be striking multiple well cited paragraphs[13] without discussion here. The material stricken here is generally accurate and relevant to the section. If we need to tweak, that's fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph has been restored and tweaked to address some of the concerns, including mismatches between sources and the text, WP:Verifiability issues and tense issues Superb Owl (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Silver Bulletin forecast

I want to see some consensus before I try and implement this because it will probably take time to fiddle with that chart, but what do you all think of adding the Silver Bulletin forecast by Nate Silver to the forecast chart? [14] R. G. Checkers talk 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Silver Bulletin was already added to the article as far as polling aggregation. If we do add them for forecasts, someone will likely have to subscribe, as the state forecasts are usually paywalled. Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I’m subscribed R. G. Checkers talk 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I do not oppose adding Silver Bulletin. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Last sentence should be stricken. (47th president)

We don't actually know if the 2024 election will result in the 47th president and 50th Vice-President, a lot can happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden is the 46th president who is no longer in the running. No matter who wins, it'll result in the 47th president and 50th vice president being elected. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Again not true, until Biden officially leaves office on January 20th 2025, at the swearing in of the next president, we won't know who the 47th president and 50th vice president will be. A lot can still happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed theoretically possible that, e.g., Biden resigns or dies, making Harris the 47th president before January, and then Harris loses the election and the winner becomes the 48th president. BD2412 T 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, it's like saying the winner of the 2028 election will result in the 48th president, we don't know that. Especially with how crazy America politics can get. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh now I get it. I thought you were questioning the order in the event if it's Biden leaving office on 1/20/2025. Well, I support with your sentiment that anything could happen from this point until 1/20/2025. I'm inclined to keep the sentence as it's based of what we know now, but I could understand the opposing arguments. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
We could add some qualifying language, then, e.g., "assuming Biden and Harris serve in their current offices until the end of their current terms". BD2412 T 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Not necessarily. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
As I'm aware on Wikipedia it is procedure not to be presumptive about future events, as an example the winner of the 2024 election being sworn in as the 47th President. We don't know for sure if that will happen, although it is likely, just like it is likely that the 2028 election will result in the 48th president being sworn in(Although much less so). Regardless 6 months is an eternity in American politics. Given the fact that Biden is of advanced age, and we're in a very tumultuous political time, where both political leaders seem to be in danger of political violence, it's definitely not set in stone. Hell Biden might even resign just to guarantee the first female president, we really don't know. Just like in 2020, there was a real chance that Trump could have gotten Impeached and removed from office, making Biden the 47th president. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
If I were to say the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games will occur later today, that would be predicting the future. There may be a terrorist attack or alien invasion in the intervening period that causes a delay or cancellation (or the end of all life on Earth). WP has a policy that specifically says that we can presume certain future events that are "almost certain to take place." The likelihood of an 80 year old man dying in the next year is about 7%. Inauguration day is in just 6 months, and Biden will have access to the best care in the meantime. And being that he is no longer an active politician and of an advanced age, his exposure to risky events like public rallies will be quite low. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
There's a difference between an event that's 1 day away, vs an event that's 6 months away. Again using that argument, it's like saying, prior to Joe Biden dropping out, the 48th President will be sworn in on January 20th, 2029. Is that likely to happen in that scenario? Yes. Is it guaranteed? no. Trump got impeached twice and nearly assassinated. Many reports have suggested Biden get removed due to the 25th amendment, his health is a big question mark. He might even resign. Again all reasonable hypotheticals, not alien invasions. The odds of a terrorist attack or alien invasion preventing the Olympics is so small that that's such a straw man it's ridiculous. (How many Alien invasions prevented the Olympics historically?). Compare that with a series of presidential assassinations or attempts, president's dying in office, president's being impeached, removed or just resigning. I'm sure everyone thought Nixon would be re-elected, until he wasn't. If Trump loses for example, he could stage major political violence. We really don't know. If this was 20 years ago it would be a more reasonable assumption. This is one of the most volatile political times in American history. It would also be reasonable if this was a month prior to the inauguration, during a lame duck session, where everyone has accepted the results. At this junction in history it is far from a guarantee. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright to use 47th prez & 50th vice prez, as long as nothing unexpected happens. Otherwise, we'd simply change the numberings. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I remember a while back when Newsom beat Cox I wrote that the winner would be the 40th Governor of California, and they where pretty adamant not to make such a statement until the winner was sworn in, and that was a lot less of a contentious race and pretty much a guaranteed victory for Newsom. I don't get the "implying that nothing unexpected happens". The event hasn't happened yet, the nominee of the Democratic party hasn't even been decided, there is no rule that the 47 president and 50th vice president will be sworn in, after the 60th presidential election of the United States. It's not like a sporting competition where you can guarantee that the team that beats the other team in the final will be (XXX) champions. They're so many political scenarios that can take place until then. If this is the case, and assuming Trump wins (Which is probably 50-50 proposition at this point). Why not just start already assuming that the 48th president will be sworn in on January 20th, 2029? That won't be done because people realize that maybe in 4 years time a lot could happen. In 5 months time, a lot still could happen. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
If/until the unexpected occurs? there's nothing that requires changing. PS - IP 68, will you please indent your posts correctly & sign your posts correctly? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Permission to edit this page?

I’m a Wikipedia editor who joined a few years ago, and I have contributed to multiple pages, when can I be granted access to edit this page. I pledge that I never vandalize under any circumstances. SmashingThreePlates (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This article is subject to extended confirmed protection. Access to edit pages under this protection is automatically granted to users being at least 30 days old and having 500 edits. You currently have made 158 edits (see here[15]). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
You can make an edit request on the talk page if you wish to suggest changes. See WP:ER for more details and make sure a request follows WP:EDITXY if you do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

The Roll Call has happened today

Should we remove the word presumptive from Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris has won the roll call today. Alhanuty (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already updated the infobox; here's a source for it. [16]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Per this CBS source [17], Harris won't accept the nomination until voting closes on Monday. I think we should wait until it's official. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We removed “presumptive” from Trump before he formally accepted his nomination (even though I argued we should have waited for him to accept it). I think we added him only after every delegate had voted, so we should be able to remove it on Monday, regardless of when Harris will be formally accepting the nomination (if we want to be consistent). Prcc27 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Prcc27. –yeagvr · ✉ 18:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
We may want to go ahead with it before Monday, if it's clear she is now the nominee, or we might have a weekend of edit-warring back and forth again by various editors on the articles. Related, there's already another edit request at Talk:Kamala Harris#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024 and I'm sure it won't be the last. Raladic (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not official until voting closes, though. I'd rather have some edits that need to be undone than put inaccurate information in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It is also similar to how we handle the infobox for when states are called since they are not called by media organizations until voting has concluded in a state. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Let's wait until the delegates vote at the Democratic National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Just to ask, what would be the benefit of doing so? My understanding is that this is the official roll call for the DNC's presidential nomination. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Folks, the DNC has said she has the nomination. [18] Reliable sources all say its official. [19] There are no other candidates. It's done. I'm removing presumptive now. Editors here saying they want to wait for some future date need to rationalize why with sources; we are not going to go by vibes. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted the edit.
That linked AP ref says "She’s looking to officially claim the nomination on Monday evening when the DNC is expected to release final results."
The WaPo ref says the same thing:"“I will officially accept your nomination next week, once the virtual voting period is closed,” Harris said on a live stream as delegates continued to cast ballots. “But already I’m happy to know we have enough delegates to secure the nomination.” The process officially continues through Monday, despite the foregone conclusion."
Please see the previous discussion here. [20]
I can't get the section link to work, but it's the right page.
Let's not jump ahead of the sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
She can "officially accept" whenever she wants; That's not the same thing as officially being the nominee. Even if you were right on the technicality (which you are not), you are now editing purely to make a pedantic point. It is disruptive. Please stop. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Why should we do things any differently than what we did for Trump? Even when Trump had a majority of delegate votes, we waited for every delegate to vote before we removed “presumptive”. Is Kamala Harris the official nominee? No? Then that must mean she is still presumptive by definition, right? Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think we waited for every delegate based on this edit. The source in the edit summary says Trump announced the choice just ahead of the Ohio delegation’s roll call vote on the convention floor. Shortly after the announcement, Trump officially became the nominee with Florida’s roll call.
Still, I don't think we should remove the presumptive part until the roll call concludes on Monday. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Based on the time stamp of that edit and the time when the vote concluded, I believe we did in fact wait for the voting to conclude. [21] Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha. Then I am mistaken. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Is now the official nominee

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 *presumptive* needs to be removed John Bois (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait until the delegates vote at the Convention. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
See #The Roll Call has happened today for discussion about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:56, 4 August 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.

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.

This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here.

He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.)

As @GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong.
For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
What's an RFC? A "Request for comment" or "Robert Fried Chicken?" Or is it "Robert F**kin' Chennedy?" —SquidHomme (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
The first. The RfC referenced is RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1) which closed with the following criteria: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and [a] candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
There is no source whatsoever claiming Kennedy has made the ballot in Oklahoma, and even you didn’t include it in your list. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we resolved this by saying to wait for the Kennedy campaign article to say he is at 270 before dealing with the finer details. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @David O. Johnson:. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
He doesn't.
The Arizona ref you linked says,
"Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval."
They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Please stop? GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
They have not been. According to the states presented, Kennedy has access to 263 electoral votes. California has 54, Florida has 30, Utah has 6, Arizona has 11, Colorado has 10, New Mexico has 5, Texas has 40, Mississippi has 6, Georgia has 16, South Carolina has 8, North Carolina has 16, Tennessee has 11, Delaware has 3, Indiana has 11, Michigan has 15, Iowa has 6, and Minnesota has 10. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1
The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Yep, it is going to be a problem. Though, some of it might be resolvable by the Secretary of State in those locations where they show who is on the ballot. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, I did some more searching and CBS News also lists him as qualifying in Tennessee, so it seems to check out. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, could you update the ref on the page where the CA SOS has certified the AIP?
I found an LA Times source here [22] that stated that it still had to be certified, but that was back in April.
I changed RFK's status in California to pending certification based on that, but if you find otherwise, please feel free to revert.
Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for delay in response. I was going by the primary source here[23] which lists AIP among a small number of qualified political parties. It may get into some WP:OR to SYNTH this with AIP saying RFK is their man. But I think that by the spirit of the RFC, he is on the ballot in California. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
This still does not change the fact that these states DO NOT add up to 270, they add up to 263. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy has fulfilled the requirements necessary to be eligible for over 400 electoral votes, and there is absolutely no basis for believing that he will have access to less than 270 votes. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to exclude him at the present time apart from personal bias.
To be clear, I will not be voting for Kennedy. However, the media has shown that he is absolutely a major candidate (along with the Secret Service who, themselves saying that they only provide protection to major candidates, have now provided protection to Kennedy). To exclude him at this time would be grossly negligent and biased. 2600:100C:B237:2882:79C7:ECFA:C30E:7A01 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This is not accurate and who you vote for isn't relevant in any way. We don't care. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
I do care! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy has applied for more than 400, but as of now, he does not have enough to reach 270. When he does, we should add him. However, at this time, if we are including the states that are disputed, Kennedy has qualified for 263. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
When he does, we should add him. Provided the 5% criteria is satisfied if he does. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
The criterion established in the RfC was ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes - I don't think the polling criterion is being widely debated here as it's pretty clearly met. According to our own article, which I don't disagree is not a appropriate source, he is only confirmed on the ballot in states comprising a total of 203 electors. While we shouldn't be using our own article on his campaign as a source, it makes zero sense to try and decide something different here than we are on that article, as that article is the main topic for his campaign. If there isn't reliable sourcing to justify us including the state(s) in question on his campaign's article, we shouldn't be using them to determine whether he's in the infobox here. I agree with others that no matter what his campaign/sources have stated we should not consider him to have "ballot access" until the petitions are actually certified and he is confirmed on the ballot. I do disagree with some others that there is any one criteria for ballot access that matters - whether or not he got ballot access on his own as an independent or by being the nominee of a party guaranteed ballot access by state law - he has ballot access in either of those cases and that state's electoral votes can count. But he does not yet have that access confirmed in 270 electoral votes worth of states. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Proposal The New York Times[24] and The Hill[25] seem to be keeping track of ballot access in an editorially responsible way. Nevertheless, there are discrepancies: NYT gives him CA & HI, where The Hill has SC, NV, and FL. I would like to suggest that we give him credit for either, with the rational being that adding a state to these trackers is a discreet act. Either RS could omit a state through negligence, but neither would add a state negligently. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I think bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez got it right by saying we should wait until at least his campaign's article shows he has 270. Then we can try to determine what is reliable enough regarding the discrepancies. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
What the NYT and the Hill say does not matter, the state's themselves publish lists of candidates as well. Once the certified number hits 270, as long as the sourcing is there it does not matter who it comes from.148.74.50.94 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Just wanted to point out that RFKJR is barely hovering above the 5% threshold. If he averages less than that, his ballot access status will become moot as far as the infobox is concerned. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I understand. I wish we could make an IAR request or second consensus on permitting an exception on this one due to many of the big polls being "funky" with third party candidates this time around. Rather that be some pollsters providing some respondents with the poll without Rfk Jr or others or polls having just the Republican and Democratic candidate by default and multiple respondents voluntarily (VOL) put RFK Jr or Cornell West, etc in.
Posted some evidence
https://imgur.com/a/Tl3Mr6u Buildershed (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
And yes I understand that this idea would have issues with Wikipedia policy Buildershed (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Nothing funky about the polling, IMO. Kamala Harris has been eating away at RFKJR.’s support in the polls. We don’t need to be making exceptions for any candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@Prcc27 Did you look at the evidence? Buildershed (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Obviously polls that exclude RFKJR are not included in the polling aggregates that include him. This really is a nonissue. Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It's up to polling agencies on who they want to include on their polls. We can't really make the call to disregard polls that exclude minor candidates. LV ✉ ✎ 22:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Running mate

Shouldn't we wait until Harris actually announces her running mate? GoodDay (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

No it’s confirmed by multiple reliable sources. 2600:4040:297C:8F00:92C:E3BF:7A49:BF35 (talk) 13:54, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Graphs in the aggregation section

I'm not a fan of the graphs in the aggregation section (which are pulled from Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, but I thought it would be better to discuss here). This is a picture created by one user (@Quinnnnnby:), so it isn't really itself cited. I have no reason to think they are not contributing in good faith. My concern is the chart doesn't reflect any specific data listed elsewhere on the page, and we cannot click through to identify/evaluate the source data. Essentially, these seems to me like just another aggregation, except it is by a Wikipedian and not a reliable source. There is also the issue of the data being aged. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@GreatCaesarsGhost If my methodology is not clear, please let me know. The graph uses all polls uploaded onto this page with a LOESS formula, as happens for many other countries' election pages, especially following the inbuilt wiki graphs ceasing to work.
I don't see why the US doesn't need a graph, especially when there was no objection to its introduction here. I would not be opposed to removing them from the main election page and moving it just to the opinion polling page if that is the issue.
Regards, Quinby (talk) 14:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It was not clear to me from looking at the chart that it sources data directly from the same article. Is there a way to note that, or am I being too pedantic? Is there a standard practice on other pages? In any case, this certainly addresses my concern. Thank you for your response. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
@GreatCaesarsGhost I'll put it in the description once I get a moment. Great to hear that has addressed the problems. Quinby (talk) 14:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Can Nicole Shanahan's portrait be fixed on the independent / We the People ticket?

For visual purposes, can someone with edit permissions upload Nicole's portrait and put it in the place of the running mate for the independent ticket alongside Kennedy? Sendbobspicspls (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

We have not as of yet identified a free image of her to upload. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:24, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Walz as presumptive nominee?

Walz’s Wikipedia page lists him as the presumptive vice presidential nominee, but this page does not give him the (presumptive) tag. Depends on WP:RS, but we should have consistency. Dingers5Days (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, thank you. Uwappa (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Aaaand it’s been reverted already. Did this page have Vance as presumptive in the period of time where he was named but not officially nominated? Dingers5Days (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Vance was “presumptive” until all of the delegates finished voting for VP. We should do the same for Walz. Prcc27 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
It seems like once Minyon Moore declares Walz the VP, that's it. [26]. There is still a ceremonial vote at the convention, as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with removing “presumptive” once that happens then, since the RNC and DNC rules seem to be different. Prcc27 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
The certification has occurred: [27] GreatCaesarsGhost 00:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources for this? Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Found one. [28] Prcc27 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

@Personisinsterest: Walz hasn't been nominated by the delegates yet, so why is the 'presumptive' designation being deleted from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Walz portrait

Does Tim Walz not have an official gubernatorial portrait that could be uploaded? There's this portrait on the Minnesota.gov website https://mn.gov/governor/about-gov/timwalz/ And I couldn't find an original source for this one https://www.reddit.com/r/minnesota/comments/132huyk/this_guy_is_officially_now_one_of_the_most_based/#lightbox GhulamIslam (talk) 14:57, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Generally, governors don't have official portraits in the same way congressmen do. That image would be good, but we need proof that's it's released under a Creative Commons license or in the public domain. Nojus R (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems to come from https://mn.gov/governor/newsroom/press-kit/, no license stated Cashewnøtt (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Commons:File:Governor Tim Walz at Bemidji Steel.jpg (and variants) seems to be acceptable. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Description of Biden’s debate performance as “poor” seems to be a subjective statement

The second paragraph has the line, “following a poor performance in the June 2024 presidential debate” referring to Biden’s performance in the debate. This seems to me to be a subjective statement which goes against WP:IMPARTIAL and WP:SUBJECTIVE. Cleebadee (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Widespread bipartisan opinions were that Biden performed poorly in the debate. But, what would your alternative be? "Following a debate that pundits called for Trump"? BOTTO (T•C) 16:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
"Following a debate that pundits called for Trump" sounds way better, coming from a Harris supporter. Sendbobspicspls (talk) 16:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
This construction ('following") suggests that Biden dropped out because of and immediately after the debate. He quite pointedly acknowledged his poor debate performance while refusing to drop out. It took nearly a month of growing criticism for him to drop. How about instead of "following a poor performance in the June 2024 presidential debate and increasing age and health concerns" we say "Biden's performance in the June 2024 presidential debate reignited concerns about his age and lead to a widespread calls for him to leave the race" GreatCaesarsGhost 16:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this as it solves the issue I pointed out and this new one presented. Cleebadee (talk) 16:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Done.[29] GreatCaesarsGhost 19:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris note

If she wins the election, she will become the first Democrat to be elected to succeed a fellow Democrat since James Buchanan became president in 1857.
Could this be added to the last paragraph of the Democratic Party section, where it notes she would become the first female, Asian American, and second African American president? GhulamIslam (talk) 12:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

I reckon so. GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I would oppose as trivial. Superlatives in general should only be invoked if they represent some underlying value (i.e. traditionally only white men were viable candidates for office). That no Democrat has been elected to succeed another in awhile is purely coincidental; it doesn't happen with Republicans often either! GreatCaesarsGhost 15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
A bit more often with Republicans, though. Grant & Hayes 1877, Hayes & Garfield 1881, T. Roosevelt & Taft 1909, Coolidge & Hoover 1929, Reagan & Bush 1989. Compared to Democrats, Jackson & Van Buren 1837, Pierce & Buchanan 1857. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
With one exception though, that was before the parties flipped ideologies. So it's actually more common in the left-wing party than the right. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I was surprised when I found out that the last time it happened with Democrats was before the Civil War, considering it happened comparatively recently with Reagan and Bush.
I suppose significance is subjective, for instance, Harris potentially becoming the second African American president feels trivial to me at this point, as Obama already broke that barrier, and there has been prominent African American candidates from both major parties in every election since: Herman Cain in 2012, Ben Carson in 2016, Cory Booker and Kamala Harris in 2020, and Tim Scott and Harris in 2024. Still, I understand why it's considered important by other people. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I'm against any superlatives based on events that haven't happened yet, i.e. "If Trump wins, he would be the first..." GreatCaesarsGhost 18:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Harry Truman succeeded FDR in 1948--he was elected as VP in 1944, succeeded FDR after he died in 1945, and won re-election at the top of the ticker in 1948 in what was considered a major upset. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
But it wasn't a Democrat elected to succeed a lameduck Democrat, concerning Truman. GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Right, Truman and LBJ were not elected at first, they ascended to the presidency because of the deaths of FDR and JFK. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:26, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
If the two parties had been consistent in their ideology throughout their history, then maybe it would be non-trivial as an example of “one side seems to be unable to be re-elected”.
But elections are not based on a party in the US - they are for a specific individual. There is no consensus in reliable, academic sources that there is any connection between the Democratic party being unable to be elected with two different candidates in a row and their policies/platform. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 19:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
As I understand it, Allan Lichtman's Keys to the White House model presents the election as a referendum on the party holding the presidency rather than the candidates. GhulamIslam (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Until recently, it was mentioned in the lead that if Trump wins, he would be the first president since Grover Cleveland to win a non-consecutive term. The sentence has since been moved to the Republican Party section, likewise the inclusion I'm asking for would be limited to the Democratic Party section that it concerns. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The source for that makes a connection to the current election. Do we have a reliable source talking about the Harris factoid as something significant for this election? — JFHutson (talk) 22:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

Change "lead" to "led" in the second sentence of the second paragraph, as below: ... However, Biden's performance in the June 2024 presidential debate intensified concerns about his age and led (not lead) to widespread calls within his party for him to leave the race. User136596 (talk) 22:19, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done - kinda... I've changed it to "and has lead", because I thought it reads better like that. MadGuy7023 (talk) 22:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

kennedy has 270 now

Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election

https://yapms.com/app/usa/presidential/2024/takeall?um=sim9adwx7zox3c8 Lukt64 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for informing us. RickStrate2029 (talk) 23:22, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Many citations and information in this article come from left-leaning The New York Times

According to [30]Media Bias Fact Check, The New York Times mostly posts articles that are "moderately left-leaning" and can require "further investigation". In my personal opinion, this goes against Wikipedia's "NPOV" (neutral point of view) rule. Also, as the 2024 elections near, this Wikipedia page could cause misinformation to be spread due to the independently reviewed findings of Media Bias Fact Check that TNYT also uses "loaded words" that "attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes". I vote for either new sources or this article needs the NPOV Dispute tag until further neutral sources can be added. Matiss o (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

What "neutral" sources do you suggest? HiLo48 (talk) 00:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I am but an avid Wikipedia editor, so I don't have anything yet; however, I thought the issue should be brought to attention as the article utilizes TNYT for literally every other source and with them being a left-leaning, although "reliable" source, there should be other valid and politically-correct opinions brought to the table. You and I both know CNN and TNYT are not the only "reliable" news outlets reporting on the 2024 election. There needs to be a wider diversity of sources in the article. Matiss o (talk) 01:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
NYT and CNN are biased, as every source is. They are still reliable. As for diversity of sources, you're welcome to add them in if they're reliable. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Nojus R (talk) 01:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
As per WP:NYT, the New York Times is generally reliable, and this has been determined as such by consensus; thus, it's inclusion in this article is certainly warranted, and there are no WP:NPOV violations by using it as a source. You can certainly add additional sources to support claims, as long as they pass WP:V (as per the list I linked earlier, WP:RSP; the NYT shortcut links directly to the section on it). Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Removal of Trump authoritarian statements in the lead

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.

An edit recently deleted three or four statements surrounding Donald Trump's indictments/(alleged) authoritarian statements in the lead. I think some form of these statements should be retained in the lead but I'm open to altering or trimming it.

What does everyone here think? KlayCax (talk) 09:47, 9 August 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.

trump dropped out of debate on abc

a 195.60.233.82 (talk) 16:02, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Added. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Trump is now offering to return to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to debate on Fox beforehand. Harris has not responded, so this should not be added yet. The Debate section should only list debates that have been agreed to by both sides. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Trump has agreed to do the ABC debate
[31] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
No, you're playing into his game. He has "agreed" (wink wink) to do several debates, with this new Fox debate first. Harris has not and likely will not go on the highly-biased Fox, and certainly not before Trump has participated in the ABC debate. So what happens now? From the article you provided: Asked what he will do if a Harris only agrees to the ABC debate, he said: “I don’t know how that’s gonna work out. We’d like to do three debates. We think we should do three debates.” He's already giving up the ruse. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
See coverage here [32] where the headline says "Trump and Harris agree to debate on ABC on September 10, network says" but the article notes that Trump has said "The other side has to agree to the terms. They may or may not agree." Further: Asked if she would be open to the other debates mentioned by Trump, Harris said: “I’m happy to have that conversation about an additional debate for after September 10th.” (emphasis mine). Harris has rejected the Fox debate for September 4 which Trump has as a condition for the Sept 10th ABC debate. Now, we can put all this business in the article, but I think it is UNDUE to list overtures and negotiations. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I get it now. Trump hasn't yet agreed to do the ABC debate (despite the title of the article). Thanks for the clarification. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Criteria for Third Party Candidates to be Included in Polling Graph

I think we have to establish some level of guidelines with the polling graph and who should/shouldn't be included.

Currently it's Trump, Harris, Kennedy, Stein, and West. If Stein and West are going to be included, Oliver should be added as well. I also have reservations about including West at all due to his limited ballot access (Terry and De La Cruz have both filed to be on more ballots).

I have no intentions to edit the polling graph though, so I'd love to hear what other people think. RickStrate2029 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Polling includes west, but not oliver. I dont know why, but they do. Lukt64 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Lukt64 Do Oliver instead of west. He's got way more ballot access Jayson (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The polls themselves (which we don't run since we're wikipedia editors lmao) tend to include West and not include Oliver, idk why. RickStrate2029 (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump's criminal conviction

In the third paragraph the article touches on Trump's legal troubles but the information appears wrong. The civil fraud case was not a criminal case. And if the article mentions him being found liable of sexual abuse and civil fraud, it should definitely mention him being convicted on 34 counts of a felony. 2601:548:C200:41E0:F7FA:270C:C602:1D30 (talk) 04:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's start another argument

An edit war may have begun on whether or not Kennedy meets the the criteria for infobox inclusion set here. @Rhian2040: was first to add him to the infobox, while @Unknown-Tree: reverted their edits, stating "RFK has *not* been above 5% consistently, look at the graph and the aggregators in the Harris-Trump-Kennedy section". The edit was then reverted by @David O. Johnson:, who said "RFK is right around 5%, per the RFC, "generally polls at 5% or above", which is not an absolute". What does everyone think? Does RFK clearly poll generally at 5% or above, or is it a discussion to be had? Nojus R (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

I think RFK polls close enough to meet the threshold, hitting 5% more often than not. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
He generally polls at about 5%, and in some polling reaches 10, 15, or 20% Lukt64 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
There has not been a single poll since Biden's withdrawal that shows him at or above 11%, so those later two numbers are just wrong and the 10% number is barely correct. In the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
RFK almost always polls >5%, so yes he meets the criterion. RickStrate2029 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Aggregators do not show that he's consistently polling above 5%, as can be seen at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election#Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. You can see this at his polling is also falling, as can be seen in the graph (which goes below 5%!). As I said in my edit summary, I do not believe he should be included in the infobox. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree: He is not consistently polling above 5% and actually his polling numbers are consistently going down ever since Kamala has became the Democratic Party's nominee. No need for him to be in the infobox at all. Unfriendnow (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The original RfC said 5% in major polling aggregators, and explicitly listed 538 and RCP. He has more than 5 percent in those aggregators, as of right now.[33][34] Personisinsterest (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
In the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5% as @Unknown-Tree has stated. His numbers have not been consistently polling above 5% is the main point. Unfriendnow (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That is irrelevant. The RfC agreed on this page explicitly said that 5% in polling aggregators was the threshold. The two explicitly named organizations have him above 5%. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
No it isn't irrelevant. If polling aggregators tomorrow or the following week show him below 3% are we then going to have to take him out of the Infobox? are we going to have to check the polling aggregators every hour??? he simply has not been consistently polling above 5%. Unfriendnow (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Since when was "consistently" part of the RfC result? It said generally. The two explicitly mentioned aggregators show him above 5%. That is generally. And yes, if he goes under 5 percent in even one of those aggregators mentioned, because he is on thin ice with only 538 and RCP, that is no longer general and he will be removed from the infobox. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Decision Desk HQ/The Hill as of August 8th has him at 3.8%. Silver Bulletin as of August 8th has him at barely 4.5%. Again 6 other polls that show him below 5%.
How is all in general??? adding him now when he hasn't been consistency above 5% is ridiculous, it would make sense to add him if he was above that number in general as you claim but he isn't you even admit he is on thin ice even with other factors included. There is no need for him to be in the infobox when he simply isn't consistent. Unfriendnow (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Silver Bulletin is not a reliable source. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Er, at least not a confirmed one. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
However the Wikipedia for Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election#Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently using it so...anyways as @Unknown-Tree has stated his polling is also falling, we can see it in the graph which goes even below 5% so that has to be taken in account. Adding him to the infobox because only two polls say he is barely above 5% is ridiculous. Unfriendnow (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I see your point about the polling aggregators though. But first, Nate Silver is in a grey area where we know he's reliable but haven't really established his website is. However, Decision Desk HQ showing him below the threshold is not consistently showing 5%.
But the RfC didn't ask for that. It said generally polls over 5%. This is generally, and especially considering 538 and RCP were explicitly mentioned, I think we can put him in. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
  • There's a degree to which we need to apply a little practical realism here. It is widely known and widely reported that Kennedy is the third-party candidate of this election cycle. Historians are not going to lend any consideration to the presence of Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates in the 2024 election, but they will give some to Kennedy. I would include Kennedy at this point. BD2412 T 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
    Kennedy's news coverage has been falling a lot recently. Little has happened with him recently besides the Central Park statement; everything else has effectively been cast to the side. Putting him in the infobox lends too much credence to a campaign which is near-certain to not get over 5% of the result (which he's barely getting in only some polls, many polls have had him below the threshold); he's falling in the polls, and the decline shows no real sign of stopping. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The prior RFC established that if he is stated to be polling above 5% in a polling aggregator and has access to 270 or more electoral college votes, he is to be included. He has now clearly met both prongs, and is thus required to be included in the infobox according to the inclusion criteria established in the RFC results.XavierGreen (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
See the RFC results establishing the inclusion criteria [35]. The inclusion critera is not "generally polls above 5%" as some have stated above. It is "generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators". Kennedy is above 5% in all but 1 polling aggregator, he thus clearly meets the threshold for inclusion.XavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Nojus R Include him. Consensus shows he consistently meets the guidelines. Jayson (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with this, it makes no sense to not include him when we've included John Anderson, Eugene Debbs, & Ross Perot's 1996 bid all of which did received around 6%, similar to where RFK is at now. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
That is how many votes they received, not how they polled. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
And? If polling consistently shows RFK at that level of support then we should be working with the assumption that that is how many votes he will receive. If the polling changes or he doesn't achieve that level of support in the actual election then he can be removed but otherwise it's clear as to what we should do here. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Here we go again. I side with exclusion. GoodDay (talk) 03:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

I still do too. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The five percent rule is OR. Survey the reliable sources. Do they treat this as a two-way or three-way contest? The answer is obvious. — JFHutson (talk) 03:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jfhutson What I say on the matter is that his appeal to non voters who likely won't answer polling will probably increase what he gets on election day. It's probably not a good idea to use assumptions like that, but even still, he USUALLY polls above 5% and its likely to once again increase with the endorsement by Joe Rogan Jayson (talk) 03:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
What you say on the matter is WP:OR. When reliable sources write about the topic of this page, do they treat it as a contest between two people or three? — JFHutson (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
@Jfhutson Sorry Jayson (talk) 04:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Let’s include him for now, and once he falls below 5% in the 538 and RCP aggregates, we should remove him, and not re-add him until he consistently is at 5%+ again. We should not make an exception if he is polling at 4.9%; especially since he still lacks ballot access in many states. We are being too generous as it is. Prcc27 (talk) 04:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I disagree he shouldn’t be added in at all. We are already being way too generous. Unfriendnow (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
If we exclude him now, people will say that the goalposts were moved. I think we should stick to 5%+ average, 270+ EVs ballot access. My only concern is, are all the states he allegedly has ballot access in verifiable? Prcc27 (talk) 05:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The states where he has ballot access are explained here: Third-party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election#Candidates with majority ballot access. Some of the refs are media sources, while others are state election offices. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if we can use state election offices as a source; we are supposed to use secondary sources. I do not think Pennsylvania should count in the tally. I also have WP:SYNTH concerns, but less so for the sake of him qualifying for the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 06:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Ballot access news clearly states he is on the ballot in texas. See here Texas Secretary of State Says Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Petition is Valid | (ballot-access.org) XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Texas Secretary of State Says Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Petition is Valid | (ballot-access.org) XavierGreen (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
NYT lists Alaska, California, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, and Vermont for a total of 175.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign also lists Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Of those, Florida has a note that says "While Kennedy Jr. has not been formally nominated, he is the presumptive nominee of the ballot-qualified Reform Party." If that is an issue then Kennedy is only at 263 by our count.
Moving that aside, the Secretary of States in Colorado and Texas have said he has qualified for the ballot. Iowa's source is somewhat weak as it is a local TV station stating that his campaign says it is on the ballot with an image as proof from the Iowa Secretary of State's Office. Louisiana's source is a voter portal provided by their Secretary of State, which somehow counts as a source. (He is listed under the We The People party.) The Albuquerque Journal says that Kennedy has qualified as a candidate in New Mexico. Finally, the Pennsylvania Department of State lists Kennedy as "Candidate-Status: Approved" on their website, which apparently counts. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The consensus here was that presumptive nominations count, as Kamala and Trump were included on the page when they were only presumptive nominees.XavierGreen (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
As said, *if* that is an issue. It doesn't help that the other sources are not the best for the Florida claim: One is NBC News, which should be good, except the only part of that article that claims he is on the ballot in Florida is a map that says "Source: State election officials; Kennedy campaign" while the other is some WordPress website called ballot-access.org that you mentioned above. (Note that despite both of these, NYT doesn't currently count Florida as a state where Kennedy has ballot access.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Your opinion is not grounded in norms. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
FYI only one needs to drop for a majority of the aggregators to be below 5%, as DDHQ already has him below it. We need not wait for both. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Which is why adding him to the info box is so ridiculous. Unfriendnow (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I don’t think it is a big deal to have him up there for a few days while he still barely meets the criteria. My guess is he will probably fizzle out after the Democratic National Convention, or even sooner. Once that happens, we will probably get to remove him from the infobox for good. Until then, let’s just stick to the plan. Prcc27 (talk) 06:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
The opposite is actually more likely, Kamala's boost in the polling will fizzle after the convention. Most candidates historically get a boost around the time of their party conventions that dissipates thereafter.XavierGreen (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Third party candidates usually don’t get a late boost, and I think Trump has more to gain from Harris fizzling out. But I’ll leave it at that since this is not a forum. Prcc27 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

In the "Democracy" subsection of the "Campaign issues" section, change "Project 2025 is a proposed plan by the Heritage foundation to centralize power..." to "Project 2025 is a proposed plan by the Heritage Foundation to centralize power..." (capitalizes the F in Heritage Foundation, as is done at The Heritage Foundation.) MooseMike (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

 Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:32, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump's current portrait

The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree mainly because of the colors we associate with American political parties. Red is the color of the Republicans, Trump's party, while yellow is more often associated with the Libertarians. Also, we always picture Trump with a red tie. CoolGuy314 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg
File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik(talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg (Option A)
He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Would it be appropariate to digitally change the colour of the tie to be red? This feels like something that'd solve this issue once and for all. Nursultan Malik(talk) 09:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
File:Donald Trump June 2024.jpg (Option B)
His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression, option B. GhulamIslam (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I support this option. File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is similar to the one on the page but he's facing forward, so it makes for a good replacement. Di (they-them) (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Contrariwise, I don't think a 7-year-old is even old enough to run for President in the first place. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
7 years is old. Anyone that's 11 years old in 2017 can legally copulate by now. —SquidHomme (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Agree and I am supporting the upmost shown image in the discussion because it is one of the more recent ones and it have a relatively neutral expression Punker85 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
This is a much better image due to his even more neutral facial expression (when compared to any of his previously proposed images) and his eyes are pointed more to the center. —SquidHomme (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Personally, this is why I was against the argument of not using his official portrait because it was going to open a can of worms about updating the pic every year/few months whereas his official portrait would've remained. Yet, here we are. If I had to support a picture, I'd go for option A as it has a better angle and expression of Trump. He's facing more forward than the other option. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Can someone please change the portrait, it’s so bad lol Geffery2210 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Should change it to option A imo Geffery2210 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the current photo is way better than the three images propsoed here. Anyway I still believe that the official picture is the best option. -- Nick.mon (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Official Portrait
Why can’t we just use his official portrait? Geffery2210 (talk) 17:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! I know there's a consensus not to use his portrait because it's outdated, but having his official portrait would avoid this constant discussion about replacing the image every month (or so). TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Everyone should agree to using his official portrait now and change it now. Geffery2210 (talk) 19:35, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, I’m close to saying just use the portrait. The current photo is terrible. I would prefer a different newer photo. Prcc27 (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree with using the official portrait. Biden's official portrait from 2013 was used on the 2020 U.S. presidential election page while the election was ongoing, despite the portrait being 7 years old. The same 7-year-old portrait of Biden was also used by news media covering the election.[1]

In turn, news media are already using Trump's 7-year-old portrait for this election,[2] as did the June presidential debate on CNN.

As such, this wiki article should use Trump's presidential portrait, despite it being 7 years old. Vrrajkum (talk) 13:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

To add on to this: just because the official portrait is 7 years old doesn't mean there's anything wrong with or misrepresentative about the photo. Trump still looks very similar to how he looked in 2017.
If it's not broken, don't fix it. Vrrajkum (talk) 14:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree let’s change it! Geffery2210 (talk) 15:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Also, Other Candidates in the Infobox have their pictures from different years, like Wallace's for the 1968 Election, Carter's For The Election. And Perot's for the 1992 & 1996 Election, all of them use Pictures from Different years other than election year, why can't Trump? InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Carters for the 1976 Election.
InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
All of those were proper portraits not a picture snapped of them while they were at a event so.. Geffery2210 (talk) 17:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
User:InterDoesWiki is agreeing that there's nothing wrong with using Trump's 2017 portrait for the 2024 election article.
All recent commenters (since the beginning of August) have at least expressed openness to using the official portrait; I'm going to make the change. Vrrajkum (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
The official portrait is over seven years old, at this point. I don't think it should be used. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:47, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a better alternative? Vrrajkum (talk) 17:51, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There was a long-running RFC about it that resulted in no consensus.
There was a long-running RFC about it that resulted in no consensus.

The archived Talk page is linked here: [36]

Maybe we should re-launch the RFC again. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
This discussion should be closed, please revert back to the 2017 portrait, there is no reason the 2023 photo should be used. Geffery2210 (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Starting a new RFC. Vrrajkum (talk) 18:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
There are no alternatives, this shouldn’t even be an argument anymore. Geffery2210 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "National Exit Polls: How Different Groups Voted". The New York Times. 2020-11-03. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-08-10.
  2. ^ Lerer, Lisa; Igielnik, Ruth (2024-08-10). "Harris Leads Trump in Three Key States, Times/Siena Polls Find". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-08-10.

Adding current EV ballot access for RFK Jr. and West

Oliver and Stein both have their current electoral vote potentials (the maximum EV's they could earn based on their ballot access) listed, but not RFK Jr. or West. Could we get that fixed? CoolGuy314 (talk) 20:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Which section are you referring to? David O. Johnson (talk) 15:39, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
"Third-party and independent candidates" lists EV values for Oliver and Stein, though Stein's is cited to her own campaign and Oliver's is 3 months old. We can certainly add if there is a source, but as another discussion on this page notes, there often isn't. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:46, 11 August 2024 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_12&oldid=1241190121"