Talk:2024 United States presidential debates

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 United States presidential debates article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 14 days

June 2024 United States presidential debate was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 5 July 2024 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into 2024 United States presidential debates. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums

Politics: American Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

United States Presidents: Donald Trump Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Donald Trump task force.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of 2024 United States presidential debates was copied or moved into Joe Biden–Donald Trump 2024 presidential debate with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

General consensus on who won the VP debate

Just to be clear, I think it should be noted that columnists consider Vance to have won based mainly on optics and his performance style, not on policy or substance. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I think he should be called the winner, not that it was a draw. There was an option in CBS's poll to call it that, and it only received 14%. It was a narrow Vance victory. Pickle Mon (talk) 11:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree he should be considered the winner. Yes, I know plenty of left-leaning media outlets, social media accounts, and YouTube channels think Walz won, but the general public, and especially just general, reputable mainstream news outlets mostly think Vance won. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we have in the article currently seems to be correct: Tie by public; Vance by columnists. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please stop saying the polling suggests a “narrow win” for Vance? When the numbers are a statistical tie, that is a draw. Prcc27 (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One of the polls gave an option for a draw and it got 17% (misremembered in my first reply). I don't see any reason to say otherwise unless people don't want to say he won. Pickle Mon (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to changing the wording to something like “based on polling, debate watchers were split on who won the debate”. I am not aware of any reliable source which declares Vance the “narrow winner” based on polling, so it would be original research to say so. Not to mention, it would be irresponsible to ignore margin of error. Prcc27 (talk) 15:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

no one won the debate. the winner of the debate is who wins the election 108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heres your 'reliable sources' [1]https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/10/vp-debate-winner-vance-walz-aca-climate-change-china-abortion.html#:~:text=J.D.%20Vance%20Won%20the%20Debate.%20But [2]https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2024/10/01/who-won-vp-debate/75351338007/#:~:text=WASHINGTON%20%E2%80%93%20Republican%20JD%20Vance%20entered [3]https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/vance-walz-who-won-vp-debate-roundtable-00181905#:~:text=The%20debate,%20light%20on%20body%20blows 2603:6000:AB00:4E1F:A16C:E712:6527:1D5A (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VP Debate “debate” section

When asked about whether he supports a ban on assault weapons, Walz mistakenly said “I’ve become friends with school shooters”. I think that should be added. 108.24.127.83 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do reliable sources make a big deal about him misspeaking? What is the point of mentioning it? Prcc27 (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, it was supposed to show his nervousness during the debate (just one example of many), but it turns out that he might have actually meant what he said. When asked by reporters what he meant when he said he “befriended school shooters” he refused to respond. 108.24.127.83 (talk) 22:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that he actually meant he "befriended school shooters" in the same argument where he said he felt sorrow when meeting with the Sandy Hook victims' families. I believe he meant to say he "befriended school shooter victims." Autochrome8 (talk) 01:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Walz clarifies ‘friends with school shooters’ gaffe - Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) on Wednesday sought to clarify a comment from the vice presidential debate in which he said he’s “become friends with school shooters,” telling reporters he was speaking about people impacted by school shootings. “I was talking about meeting people where there are school shooters, and I need to be more specific on that,” Walz told an NBC News reporter during a campaign stop in Pennsylvania. “But I am passionate about this. This one, for my wife and I, is just, as teachers, as parents, is so personal.” --Super Goku V (talk) 06:35, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another non-issue. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

💀 108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

? Autochrome8 (talk) 20:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remove Tiananmen Square sentence?

Why is any space at all devoted to Tim Walz not remembering when in 1989 he was in China? How is that anything but trivial? _pbp 01:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that seems like trivia. Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That specific exchange is notable from the debate, and it was specifically covered in seperate articles from sources such as CNN, NPR, and The New York Times. BlueShirtz (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty minor in the scope of the debate. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a significant moment of the debate as it has been mentioned in post-debate discussions about how the candidates performed. Articles about that specific moment from the debate have been published by sources such as CBS, CNN, Associated Press, BBC, NBC, Axios, The Hill, Forbes, NPR, and Reuters. BlueShirtz (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The same could be said of almost everything said in the debate _pbp 05:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. I just don’t see how it is significant enough for inclusion. It isn’t a policy issue, and wasn’t a big highlight of the debate (at least IMO). Prcc27 (talk) 05:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say there's consensus to remove it. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn’t have been re-added in the first place per WP:ONUS. But yes, there is definitely consensus now to remove it. Prcc27 (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The apparent significance of that question and the issue it raises is that (quoting The Hill article linked above) "is among other false or embellished claims that Walz, 60, has made through the years that have come back to confront him since he leapt onto the national stage and joined the Democratic presidential ticket in August." Walz's honesty is not a policy issue, but it is a candidate subject that has been widely discussed before and after the debate, which is why its relevant to include. BlueShirtz (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. If you try to search for full articles about the economic section of the debate, there are not dedicated articles to that part. That question to Walz received some of the most debate news coverage. BlueShirtz (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

he said that? 108.5.216.21 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the entire section, because there was nothing substantive remaining, just an unremarkable tit-for-tat that didn't get as much coverage as Walz's Tiannamen Square retraction. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Umm… Vance refusing to acknowledge Trump lost in 2020 was one of the most important parts of the debate, and it should not have been removed. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would that matter? Nearly all who support Trump refuse to acknowledge his loss. That's the party line, not important, and not newsworthy. Yes, it was given coverage, but so was Walz's comment. As you said above, verifiability doesn't guarantee inclusion. Omitting one while including the other seems like a violation of WP:UNDUE to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False equivalency. Democracy is an actual campaign issue, “where was Tim Walz when Tiananmen Square happened?” isn't. It would be WP:UNDUE to mention climate change, abortion, and immigration, while being silent on the issue of democracy. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't false equivalency to omit one irrelevant admission of an error and retain a non-admission that merely parrots the Trump party line that has been promoted for years. Also, the section was titled "changing positions and admitting mistakes". Vance did neither (he just acknowledged the obvious about changing his position), so why should it be mentioned in such a section? The context was wrong. I have no objection to adding this back if done in the correct context, but I don't see including this section as an improvement. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I already added it back to the article and removed several subsections. I never insinuated that I supported a section called “changing positions and admitting mistakes”. As I have said below, I oppose a laundry list of subsections. Nevertheless, democracy is an important campaign issue and was an important debate issue. If anything, I would add more about democracy to balance out the sentence in the article about Vance’s whataboutism on censorship. Prcc27 (talk) 04:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good edits. That's an improvement over the prior format. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:19, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VP subsections

Do we really need a whole bunch of subsections for the VP debate section on each policy issue? Seems WP:UNDUE, especially since we don’t do the same thing for the presidential debate sections. Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say just remove all of the headers (5.3.1 to 5.3.5 as of this edit, except the fact-checking one as that mirrors the other debates. Then we can go from there as the first and second debates handle the debate section differently. (Excluding the fact-checking sub-section: The first debate section is two long paragraphs, first paragraph is debate-only and second in analysis of the debate vs. The second debate section being ten short paragraphs, all debate-only.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2024 VP Debate" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 VP Debate has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 29 § 2024 VP Debate until a consensus is reached. Remsense ‥ 论 02:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]