Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 10

Ted Cruz (R-TX)

I was kinda suprised to not seem him on the list of potential Republican candidates given 1, there has been significant speculation about his candidacy, 2, he's done well in polling, usually polling third behind DeSantis and Pence in polls excluding Trump, and 3, runners up in GOP primaries often run again (McCain placed second in 2000 to Bush and ran in 2008, Romney placed second in 2008 and ran in 2012, Santorum placed second in 2012 and ran in 2016. Cruz placed second in 2016.) I'm gonna proceed to include Ted Cruz is the potential candidates under Republican primaries. Just to provide a source that Cruz is a potential candidate: https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/30/gop-house-races-2024-trump-491349 American20062020 (talk) 4:04, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

"Concerns about legitimacy"

Thank you, @Lostfan333: for removing this section added by noob @DaBabyindahouse: which improperly tried to make a Democrat conspiracy theory sound like a legitimate election issue by WP:OVERCITE of sources which WP:RSP list as of dubious reliability for objective news: Vice News, Business Insider, The Atlantic, The Guardian (Robert Reich), and NPR (opinion piece, not news). And none of these sources support the claim "Many organizations and individuals have raised fears". And funny thing, all the organizations and individuals happen to be Democrats.

When and if anything comes of this issue, I believe it could instead belong as a subsection of Potential campaign issues, with higher quality sources not wedded to Democrat opinion. JustinTime55 (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Luttig is a Republican.DaBabyindahouse (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Make that "Democrat sympathizers" or "never-Trumpers". Doesn't change the merits. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the section that says Many individuals and organizations are concerned the 2024 election will become compromised through another attempt to overturn the results. as it's completely unsourced and rather vague as it doesn't specify who is concerned and who will allegedly attempt to overturn the results. C. 22468 Talk to me 01:39, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. See the above thread which covers this topic. We had missed removing the intro summary statement of the section that was reverted. JustinTime55 (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC) It was sourced in the text body, but with a coatrack of sources of questionable reliability for this kind of claim.JustinTime55 (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
And thank you for adding another argument against including this conspiracy theory: it's really just more Trump-bashing left over from 2020 and the January 6 hearings; supposedly Trump's minions in state governments will try to disrupt the election again. But the reverted entry doesn't have the guts to name names as you say. JustinTime55 (talk) 12:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
DaBabyindahouse's contribution was undoubtedly poorly written, but I have grave concerns about your ability to remain neutral on this topic, JustinTime55. The way you are acting here is not reflecting well on you. --Pokelova (talk) 13:47, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Election integrity may feature as a campaign issue in 2024 but we obviously need to adhere to WP:CRYSTAL and wait until something actually does come up before adding it to the article. C. 22468 Talk to me 15:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Contrary to what C. 22468 says, I do not think that adhering to WP:CRYSTAL means we have to wait until something actually does come up. WP:CRYSTAL states "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included", and although DaBabyindahouse's contribution was by no means perfect, it cited VICE, Business Insider, The Guardian, NPR, and CNN (I could not find a reference to The Atlantic, as JustinTime55 notes). VICE and Business Insider have no consensus for viability on WP:RS/PS, but the consensus on The Guardian and CNN is that they are reliable sources if you stay away from opinion pieces, which neither of the articles are. I know that JustinTime55 said the NPR piece was an opinion piece, but it appears to me that the opinion piece was the CNN piece, and WP:RS/PS finds CNN to generally be reliable. While the Guardian article does not support the claim that "many organizations and individuals have raised fears" at all, the VICE and Insider Articles mention Luttig, and the NPR article mentions Homans, both of whom raise alarms about the 2024 election being stolen. The CNN article is actually written by Luttig, but there do exist good sources that discuss the Luttig concerns, such as this one here by the WashingtonPost, a reliable source according to WP:RSPS [1]. There are other reliable sources that discuss the election being stolen as well, such as this Bloomberg one [2]. I don't think there is enough to have the notion about "individuals have raised fears", but I think the Luttig concerns are significant enough to warrant a line or two, either awkwardly alone in the legitimacy section or as a short subheader under the issues section. Neither seem to be perfect fits, but Luttig's concerns are in reliable sources and Luttig himself is notable per WP:NOTE, so I don't think the fact that adding something that would better the article would be slightly awkward is a reason to exclude it. As a result, I move to have it as a two line section standing alone, but I would also be okay with having it under an issues subheader. Przemysl15 (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@Przemysl15: If you feel you have a reliable source for Luttig (obviously not the CNN piece written by him), then I'm OK with this going in, if Luttig's concerns are explicitly identified, not hidden behind weasel words like "individuals and organizations are concerned the 2024 election will become compromised". But I still feel this does not rise to the level of a stand-alone section, but is a campaign issue because the claim is that the Republicans will benefit at the expense of the Democrats.
The NPR piece is actually second-hand, a pass-through (does this make it a better source for us to use?) The actual source of this is The New York Times journalist Charles Homans' piece in The New York Times Magazine: [3].
FYI: The Atlantic reference was to an article DaBabyindahouse originally included: Trump's Next Coup Has Already Begun, Barton Gellman, 12/06/21. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Most of the pieces seem to be parrots or about this Luttig article, so I think that actually it is currently better left not included. Przemysl15 (talk) 04:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2022

Potential campaign issues: National Debt. 47.140.162.213 (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Term Dates

Why is Liz Cheneys date predicting the future and putting 2023 but Larry Hogan, for example, still says present. 2600:8807:6400:1260:A5CF:843E:1685:64A9 (talk) 03:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

She lost her re-election bid, so we know that her term will end in 2023. Hogan, on the other hand, is still running. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Hogan is not running for reelection? At any rate, it seems a bit questionable to put 2023 for Cheney. Even if there isn't any reason to expect that she won't complete her term, I don't think we should state it as fact until it happens. Jacoby531 (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Well nevermind then, and in any case the second bit is a good point as well. Both should be "-present" and not "-2023". Przemysl15 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Moving “average” trendlines of polling charts

The trendlines in the primary polling diagrams are, in my view, next to useless right now. The moving averages aren’t really averages: they snap to the most recent poll, giving it 100 percent of the weight. Could someone more qualified than me make a local regression, like those used on other pages on this site? Encyclopedia Lu (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Veep speculations

I've deleted the additions of info concerning Veep speculation in the Democratic & Republican parties. Would be best, if we wait until we see who the Democratic & Republican presidential nominees will be, first. Also, we do have separate pages for Veep speculations, which includes the 2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection page, concerning the 2024 campaign. PS - We won't be needing one for the Democrats, as Biden has already clarified that Harris will be his 2024 running-mate. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

@Przemysl15: Having sub-sections on who might be the Democratic & Republican vice presidential nominees in 2024, before the presidential nominees are chosen, is crystalballing. -- GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

No, WP:Crystal states that "[p]redictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included". Just because the nominees haven't been chosen, or that Biden has stated that he has already decided on Harris, doesn't mean that we should remove information from sources as reliable as the New York Times or Politico. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Sourced or not, they're are still only speculations. I would agree to their inclusion, if in 2024, there were scheduled vice presidential primaries. But to date, such primaries haven't been planned, let alone exist. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Speculation from reliable sources is acceptable for inclusion. Whether or not there are primaries is irrelevant, there still is a selection process, even if it isn't public or voted on. The speculation is on this process. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
I disagree. Will be opening an RFC on this matter, as again the veep speculation is pre-mature, when we don't know who the presidential nominees are. GoodDay (talk) 15:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding potential candidates

Every time a YouTube video or celebrity website mentions a name, or every time a z lister says 'I'd make a good president,' doesn't mean we add them here. We need a reliable news source saying there is serious speculation that they might run. Bkatcher (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Miles Taylor

I think Miles Taylor should be a potential independent candidate because in his wiki page it says that he would run. Researchrealfacts (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I see that it says he's involved in the launching of a third party, but doesn't mention him being the presidential candidate. Bkatcher (talk) 16:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Gavin Newsom

Maybe it's time to add Gavin Newsom to potential Democratic candidates? (https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/gavin-newsom-unequivocally-running-president-130000010.html) I don't want to add to the page myself, just because I don't necessarily want to start an edit battle. Thanks! conman33 (. . .talk) 23:54, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Biden Express Interest

Based on what the president said in here https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/18/politics/biden-too-early-to-decide-about-2024/index.html it seems that he should be moved to a "publicly expressed interest" category. Cookiegator (talk) 21:26, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; I've gone ahead and done it. But we don't need to add the CNN source: they sourced their story from CBS 60 Minutes (already cited) and don't add anything new. Also, please see the essay WP:OVERCITE. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Kamala Harris

Harris appears in the "Democratic Party" intro text alongside Pete Buttigieg as a potential candidate but does not appear on the list of potential candidates. PB does. This implies Harris should be on that list too, or Buttigieg should be removed having been referenced in the intro. 212.250.188.197 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly the intro should be changed to reflect that Harris is no longer in the section below, and I think that specific names should be removed in general until candidacy is more set in stone to avoid having to change it every moth or so. Przemysl15 (talk) 00:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Immigration

Maybe immigration can be added to join abortion and crime as potential campaign issues? Lostfan333 (talk) 18:39, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

If reliable sources justify such an addition. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Jerome Segal

Someone keeps removing Segal as a Democratic contender as 'non notable.' Considering some of the yahoos who have shown up in the independent section, I don't see how Segal is less notable than a rapper, actor, or radio host. Bkatcher (talk) 20:12, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

That's is a really good argument to take out the other yahoos, not add more yahoos. Perhaps it's time to discuss spinning the democratic candidates section into its own candidates/primary article. Segal can have his appropriate mention there. --Vrivasfl (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
For a candidate that has declared their intent to run, I think all that is needed is a WP:RS. A clear secondary source that a candidate is currently running should qualify them for inclusion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
The issue isn't really whether Segal should be mentioned at all, but rather whether Segal should be mentioned right next to Biden as if they're in the same league. In primary/candidate pages from previous years, notable, but non-major candidates are mentioned in their own section. That is where Segal belongs. We don't have such a section yet because we haven't spun this off into its own article. That is why I suggested it may be time to create that article. --Vrivasfl (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Who decides who is notable and who is not? There is no 'non-major candidate' section, just declared/expressed interest. Once the election year arrives, this list is really going to get pared down. Obviously, Biden is a much more viable candidate than Segal, but that doesn't mean Segal isn't a candidate. Bkatcher (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
This is exactly what I'm saying. There should be a non-major candidate section. Look at 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries, which is a pretty good facsimile to the Democratic Party in 2024. Candidates divided by major and minor. Segal is a candidate and should be included. In the non-major candidates section that should be created in the new 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article. Vrivasfl (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
Again I ask, who decides who is a major candidate? Bkatcher (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
We do. Such decisions are made by consensus by Wikipedia editors in the talk pages. In years past, automatic major candidates were current or former presidents, vice presidents, governors, senators, representatives and cabinet secretaries. Others maybe be elevated to major candidate status on a case-by-case basis, depending on things like consistent and sustained media attention, inclusion in national polls, participation in debates, etc. Vrivasfl (talk) 02:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
Might I remind you the last US president was a reality TV star with absolutely no political or military experience that no one expected to be nominated, let alone win? Even wingnuts like Kanye siphoned off enough votes to make a difference in a close race. I say we wait until the actual nomination before dismissing a candidate as minor. Bkatcher (talk) 03:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with the notion that Wikipedia editors determine who is or is not a major candidate, as reliable sources make that distinction. Wikipedians certainly do some interpreting about what weights reliable sources give to candidates, but that is absolutely not the same thing as determining it ourselves. The automatic major candidate standard was put into place because that those candidates had, historically, automatically been given major candidate status by reliable sources, and having a hard standard helped qualm bias. There also, in past elections, was a polling standard that candidates could meet and qualify for major candidate status, as well as a broad category for "significant media coverage". Trump not being taken seriously at first was reflected in Wikipedia because that was what was reflected in reliable sources, not because a bunch of Wikipedians decided that he was not qualified enough to be taken seriously. Segal shouldn't be given anywhere near the same weight as Biden not because of any determination made on his candidacy by Wikipedians, but because Segal isn't given anywhere near the same weight as Biden by reliable sources. Segal DOES meet notability standards, so I would be perfectly fine with him being on a minor candidates page or section as mentioned by Vrivasfl, but if anyone feels that the candidates, or yahoos, in the independent section are exactly as notable as Segal, that's grounds for removing them from this page or moving them to a minor candidates section, but is not grounds for considering Segal to be a major candidate. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
This is a much better explanation than my own. I agree entirely. Vrivasfl (talk) 11:26, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
I would note that while Donald Trump was the first candidate to be elected president with no major governmental or military experience, he was far from the first such candidate to run for the presidential nomination in recent years. Examples: 1984 and 1988: Jesse Jackson; 1992: Pat Buchanan; 1996: Steve Forbes; 2000: Gary Bauer and Alan Keyes; 2004: Al Sharpton; 2012: Herman Cain; 2016: Ben Carson and Carly Fiorina. And since Trump's election in 2020, there were Tom Steyer, Marianne Williamson, and Andrew Yang. All of these candidates managed to be recognized as major candidates despite their lack of major government or military experience. They were covered in the media, included in national polls, and generally participated in debates along with the candidates who did have major governmental experience. However, Jerome Segal has not attained the recognition that would bring him up to that level yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Polls

The last polls were from August. Anyone feel like adding a newer one? Bkatcher (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2022

IN: REPULBLICAN HEADER

AFTER: POTENTIAL CANDIDATES

ADD AS A HEADER: Declared intent to run

ADD AS A PARAGRAPH: As of October 2022, the following individuals have declared their intent to run for president.

ADD AS A BULLETED LIST: Eric Jon Boerner, Executive Producer

ADD AS A LINK: Link to https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/B%C3%B6rner Socialmakeover (talk) 16:08, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Remove COVID-19 from list of top issues

It's only 2022, and polls have increasingly shown that traditional political issues have overtaken covid as a top concern for the vast majority of voters. Nate Silver of 538 wrote a featured article about this. [1] Per WP:CRYSTAL I think it's premature to speculate & should be removed from the article. 2001:558:6045:B5:447C:5612:CFC0:8BF5 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC) 2001:558:6045:B5:447C:5612:CFC0:8BF5 (talk) 03:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I think rather than remove it entirely, it should be mentioned that while covid was initially expected to play a large role, it is now expected that covid will not play as significant a role as initially envisioned after 2020, and that traditional political issues are overtaking covid. Przemysl15 (talk) 04:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/when-did-americans-stop-caring-about-covid-19/

MGT picture

Should MGT's official portrait be used in this article like the other candidates? The picture used on her infobox is in public domain. 38.106.246.199 (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard still a possible candidate?

With Tulsi Gabbard's announcement this morning that she is leaving the Democratic Party; I think we can safely remove her from the Democratic candidates list; though her plans for 2024 now that she has left the Democratic Party is uncertain as of this edit. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

She could certainly run as an independent, or join another party and run under their platform. BD2412 T 19:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Donald Trump hasn’t announced that he’s running

Donald Trump hasn’t announced that he’s running, so can he please be taken off of the list of Republicans who expressed interest in running for President in 2024? 2601:85:4680:B0A0:3186:B66B:77DD:6F3D (talk) 20:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Ah, no. Announcing he's running is not the same thing as expressing interest, which he definitely has done. JustinTime55 (talk) 22:04, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Potential Campaign Issues - The Economy?

Shouldn't the economy be added as a potential campaign issue? SSR07 (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely! With the current level of inflation, and the heavy rises in food and energy costs, the economy cannot be considered good by any measure. And the state of the economy has always had an effect on the incumbent president's reelection chances. I'm sure reliable sources can be found if we look. Its absence here smells like pro-Biden bias. JustinTime55 (talk) 21:15, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Candidate eligibility

Discusses Section 1 of Article Two of Constitution, and 22nd Amendment which is good.

Should also include 14th Amendment, Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

So far the 14th Amendment has not excluded anybody from running for president in recent history. However, challenges against Representative Madison Cawthorn had mixed results prior to him losing the primary.Keelec (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a good idea for an addition. Here's a source on it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Why mention Mike Pence in the lead?

I removed the phrase (referring to Donald Trump) "... and his running mate may not be Mike Pence" from the lead. We already have a section in the article (2024 United States presidential election#Vice presidential speculation 2) that deals with speculation about the Republican VP candidate, but it doesn't need to go in the lead. Saying that Trump's running mate "may not" be Pence seems to be a fairly weak statement anyway, as Trump and Pence's relationship appears to have significantly deteriorated (see [4], for example). I don't think we can say that Trump not wanting Pence as his 2024 running mate is one of the most essential things to say about the 2024 election that it has to be in the article lead; it should go in the section about VP speculation where readers who are interested will find it. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Too soon for "primaries"

Whoever changed the subsection titles to say "Democratic primary", "Republican primary", and "Libertarian primary" deserves a wet trout slap for calling them "primaries", for several reasons:

  • Breaks a redirect (2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries redirects to "#Libertarian Party", which no longer exists.
  • 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries is similarly a redirect to "#Republican Party", which is also broken.
  • Violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it is way too soon; the primaries are more than one year away. "Primaries" do not exist (except in the planning stage) while potential candidates just express or decline interest or receive speculation. Primaries are actual elections, for which candidates must declare and register and then campaign.
  • Reflects WP:RECENTISM: looking at this like the news; just because the country at large is focused on the midterm elections and can only speculate how this will affect the big election in 2024. Again--wait until the primaries actually exist.
  • "Democratic primary" is basically a copy of 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, the Talk page of which makes it clear the intent was to make this a content fork. The duplicate text needs to be removed, and the summary paragraph could be whittled down a bit.
  • For WP:BALANCE, the same thing should be done to the "Republican primary" section (moved out to the Republican primaries article).

I'm going to go ahead and change the section titles to say "... candidates" instead of "... primary", and remove the duplicate text from the "Democratic primary" section. JustinTime55 (talk) 01:19, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

So where was the consensus to make these major changes? GoodDay (talk) 07:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see the changes being as "major" as you do. There was no discussion to either support or oppose them; just "crickets", so I went ahead. 2024 "primaries" do not currently exist; here in the US, the word doesn't just refer to speculation about who will or won't run; it's a one-to-two year process involving candidates registering for elections and caucuses in several states and the planning of party conventions. After the midterm election aftermath settles down, the country will begin serious planning for 2024, and then it will be appropriate for us to refer to "primaries" here.
All of a sudden you care? Good day, sir. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I could undo your changes. But, they'll gradually be undone anyways, throughout the next year. GoodDay (talk) 05:11, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign

Reminder that Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign is roughly ready to go as soon as an announcement is made. BD2412 T 04:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

GREAT JOB Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

upcoming changes to the article

I shall be adding a new section to this article. it will show odds and betting market chances of victory, which are inarguably useful now in addition to polls Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 05:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I welcome help Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 06:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2022

Former United States President Jimmy Carter is eligible to run as a candidate in 2024, as he only served one term. He would be 100 at the time of the election. 2403:5804:4999:0:343C:FE23:EA16:A512 (talk) 14:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Actualcpscm (talk) 15:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

New format bad

Include the candidates on the “2024 United States Presidential Election” page. There is no reason to only include them on the primaries page. Futureelectionsandcurrentevents (talk) 17:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Agree, now that Trump and I guess another GOP have made their presidential runs, at least include a table with all the declared candidates listed. I'd be leaning to support also including publicly expressed interest candidates as well, for both Dems and GOPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.106.246.208 (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Follow how it was done on the 2020 United States presidential election page. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Claims of election fraud

It seems likely that the attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election will be a notable issue in the 2024 election, and it might be worth including among the other issues. A quick search found this AP article and this NPR podcast saying as much. And depending on the results of the upcoming 2022 elections, I also wonder if it would be worth mentioning in this article that several prominent Republican politicians and political candidates have said they will not accept the results of the 2024 election if their party's candidate loses, as explained in this Reuters article and this Business Insider article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

If there is reliably sourced speculation on the issue, which it seems there is, it should be included. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I dont feel like it is that big of an issue, as only trump republicans really care about it, the rest of the country has much more focus on different issues. 73.247.81.254 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Please add to lead at end of section on Trump running: “Trump is currently the object of no less than 7 different criminal investigations.” Reference: https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/11/15/politics/donald-trump-investigations-lawsuits/index.html

thank you for your assistance in this matter. 2600:4040:90C5:8000:282F:9DCA:44A2:1F35 (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West and guidelines for listing declared candidates

Kanye West now seems to be listed as a declared candidate for the republicans. Is he actually running for the nomination of the republican party? If so what are the guidelines for listing declared candidates (or is it just anybody and everybody who declares)? BogLogs (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

While he has declared his candidacy, it is not clear from the sources that he is running as a Republican. However, I have moved Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign to mainspace. BD2412 T 13:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Green Party

2020 Green Party Candidate Howie Hawkins has filed to run for president in 2024. He probably ought to be listed as a candidate. https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/823/202011099336973823/202011099336973823.pdf 64.223.208.230 (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

FEC filing is not enough for inclusion. Need a better source on his campaign. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Corey in the House

Corey Stapleton should be listed as an officially declared candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taftfan44 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Howard Stern was Joking

Hi all - Howard Stern stated on his 9/19/22 show that he was not actually running for President. Not sure if his section/Bradley Cooper’s should be taken out, moved, or updated, hence my post here.

Stern on 9/19: “Did anyone think I really was? I mean, I’m not gonna run for President. You make me President I don’t even know if I’d accept it.”

Baba Booey to you all. Boomerthebobcat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Afroman

Afroman has said he plans to run, most likely as an independent. [5] 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7F3C (talk) 12:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Mike Pence

Where is Mike Pence? He is not listed as a potential candidate or one who has publicly expressed interest. Also important to note, rumors of him filing paperwork to run are not true. Jgtrevor (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Aaron Patrick Avouris

Add Aaron Patrick Avouris to the Libertarian Candidates. Avouris has only raised 1.25$ USD, but is one of the three candidates along with Lars Mapstead and Mike ter Maat to raise ANY amount of money. Source: https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00015297/?cycle=2024&election_full=true 70.53.5.59 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: They need in depth coverage in secondary sources to qualify for mention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura?

Jesse Ventura is speculating at running for President on the Forward Party in 2024. Source 70.53.5.59 (talk) 04:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This needs better coverage than a wrestling magazine to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Also, sources need to be within the past six months. Bkatcher (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Matthew McConaughey?

How long do we keep polls in the article? There hasn't been a poll about Matthew McConaughey in six months, and he's shown no interest in running. Bkatcher (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

COVID-19 Source

In the section on possible election issues, that's a pretty questionable source.[6] The statement it supports is probably true, but it is sourced only to a Politico article from early April 2020. The entire course of the pandemic has gone in wildly different directions from the predictions made during its infancy, so I think the article isn't really sufficient to support that content. For now I've added {{Better source needed}} to it. If we can find a better (and more recent) source I'd have no objections. The WordsmithTalk to me 20:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Needs Updated

Under election issues, it says something about Roe v. Wade being nearly 50 years ago, but now it’s been more than 50 years. It also cited a poll that said voters intend to vote for a party in the 2022 elections, but it should say intended. It just the wording that needs updated. Maddoxmckay (talk) 02:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

  • It says that Dobbs "permitted U.S. states to fully ban abortion for the first time in nearly 50 years". "Nearly 50 years" is the time from Roe v. Wade to Dobbs, which is 49 years and 5 months and could be fairly described as "nearly 50 years". The quote that says, "As of October 17, 2022, a New York Times/Siena College poll shows Americans are most concerned about the state of the economy and the rate of inflation, and 49% of likely voters intend to vote for Republicans and 45% for Democrats in the 2022 congressional elections" can have the latter part cut entirely, since the 2022 elections already took place and we know what the results were. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Decision pending

I feel that decision pending is a section worth adding here. I don't see the point in not having a publicly expressed interest section either, it worked well back in the day for 2016 and 2020. 38.106.246.205 (talk) 15:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Green Party?

It says Howie Hawkins is running 2024, but no sections about a Green party, which is the 4th biggest political party in the US. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

More candidates

Jacob Hornberger (Libertarian) and Vivek Ramaswamy (Republican) have announced their candidacy. 24.237.31.239 (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy's now listed, so hopefully that sticks.
Didn't know Hornberger was running again, but saw he announced on Twitter.
I also know Republican Corey Stapleton (former Secretary of State of Montana) has a website up. Not sure if he filed with the FEC or not, but if he did, I'd think he'd be a notable candidate as well. MikeyX58 (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
FYI, Hornberger was recently removed from the page due to a lack of reliable secondary sourcing to verify his candidacy. Such sourcing is a prerequisite for any candidate to be listed on the page. Sal2100 (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
I was not aware he was previously listeed, then removed - many thanks for letting me know. MikeyX58 (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Stapleton did file with the FEC (see [7]), but he hasn't become generally recognized as a notable candidate, nearly five months after filing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Confusion

Wasn’t joe exotics libertarian membership revoked? Asking because he was in the parties candidate box on this wiki. Also this is unprofessional but I laughed hard seeing of all pictures his PRESIDENTIAL picture is a mugshot. 2600:8801:1187:7F00:B130:84F2:D4EA:2A49 (talk) 05:03, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Robby Wells is running for president

Robby Wells will be running for president as an independent. He served as a candidate in several primaries and was a football coach in South Carolina

Sources are found here 65.26.234.93 (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

These do not appear to be reliable sources per WP:RS, WP:SOURCES, and WP:INDEPENDENT. If sources that meet these guidelines can be found, Mr. Wells can be listed in the independent candidates section. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Not even the local CBS article? 65.26.234.93 (talk) 02:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
That is a published press release. See WP:PRSOURCE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Larry Hogan has declared he might run for president as an independent

Moderate Republican and former Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan has told the media that he while he has ruled out running as a Republican in the presidential election, he might run as an independent but only if the election is a rematch between Trump and Biden. No Labels, a bi-partisan political organization that has Hogan as a national co-chair, has raised funds to allow an independent candidate to run in all 50 states. ABC News speculates that Hogan might be at least one of the choices for a independent candidate backed by No Labels. Please add Larry Hogan's name into the list of "Potential candidates" in the part of the page about "Independents, other third parties, or party unknown". Here are some sources for everything in this message https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/15/us/larry-hogan-no-labels.html https://www.boston25news.com/news/politics/ex-maryland-gov/H36AP7YMBPP2OIW6VUKCSRYVPA/ https://www.npr.org/2023/03/07/1161570053/larry-hogan-republican-party https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/946819531/maryland-gov-larry-hogan-named-co-chair-of-bipartisan-group-no-labels https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/third-presidential-candidate-2024.html https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/larry-hogan-close-door-party-presidential-bid-2024/story?id=97691294. Thanks in advance! 109.76.97.207 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Regarding the last link you had; that was what I used when I made an edit placing Larry Hogan in the potential independent candidates section. I just saw Hogan was moved to the "declined" section; so there's a possibility someone else found another source that I haven't read yet where Hogan states that he was not a candidate. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Maybe you can put back Hogan into the "Potential candidates" list? If he has indeed declined, just add the source to the page and let that be done. Thanks. --109.76.97.207 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

 Already done . Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

'Hot mic' moment

A footage which went viral, led the viewers cast doubt over Biden's ability to be a president. Not sure if it can be used. --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I see no particular reason why it would be relevant. It's the same tired argument, and ignores that presidents regularly have aides telling them who they're supposed to make contact with in a rope line. Selethor (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

potential campaign issues - mental faculty and age

I really think someone should add a paragraph or two on this. A lot has been made of Biden's age and Trump's to a lesser extent, Nikki Haley calling for mental capacity tests for over 75's. There are definitely similarities to Reagan's re-election in 1984 in which age was a big campaign issue, the 1984 election Wikipedia page has a lengthy segment on it. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This recent footage of Biden in a US factory can also be taken into account. --Mhhossein talk 07:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Absolutely, millions of views, there's also a viral video of him shaking hands with an invisible person, and a video of him calling for a dead politician to come up on stage.
I see this being the biggest issue of the election.
Reports he wont be attending the UK Kings coronation because he is too old and would be too tired to perform his domestic duties.
[8]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/joe-biden-too-old-to-travel-over-atlantic-for-coronation/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr 79.78.91.188 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Joe Manchin

Manchin is not ruling out a third party bid Maybe add him? 2001:1C00:A16:7F00:0:0:0:83FF (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sub-section on Biden viability

The section Biden viability was merged into other sections with the user saying we don't know for sure if Biden is going to run in 2024. I don't think the section should be merged since he announced on 2 April (two days ago) he will run for the reelection. --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Technically, the source you cite says he's all but announced, meaning it's not official yet (although very likely to happen). I still think this fits better in the Democratic Party section considering that issues surrounding Trump's liabilities are in the Republican Party section, not the campaign issues section. Also, the campaign issues section has gotten rather long, so I'm not sure we need to be adding more to it that could otherwise be elsewhere. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
As a compromise, I've expanded the section to include concerns about Biden's and Trump's old age.--Woko Sapien (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi Woko Sapien. Is Trump viability concerns as big as those of Biden in terms of diversity and seriousness of the critics? --Mhhossein talk 05:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I think the biggest shot fired on this subject so far has been Nikki Haley's call for competency tests for candidates over 75, which appears calculated to group Biden and Trump equally. There are certainly plentiful sources addressing both, like Business Insider, "Majority of Americans say Donald Trump and Joe Biden are both too old to serve as president: poll" (September 22, 2022); Time Magazine, "Nikki Haley Enters 2024 Race With Speech Implying Trump and Biden Are Too Old to Run" (February 15, 2023); National Review, "Are Biden and Trump Too Old to Be President?" (February 16, 2023); Kansas City Star, "I'm in my 80s and I know Biden and Trump are too old to run" (December 1, 2022). BD2412 T 13:05, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I would say yes, as both have caused concern about their ages and cognitive states (which makes sense considering that they're only four years apart). Biden gets a bit more scrutiny on this subject right now because he's the sitting president, but it's incorrect to say these concerns are unique to Biden and not Trump. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Religious Right?

I dont think this needs to be added as an issue as nobody cares about it. 2600:8805:C980:9400:C5A3:B01F:AAAA:51E7 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Most of the prose in the "religious right" section is totally off-topic from the 2024 election. In fact, I don't see any written connection between the 2024 election and the talk about the religious right and integralism. Most of the sources do not mention 2024 at all, some even predate the midterm primaries. It reads more like just explaining far-right political theory than anything relevant to 2024. This includes an overlong block quote, and paragraphs about one person's views (Adrian Vermeule). I would argue for the removal of this section. Kafoxe (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Kafoxe. I thought about removing it when I first saw it, but did not have the time to wade through the citations to confirm the suspicion that it is off-topic. The block quote is definitely undue. -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, much of that section seems to be either undue weight or more related to the political climate in general than the 2024 election. I've cleaned up that section, though others could use a good look over as well. The WordsmithTalk to me 19:46, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Rather, the entire "potential issues" section should be eliminated per WP:CRYSTAL. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
  • Isn't this basically already covered by having sections on abortion and LGBT rights? BD2412 T 13:40, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
    Partially yes, but the Christian Right has opinions outside of abortion and LGBT issues, and not all opposition to abortion and LGBT issues is from the Christian Right. The content remaining in the CR section after I trimmed the irrelevant parts wouldn't really fit into any of the other areas. I'm not fully convinced that what's left in that section is due weight, but at least it is sourced to secondary sources about the 2024 election so I left it there for now. The WordsmithTalk to me 15:56, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023

is same-sex marriage specifically an issue in this election because i don't think it is 2.102.42.98 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
remove the part where it says "lgbt issues such as same sex marriage" and replace it with just LGBT issues because the LGBT issues part is true but same sex marriage isn't much of a contentious issue these days2.102.42.98 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
It kind of is. [9] [10] [11] Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
  • Support - Exactly zero presidential candidates are running on opposition to same-sex marriage (though some, such as Joe Biden, opposed it earlier in their careers). No state is trying to ban it, and Congress just decisively voted it into federal law. A couple media articles fearmongering about something doesn't make it one of the top election issues. Additionally, abortion is the #1 issue for about 5% of voters and most of them voted for Trump in 2020 [12] (a reversal from the post-Dobbs trend of Democrats caring more about the issue). And "democratic backsliding" is just code for Democrats not winning every election; there is no evidence it will be a top issue for 2024. The section is mainly speculation and should be rewritten or removed (the article about the 2016 presidential election did not discuss potential campaign issues at this point in 2015 [13]). 2620:101:F000:700:3F9C:3DB3:4714:30AE (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
    "No state is trying to ban it" That's not true. The Republican platform explicitly opposes same-sex marriage, Republican legislatives have passed/blocked measures surrounding it, and many have talked about their desire to repeal recongition of same-sex marriages. Presently, a majority of states have constitutions/legislation forbidding same-sex marriage. (Inactive due to Obergefell)
    "Congress just decisively voted it into federal law" Predominately upon the votes of Democrats. Just 20% of Republicans supported the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate. Even then, states will be free to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if Obergefell is overturned. To this day, it is very much a present issue.
    And "democratic backsliding" is just code for Democrats not winning every election V-Dem Democracy indices, Freedom House, and The Economist's Democracy Index all report substantial democratic backsliding within the United States since the early 2010s.
    there is no evidence it will be a top issue for 2024 Polling shows it is an important issue for voters. The most recent poll ranked it 2nd. KlayCax (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Not voting for a virtue-signalling bill (one that changes a defunct law) is not the same as actively trying to ban something (that is, attempting to challenge Obergefell in court as pro-life states did with Roe). Likewise, some legislators voted against codifying Obergefell into law but there has been no attempt to repeal the Respect for Marriage Act (even though legislators introduce wingnut bills that have no chance of passing all the time). A couple cried about it, then they moved on after the votes were cast.

A couple of think tanks claiming something is a problem doesn’t make it so (2020 had record turnout across the board). Gallup has “democracy” and abortion at 2% a piece as the #1 issue. 2607:FEA8:1E5D:B700:2C62:9ED2:870:7254 (talk) 19:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

How is saying that the Rock isn’t running for president notable in any way?

Like, I could say that I'm not running for president, and according to whatever idiot made that edit, I deserve to be included on the page. Georger0171 (talk) 18:34, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

He was considered a possibility earlier in the cycle and generated a bit of interest after suggesting he might run. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 00:44, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
Well the rock is considered important and despite your attitude your a nobody so yeah that’s the difference 2600:8801:1187:7F00:9EA:8D3E:6739:DC9B (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Mike Pompeo is not running.

[14] SmashingThreePlates (talk) 04:12, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Regurgitation

The banner {{Content}} should be placed at the top of the article. The majority of the article is a mismatch of history unrelated or speculative to the current election. 204.237.51.192 (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what specific content you have an issue with but I definitely think the abortion history section added by @KlayCax: isn't 100% necessary here. --Pokelova (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Some ideas for the Potential campaign issues section

I've been thinking that there could be more issues that could be major factors in 2024, here are three issues that I think should be added.


- Ukraine could be a big issue with there being no end in sight for the war, and the worldwide impacts of the conflict.


- Climate Change is always a big button issue in elections, and with more disasters being seen since 2020 (Hurricanes Ida and Ian, Western Wildfires, Tornado Outbreaks, and the Feb. 2021 Winter Storms in Texas) could be a factor that causes people to vote.


- Gun Violence has been a huge topic since, forever, but more talk around it has been seen since Buffalo and Uvalde, and many young Americans will be voting due to shootings. HurricaneKappa (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

They're all potential campaign issues for sure. Ukraine could lead into to other military and security issues such as China/Taiwan, Afghanistan and Iran. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Abortion

History subsection

I am not sure what the 'history' sub-section is serving in the 'Abortion' section. It's making the page unnecessarily long. --Mhhossein talk 06:37, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

There definitely does not need to be a section about the history of abortion in the United States. It's a massive coatrack. And having a decorative WP:SANDWICH portrait of a postal inspector from a hundred years ago borders on absurdity. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
Synthesis

All the contents used in this section should have something to do with the 2024 US presidential elections, otherwise the content is an original research. Will remove the WP:coatracky portions.--Mhhossein talk 07:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

At this point I would question how much of the "potential campaign issues" section is needed at all, since it seems to be a hotbed of synthesis, original research, and crystal ball content that doesn't relate to the election at all. Kafoxe (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I guess there should be a huge amount of trimming. --Mhhossein talk 05:16, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
It should certainly be removed per CRYSTAL, as I have expressed elsewhere. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Re: All the contents used in this section should have something to do with the 2024 US presidential elections, otherwise the content is an original research.:
I'm okay with a brief description of the history of Abortion in the United States and I don't agree that having too much background necessarily amounts to original research, but I will agree that it's better for it to be brief. And it's not brief enough right now. We should definitely mention Roe, Dobbs, and Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine v. FDA as we have numerous sources to support the belief that abortion rights are one of the top issues affecting the 2024 United States presidential election, making it a notable topic and warranting some prose, but I do think it's a bit much to have a five paragraph rundown of all the different iterations of abortion law from the founding of the country, the 18th and 19th centuries, and the earlier parts of the 20th century. Info that specific is better suited to the actual Abortion in the United States article. I think the other "potential campaign issues" subsections are brief enough that I'm not terribly bothered by them, but I think we should try to make sure that any info in these sections is: a) about a topic that we have multiple reliable, secondary sources to indicate that it's been described as a campaign issue that's believed to be important to the 2024 elections, b) no more than a few paragraphs at maximum, and c) focused primarily on contemporary developments as opposed to giving a rundown of centuries of history.
TL;DR: fully agree it should be trimmed, but I wouldn't go as far as to remove the whole potential campaign issues section.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:08, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and hid the history section while this is being debated since there seems to be a growing consensus that it's unnecessary. But I didn't delete it outright, just in case editors wanted to tweak and restore some parts of it. Woko Sapien (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
    • "described as a campaign issue that's believed to be important to the 2024 elections" It is not the first time that the abortion debate turns into a campaign issue. We certainly do not need the fully-detailed historical coverage of the debate in an election article. Dimadick (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Independent Candidates for President

Andrew Yang and Liz Cheney should all be listed as potential candidates. All three have shown some level of interest in the idea


Jon Stewart and Howard Stern should also be moved to Declined, as shown here


Even Chris Christie has been floated as a potential candidate, shown through this essay 65.26.234.93 (talk) 01:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The first link is over 6 months olds. I've not seen much if anything of Yang and Cheney as potential candidates recently.
Chris Christie is listed in the decision pending category. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
Oops sorry I didn't take in the 'independent candidates' angle. I think there's more substance linking Chris Christie with the GOP nomination but if there's also sources saying he may run independent he could be listed in both. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 11:01, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Democratic Declared Candidates Experience - Joe Biden

Hello!

I am adding this here as advice for a small modification in Joe Biden's section known as "Experience" in the Democratic Declared Candidates subject.

So far, as of now, the experience section for Joe Biden only contains the "46th President of the United States (2021-present) incumbent" as experience. However, more is to be added to show the full political experience he has done.

The edit is similar to what is shown in the experience sections of Nikki Haley and Asa Hutchinson, (which located in the Republican Party Declared Candidates Experience sections [15]).

What I am suggesting to be added is directly sourced from Joe Biden's Wikipedia Article [16]:


"Experience:

46th President of the United States (2021-present) incumbent[17] ((<- Remains as is))

47th Vice President of the United States (2009 - 2017) [18]

United States Senator from Delaware (1973 - 2009) [19]

Member of the New Castle County Council from the 4th district (1971 - 1973) [20]"


By the possibility that the text may be slightly too much, it can possibly be formatted and adjusted accordingly for the article's design, or other. The purpose of this edit is simply to explain in further detail the correct yet full political experience of President Biden for both the past and present.


Thank you for reading this post, and thank you in advance if the edit is made. Wang Dynasty (talk) 11:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Combatting junk polls

(For polling articles and other sub-articles with lists of polls)

Many outlets noted that in 2022, "junk" polls by unestablished pollsters were published in many races that skewed polling averages and perceptions to create a false impression of stronger support for Republican candidates than was actually existent.

Individuals favorable to either party could influence polling averages in nationwide and statewide polls in 2024 by using this as a tactic.

In the article on the 2023 Chicago mayoral election, I made an effort to combat a skewed perception caused by potential "junk" polls by including in poll tables two additional columns.

  • One column indicated known sponsors of polls (it's informative for readers to be informed as to whether a poll is openly sponsored by an interest group, media outlet, or campaign). I think informing readers of poll-sponsors is a tactic we should adopt in presidential poll tables.
  • The other column listed FiveThirtyEight's current rating of the pollsters, in order to allow readers to know which pollsters have been assessed according to their methodology as having an established repute (which can indicate which pollsters have sterling records as accurate predictors of recent elections and which pollsters had been regularly unreliable). It also indicated to readers which pollsters are untested/unestablished, as those lack ratings. I recommend we adopt that as well.

If there is a better yardstick than FiveThirtyEight, I'm open to hearing it, because I would understand apprehension in trusting one outlet's assessment of pollsters. However, FiveThirtyEight is rather open about their methodology (see here and here), so it's not like we'd be blindly elevating mysterious kingmakers. I'd argue that their ratings are relatively akin to the Cook PVI's we include in articles on elections, since both have open methodologies. FiveThirtyEight also shares their datasets.

Any thoughts on adopting this? SecretName101 (talk) 03:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Age?

Isn't this part a bit WP: Crystal for Wikipedia? We don't know who the nominees are yet. KlayCax (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No more than the other issues listed.
Potential having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future
It looks inattentive not to include it, especially with the amount of news articles focussing on it. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
"No more than the other issues listed."
Concur with this; the entire section should be removed per WP:CRYSTAL. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 00:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
Nikki Haley says Biden will likely die in office if re-elected. Media full of stories of Biden's age as an issue for voters. I think the word 'potential' should be removed from the article. The campaign has already begun and these are live issues. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 13:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Second sentence unclear

I have no idea what the second sentence of the lead is talking about. For something in the lead, it seems very unclear. Is it talking about Electoral College votes? Can it please be made clearer? HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The second sentence refers to "electoral votes" which is the same as Electoral College votes. The sentence includes links to the 2020 census and the reapportionment articles. This section of the 2020 census article explains the changes to electoral votes for the 2024 election. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:31, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining that, but it took you quite a few words. Can you see my point about that not being a clear and simple sentence for right up there in the lead? HiLo48 (talk) 03:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
It seems pretty clear to me, provided the reader is familiar with electoral votes and the reapportionment cycle. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
I think it is clear as is, plus there are links to articles for additional information. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
This is a global encyclopaedia. Only 4% of the people in the world are American, and not all of them would satisfy the requirement of being familiar with electoral votes and the reapportionment cycle. I happen to be Australian, better educated than many of my countrymen about American politics, and didn't have a clue what it meant when I first read it. Do try to put yourselves in the position of an outsider to American politics. HiLo48 (talk) 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
@HiLo48 That's why there are (conveniently) links to articles describing each of those terms for unfamiliar readers. SecretName101 (talk) 05:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Nobody, not even unimportant non-Americans (96% of the world!), should be forced to click on links to understand the second sentence of any article. And have you actually looked at those links? The first one, Electoral votes, is only partly about the American system. The second one just links to the national census! Seriously, neither is all that helpful. If you are truly convinced it's a great sentence, how about at least moving it out of the the lead to somewhere where such detail is important. HiLo48 (talk) 06:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
I think that "It will be the first presidential election held after electoral votes were redistributed during the 2020 census reapportionment cycle" doesn't need to be in the lead at all. This issue is already covered later in the article under 2024 United States presidential election#Effects of the 2020 census and I don't think it's so vital that it needs to be the second sentence of the entire article. It's of more specialized interest than most of the information that should be in the lead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90 That I think I agree with. I went back and checked the presidential elections after the 90, 2000, and 2010 censuses and we don't appear to mention the census or reapportionment in the ledes. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Election Day

How should we manage this page on election day? Should we update it in real-time as the election night progresses, or should we wait until all the votes have been counted? I'm unfamiliar with the process of updating pages during events like an election, and we should make sure to we handle it appropriately. I know the election is still one year away but I wanted to ask.

LuxembourgLover (talk) 15:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It will be very difficult to update it in real-time, but I think it's better that we attempt it rather than put up a count in progress status. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

New Democratic Candidates

Armando "Mando" Perez-Serrato is a new, younger, more aggressive, solutions driven Democratic Candidate for President of the United States of America 2024. He was a Candidate for California Governor in 2022. His Campaign Website is PresidentMando.com and his official FEC Presidential Candidate ID is P40010514.[24]https://PresidentMando.com Here is the link for his Candidate Profile on the Federal Election Commission website [25]https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P40010514/ Here is a link for his FEC Principal Campaign Committee Armando Perez-Serrato for President and his Campaign Committee ID is C00831677 [26]https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00831677/ Mando2024 (talk) 00:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done The criteria for inclusion is “campaign has received substantial major media coverage; current or previous holder of significant elected office; have been included in at least five national polls”. You must meet one of these, and then you can be added. Prcc27 (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Advantage of incumbency

This section reads like something the Whitehouse has written. It's not true that serious challenges are rare, Truman (1952) and Johnson (1968) both dropped out of the race after being challenged, Ford (1976) and Carter (1980) both endured serious challenges. This campaign is the first time an incumbent has faced a challenger with name recognition since 1992, so it is misleading to cite recent presidents that were easily renominated. The section should be removed. 80.41.164.55 (talk) 01:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Do we display the Green Party nominating process once they have verifiable candidates?

I'm utterly undecided on what I think, personally.

I remember a while back someone argued we "shouldn't" because of the weak performance in the previous election.

However, if we are to display the Libertarian nominating process, I think it's worth discussing if we also display the Green. These are the two largest third-parties in the United States in regards to membership (from what is understood) as well as in regards to regular ballot access.

I think last time there was a decision to completely relegate third parties primary processes to a separate article, though this appears not to be the consensus this election, at least not at this stage.

The Libertarian Party did score over 1% last time, while the Greens did not. However, neither party scored over 1% in 2012, yet went on to in the next election (and proved visible notable factors in the 2016 campaign). Greens outperformed their 2004 and 2008 performances in 2020, and did significantly better than the next-best-performing third-party ticket.

That said, should we be displaying these two third parties on equal footing with the two major ones at all right now? At a time where no consistent polls indicate they could even reach the 5% threshold to appear in the infobox after the election if Americans were to vote today or anytime soon? I am of two minds.

In terms of serving an American audience: yes I think we should so as not to bias ourselves in favor of promoting the two major parties. Do we really want to possibly be mis-portraying America as a de-juror two party system rather than simply a de-facto one?

In terms of informing an international audience: I think not. Unlike Americans, foreign audiences are not all familiar as to what the major parties are in the United States. They may not know our de-facto two-party system dynamic, and not appreciate that we seem to indicate we are something different. Seeing four parties equally displayed may mis-communicate to them that were have a multi-party electorate rather than (generally) a two-party electorate in a system open to multiple parties. They may mis-understand that it is displayed as such because the four parties have remotely comparable stature/support among the electorate when that is not established to be the case in actuality.

So who do I think do we want to better serve? Foreign or domestic readers? Americans are the ones voting, but the world has interest as well and America is not the center of it.

Again, I'm utterly undecided on all this, is anyone of a strong opinion on this? SecretName101 (talk) 01:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe we should include them as a subset once/if several notable candidates register 2603:6000:C90D:BFA0:8DAC:DEA5:3D08:D51A (talk) 16:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd say the Greens, yes. The top five parties (even if only the two major ones are of any real relevancy) should be displayed. So that would be Dem, GOP, Libertarian, Green, Constitution. The current ASP listing should be removed considering how utterly minor of an electoral player they are.
Adding any others onto the '24 election page will be far too cluttered. Would suggest eventually moving the third parties to their own page like we have the last few cycles, likely once 2024 rolls around: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Third_party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election Tipsyfishing (talk) 16:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
We can cover anything that gets coverage in reliable sources. The biggest problem with covering third party presidential nominating processes is the lack of non-primary sources, independent sourcing. But if you can find the sources go for it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:14, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Libertarian candidate table undue?

I would like to pose the question of whether or not the Libertarian candidate table on this page is giving WP:UNDUE weight. The Libertarian candidates certainly don't have the same amount of press coverage as the two major parties. I'm sure the table is fine for the Libertarian primaries page, but I'm not sure it's needed here on the 2024 election overview. Bullet point list formatting similar to the "Other third parties/independents" section may suffice. Kafoxe (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the current listing violates WP:UNDUE, especially considering that none of the candidates currently listed have their own WP article, which I believe is prerequisite for inclusion on the main election page (it definitely should be, IMO). I think the the listing should be removed altogether for the time being. If and when notable candidates run for the Libertarian nomination, they can be listed in the bullet point format suggested above. Likewise with the Green Party and other 3rd party/unaffiliated candidates. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we should not show the Libertarian candidates in table format. On the other hand, I would be fine with showing them in a bulleted list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
Should be removed until a notable candidate runs. Once that happens, I support bullet points. But we should also add bullet points for notable candidates from other parties that don’t meet the criteria for the table (i.e. Joe Exotic, Democrat). Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Immigration issue

In "Potential campaign issues" section, we should add "Immigration (or Border Security)" too, because without any doubt it will be an important issue. Here are sources - [27],[28],[29]. Regards. M.Karelin (talk) 01:32, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:45, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I am not opposed, as long as the section is WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
By default, everything written in Wikipedia should be consistent with WP:DUE. Don't you think so ? M.Karelin (talk) 04:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but some of the potential campaign issues sections specifically have had due weight problems. Not saying this will necessarily be an issue for this proposed section, just a general concern I have. Prcc27 (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Other Declared Candidates

Eric Jon Boerner is not listed in the other declared candidates for the Republicans.

Declared on 11 November 2022

Here are the sources to reference from:

https://docquery.fec.gov/pdf/111/202211119546754111/202211119546754111.pdf

https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/another-presidential-candidate-rolls-through-cedar-rapids

https://abcnews4.com/news/local/republican-candidate-for-president-visits-the-lowcountry-holds-town-hall-sunday-wciv-abc-news-4-goose-creek-south-caorlina-sc-eric-jon-boerner

https://www.wvik.org/2023-03-21/presidential-candidate-visits-iowa-for-the-first-time

https://www.theitem.com/stories/presidential-candidate-eric-jon-boerner-to-visit-sumter-on-monday-april-24,398220

https://cbs2iowa.com/news/local/2024-presidential-candidate-eric-jon-boerner-in-eastern-iowa

https://www.kcrg.com/video/2023/03/20/eric-jon-boerner-republican-presidential-candidate-uses-iowa-visit-introduction/

https://ericboerner.com

https://twitter.com/EricJonBoerner1

https://facebook.com/BoernerTheUSA 168.103.154.41 (talk) 01:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe only candidates with Wikipedia articles are listed. Ryan Binkley was briefly added but removed for that reason. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Electoral map SYNTH

Is “Meanwhile, states like Colorado, Michigan, and Virginia have moved noticeably towards Democrats” WP:SYNTH if we are using one source for Colorado and Michigan, and another source for Virginia? If so, how should we fix this? Prcc27 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Collapsible lists in third party and independent candidate section not rendering properly

There is already a section on collapsible lists, please discuss there. Prcc27 (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2023 (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.

Lists lack bullet points making them hard to read SecretName101 (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

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

Trans Rights.

This is a requested change, not a forum

In the lead paragraph the following should be changed LGBT rights, ..... are expected to be leading campaign issues. to Trans Rights ..... are expected to be leading campaign issues. for the following reasons:

I suspect Trans Rights will be a bigger issue than just LGBT rights.I don't suspect Lesbian or Gay rights will be center-stage (like in say, 2012) compared to just Trans rights. I would recommend changing LGBT rights to Trans Rights. I know LGBT covers Trans Rights but Trans Rights are a particular hot topic among both conservatives and liberals, and their wouldn't be a better way to differentiate the times, (Say, the 2020's), (To say the early 2010s) than to differentiate the social justice and civil rights issue of the current political day or era.

This is for many reasons, from Ron DeSantis' culture war/war on books, to the potential release of Hale's manifesto to Gender Affirming healthcare being denied in Tennessee, to J.K Rowling's transphobic statements, it seems like Trans Rights are going much more of a political issue than LGBT rights in general.

It's also interesting to note that Biden was the first president to mention Trans as part of a boarder political coalition. Unlike the 2010s, Biden also incorporates the Trans flag into his political apparel. I think Trans Rights will define a much broader debate for the rest of the decade (2020s) in a way that the just the LGBT movement won't, which is why Biden made a point to mention them seperately. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

What about LGBT rights, especially trans rights? Because you're right that trans rights are a particular issue of contention, but also stuff like the sudden increase in prominence of the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory says to me it's not just trans rights. Loki (talk) 00:28, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree that the LGBT grooming conspiracy theory has become an issue, but I think it's become more of an issue under the auspices of gender identity as oppose too same-sex attraction. I don't think a majority of conservative opposition is that they are turning kids gay but it's that they are against children receiving gender-affirming care or identifying as non-binary. Or they are against public educators discussing certain issues to students. Most of the political topics in the last 4 years have been directly related to Transgender issues specifically, including but not limited to
Trans individuals right to use locker rooms/restrooms.
Trans individuals right to compete in sports.
Trans individuals right to surgery.
Trans soldiers right to surgery.
Non-Binary pronoun usage in government documents.
Educators right to teach about certain subjects.
The only issue that tangential touches Lesbian and Gay rights is perhaps education, but the objection from conservative media hasn't been Gay books are in schools, it's supposedly explicit books are in schools which are being taught too children or are mandatory. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The word "rights" I believe isn't neutral. Just as saying "right to life" suggests opposition to abortion and "abortion rights" suggests support, saying "transgender rights" suggests a point of view that transgenderism is valid and not subject to political and social debate. I would instead say "transgender issues," which puts less of a thumb on the scale. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:11, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
“Transgender issues” sounds negative, and also may be WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that's equivalent to saying Civil Rights suggest a point of view that people of color are valid members of greater American society. I think Trans rights are on par with Women's rights (1920s) or Civil Rights (1950s-1960s) or Gay Rights (1980s-2010s, but still ongoing). Especially with the epidemic of Trans suicide and overall acceptance, "Transgender issues" sounds very insular, and slightly negative. As if it's something they are dealing with internally and has no points of contact with the outside world. Even though there has been Trans individuals sense time immemorial. Trans rights are eventually going to come into contact with the society as a whole and therefor are not bifurcated from it, in the same way Civil Rights or Women's Rights were. 71.9.141.71 (talk) 16:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Oh no. Conservatives genuinely think that they are turning kids gay. 
We need this site to say it how it is; no more leaving out details such as right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:25, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there reliable sources for the contention of "right-wingers wanting to commit genocide on trans people"? In any case, the "T" in LGBT is "transgender", so the term is already covered. BD2412 T 00:40, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
They've instated a policy in Florida that takes trans kids away from their parents (violation of section E of UN Genocide Convention), causing physical and mental harm, dehumanization, you can see the proof all over. Don't be askin' for proof of things you can see on the internet. Western Progressivist (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
When you are proposing changes to an article, it is incumbent upon the person asking for change to provide reliable sources to justify the changes. Regardless of how obvious they may seem to you. --Pokelova (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, according to the article on Trans rights, allegations of genocide are being proven day by day.
Transgender rights in the United States - Wikipedia
Furthermore, the US is witnessing attacks on civil, constitutional, and human rights of marginalized groups.
There is plenty of online proof of this. Not adding this only increases the danger of transcide as people are ignorant to the right-wing attacks. Western Progressivist (talk) 19:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Western Progressivist, Wikipedia is not here to right great wrongs. Stick to the facts and not your fears. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
But there are facts of transgender genocide. Conservative pundits have become transphobic, while the GOP has been behind anti-trans bills. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Even if we give you the benefit of the doubt that these are “facts”, we give due weight to the most prominent sources. Most (all?) of which do not describe these laws as “genocide”. Prcc27 (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
First of all, the laws fall under the UN convention of genocide, as they (1) cause major mental and bodily harm, (2) attempt to erase a group via restricting access to needed things, and (3) if we look at certain pundits like Larry Elder and Candice Owens, we can observe their aversion to queer rights, which leads to dehumanization which is a precursor to genocide.
For direction, the following sections are being violated:
"(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group": Florida has enacted a law to transfer trans kids to guardians should their family allow them to have gender affirming care.
"(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group": transgender folx have reported conservative anti-trans sentiment to be damaging to their mental wellbeing.
"(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part": this can be confirmed by the banning of HRT and transitioning surgery in red states; this would not be done without knowing that the banning of such care would lead to increased suicide rates in trans individuals (particularly youths).
Yes, you can deny and assume I'm a "paranoid" fool, but incidents like at CPAC and such are indicators of an upcoming transgender genocide. Western Progressivist (talk) 01:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
GOP has been behind anti-trans bills - this is verifiable
Conservative pundits have become transphobic - this could be true, but it is not verifiable
What really matters for this page is what it has to do with the election. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Matt Walsh, Ben Shapiro anyone?
These are major anti-trans pundits. Other commentators such as Tucker Carlson have spread anti-trans conspiracies and rhetoric. If you look on their respective media, you can see pretty transphobic stuff.
I'm getting disappointed by this website's ignorance. Call me a dullard, but ask anyone in the trans community and they can verify that, yes, a transgender genocide is unfolding as we speak.
If that's not enough proof, have this:
Statement on the Genocidal Nature of the Gender Critical Movement’s Ideology and Practice (lemkininstitute.com)
"trans people are on stage 7 of genocide " : r/lgbt (reddit.com) Western Progressivist (talk) 02:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Matt Walsh and Ben Shapiro and Tucker Carlson are not candidates for president in the 2024 elections. If this were an article on trans rights in the United States, their views might be relevant. For an article on the 2024 United States presidential election, we would need, very specifically, reliable sources actually discussing how trans rights (or LGBT rights, more generally) are, in fact, an issue in the election. BD2412 T 02:15, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
You are new here, and you are being cut a significant amount of slack, but you need to learn more about how Wikipedia works, especially if you want to make contributions around two of our most contentious topics: American politics and gender identity. Specifically, you should read WP:NPOV to learn about how we reflect things neutrally, and WP:RS, which discusses reliable sources. Reddit comments are not reliable sources. Also, please assume good faith. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, we shouldn't be ignoring the severity of things.
If there were an extreme case of, let's say, a virus from space, we'd want to ensure that people know that this is dangerous, and that neutrality would not create the message of urgency. Western Progressivist (talk) 02:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
This article is neither about space viruses, nor transgender genocide. Anyways, the consensus here is clear, so I see little point in further discussion on this matter. Prcc27 (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
If there were a virus from space, we would only mention it on this page if we could verify that it was relevant to its subject, the 2024 U.S. presidential election. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I’m a right winger and I don’t wanna commit genocide on trans people? WONKAKlD (talk) 11:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I would never kill anybody plus no conservative wants to kill trans people I do not know what Liberal site you’re reading but trust me the we aren’t gonna start a genocide. WONKAKlD (talk) 11:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@WONKAKlD sorry to further the of-base sub-conversation (I anticipate that this will be all I have to add to this tangent), but I just will note that genocide does not require mass murder. Forced sterilization, forced cultural “re-education”, abduction of children are all just a few non-murderous acts that can constitute a genocide.
also, I concur with all who said before that the focus of this article is the election. SecretName101 (talk) 04:01, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
ok WONKAKlD (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Independents UNDUE

Isn’t it WP:UNDUE to include the “potential candidates” and “declined to be candidates” sections in the article for the independent/third party section, but not for the Democratic and Republican sections? I assume the only reason it is in our article, is because there is no article for independent candidates for this information to be listed, whereas the potential and declined to be candidates information is accessible at the Democratic and Republican primaries subarticles. Nevertheless, we should at least collapse the sections, so we are not giving undue weight to independent/third party potential/declined candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Good point. I'm okay with either removing or collapsing the "potential" and "declined" sections per WP:UNDUE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
The formatting you have put in place is now seriously problematic. The way you have formatted the collapsible lists leaves no bullet points or clear separation, making it nearly impossible to read at a glance. SecretName101 (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Never mind, problem solved. I removed the section entirely (please see reasons I gave in my edit summary). Prcc27 (talk) 13:21, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign

I just created a draft for the Cornel West 2024 presidential campaign. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thriley (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley I’m someone who believes a lot early-stage candidacies should not have their own articles. Unless they are front-running or have particularly significant note off-the-bat. A subsection of the subject’s biographical article usually suffices during the early campaign.
West (and most of the GOP candidates, as well as the two Dem challengers) are prime examples of this at this stage in their campaigns. SecretName101 (talk) 03:52, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think because West is making an independent run that this campaign will go quite long and perhaps make it to the general election. If he were running for the Democratic primary, I’d say leave the redirect. The draft can be updated until it is fleshed out enough for the mainspace. Thriley (talk) 04:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
@Thriley when and if it goes a long way, such an article could be published. But it has not yet. SecretName101 (talk) 18:50, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidates not currently in office

Why are candidates who are currently not in office have their last office in bold? For example, Chris Christie is not current governor of New Jersey but that title is listed in bold. I suggest that we only use bold for offices that are currently held.

user:mnw2000 21:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC) user:mnw2000 21:26, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I guess it puts more emphasis on their most recent experience? I am neutral about your suggestion. Prcc27 (talk) 15:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Only one who should be in bold is Biden, as he is the incumbent. Everyone else is a challenger. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
It's just stylistic convention to bold the most prominent and/or recent office of an individual in these tables SecretName101 (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Empty sections

Can we please keep empty sections hidden, until information is added to those sections? For now, users can access the relevant links in the see also section. Prcc27 (talk) 04:58, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Trump "thumbtack fact" about a recent statement and/or perspective on Abortion

Hello,

In the section of "Abortion Access"[30] , the Wikipedia entry in the said section simply mentions regarding Trump: "[. . .] Donald Trump has mostly avoided the topic since Roe v. Wade was overturned."


However, by sources about a month ago; on May 17th 2023, as well as by my recollection, Trump on the website TruthSocial had stated that he was able to "kill Roe v. Wade" (pictured here on Twitter [31] ).

On the conservative news netwark "Newsmax" presumably around or at May 17th, Trump had also apparently mentioned in a phone interview with them that he "was the one that got rid of Roe v. Wade". (Clip authenticity is seemingly true. This clip was found only on a Twitter post, referenced by a main source: source number six: [32] )


Other mentions of this event happening can be found looking it up. Sources such as The Hill [33] , BusinessInsider [34] , and Newsweek [35] . Other various sources from the same time seem to report, or imply this "Roe v. Wade" statement made from Fmr Pres. Trump.


Another fact to mention, and despite it being implied now, is it should also be noted and typed into the section that Trump, in line with his Republican Party's common 'principle' of being Pro-Life, has mentioned before in a 2016 debate during the election that he is indeed, pro-life. [36]


These are quite a rather small note of addition to the Wikipedia Article here, and if added can very well possibly give some more accuracy to readers regarding possible 2024 Republican Candidates-for-President stances on Abortion, more specifically: Accuracy on Donald Trump's stance on Abortion, as well as Roe v. Wade.


Thanks for reading this, and thank you in advance for making the additions mentioned in my suggestion here. Wang Dynasty (talk) 03:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello,
As of now, on June 10th 2023, and unlike Trump's stated perspective of Roe v. Wade on TruthSocial and on a phone interview on NewsMax, another excerpt from Trump himself; in person, has stated of himself quote: "killing Roe v. Wade, which everyone said was impossible."
This was apparently stated during a Georgia GOP convention today.
This excerpt stated by and from Trump was taken by journalist Aaron Rupar on Twitter (twitter post is source 1):[37]
Keep in mind that this is an excerpt of this one singular moment. However, it would seem that Rupar had created a full "Twitter thread" of excerpts from Trump in the Convention, including the Tweet I had sourced here. Wang Dynasty (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
"This excerpt stated by and from Trump was taken by journalist Aaron Rupar on Twitter (twitter post is source 1(8))"
Source 8*. Mistake. Wang Dynasty (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Indictments & investigations

I removed most of the information about Trump’s indictments and investigations in the Republican primary section, because most of those sources did not even say anything about the 2024 presidential election. I found a source that does mention his criminal trials in the context of the the election. Should this information be re-added with an updated source? If so, is the Republican primary section the appropriate place for this information? Prcc27 (talk) 16:13, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

The trial on the case in New York is literally scheduled to begin midway through the primaries. That will effect the election purely on a logistical basis. BD2412 T 01:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
The Stormy Daniels indictment is the only sentence I left in the article– everything else did not have a source which mentioned the election. Prcc27 (talk) 01:40, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Democratic Declared Candidates Experience - Joe Biden: County Council (1970 - 1973)

Hello,

It has been a month-and-a-half now since my initial suggestion on this same subject of President Biden's political experience, and I am typing another request/question on this, same subject again:


As referenced by the title of this card, I was wondering if Biden's experience of being a: New Castle County Councilman (4th District; 1970 - 1973)" can remain Permanent in the article section here for his past political experience[38] (as well as for the Wikipedia Article "2024 Democratic Party Presidential Primaries"[39])

It could be Somewhat similar to the past political experiences of current-Republican Candidates Fmr. Governor Nikki Haley (South Carolina State Representative (87th District; 2005–2011)), and Senator Tim Scott (South Carolina State Representative (117th District; 2009 - 2011)). (Both sourced here:)[40]


If this suggestion is accepted, then perhaps one way the addition can be added into the section can be:


President of the United States (2021–present)


Vice President of the United States (2009–2017)


U.S. Senator from Delaware (1973–2009) <- (Section Here and Above is left as is, due to it being the current display.)


Member of the New Castle County Council (1971 - 1973) (This has been noted even in Biden's Wikipedia Article as Political Experience.)[41].


(Additional Source:)[42]


This addition is suggested, due to it most likely being still considered as "political experience", as well as the County Council addressing itself as a "legislative branch of New Castle County government"[43].


Thanks for your time reading this, and Thank You in advance if these changes are applied to the requested places. Wang Dynasty (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose: this seems WP:UNDUE compared to his more recent and relevant experience. Also, having too many roles listed in the experience section was an eyesore. Let’s try to keep it to a maximum of three please. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Information Missing

Entering into WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM territory. We add whatever is represented by sources. — Czello (music) 22:52, 17 June 2023 (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.


Please add that attacks on voting, trans, and civil rights are coming from Republicans and conservatives.

They are the main reason this so-called "culture war" is occurring, and not adding this detail creates a false narrative that liberals also hate minorities. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:22, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

No false narrative is being created that liberals hate minorities. Some liberals could. Additionally, not all Republicans and. Conservatives "hate" minorities. Doesn't make any sense. IEditPolitics (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Really? They've harmed civil rights one way or another. Stop bothsidesing and realize that all members of a group can be hateful. Western Progressivist (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Peoples Party major enough for own category?

Maybe I am just a socially illiterate nerd but I had never even heard of the People's Party before, and now they have a single candidate running and that some how gets its own category list over the Libertarian Party, the third largest party in the country? Los Pobre (talk) 03:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I removed it. I don't think the party is notable yet. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:10, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
With ballot access in one or three states, CERTAINLY not notable enough SecretName101 (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
i think No Labels would likely be the next to get one, along with Libs and Green. If Manchin were to run for president, I can entirely see No Labels being discussed for a section in 2024 presidential election. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential Candidates Section to be re-added

I believe that the potential candidates section should be on here, for many reasons.

  1. We have very minor candidates still listed, under Democrats or Republicans. Potential candidates of one party are of equal or more importance than minor candidates. Manchin is one notable candidate.
  2. Potential candidates provide more insight into the upcoming election. A person might come to this Wikipedia page in search of possible candidates, not just declared ones. The announcement pending is a good start, but there is just so much more possibility with potential candidates.

For clarification, I would likely have them as a separate section, due to the possibility of a candidate like Sen. Joe Manchin (no section has been made for No Labels).


More reasons are valid but those are just two. Hope that we can make this article better, as this could likely be one of the most important elections in U.S history, and we need informed voters on who might be there.

IEditPolitics (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If people want to see the potential candidates, they can go to a subarticle. Adding the sections to the main article would be too much clutter, possibly even WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Making a sub article would be unneeded, and the average user is not looking for a sub article. There is no clutter, it is straight up fac a the user would want to know. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be made. The sub-article already exists (Third party and independent candidates for the 2024 United States presidential election), it includes Manchin, and there's a link to it in the main article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:03, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Delete this talk topic. I was unaware of this article, even if it was redundant. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Question on 'Other Declared Candidates'

Afroman has an FEC filing, Kanye and Marshall do not, should we separate Afroman from them or keep him in 'Declared intent to run' HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Why and what criteria is there for separating some candidates out of the boxes and simply putting them into a short sentence along with others so handled? 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:895A:A8F6:1262:AD4 (talk) 14:56, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Afro man's campaign is more serious if he has a filing. That's obvious criteria. However, instead of making a direct sentence, adding clarification that someone has an FEC filing would probably the route to go. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Put Perry back on!

Now! YangGang2024 (talk) 02:24, 19 June 2023 (UTC) — YangGang2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Useless. Minor candidate, long-shot. IEditPolitics (talk) 16:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Support There have been a flurry of notable news articles regarding his candidacy and his attempts to qualify for the debates.XavierGreen (talk) 19:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Lib/Green party addition

Was this addition fair? Personally, I'm confused as to why we added this when no other election page ever had a Lib or green party section, to my knowledge. IEditPolitics (talk) 14:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Given that they are the only two other parties with sufficient ballot access to win the election, it would seem to me that they must be included or the article would suffer from NPOV issues.XavierGreen (talk) 18:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
This was discussed previously and the consensus reached was that, in keeping with WP:DUE, only notable candidates (i.e. those having a standalone WP article) should be listed in bullet list form as opposed to the table format. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Then why are there tables for them? Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The tables have been removed, and the consensus-based formatting has been restored A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Good. IEditPolitics (talk) 15:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
That discussion was only in relation to the Libertarian candidates table, the candidates there are fare less notable than to Cornell West, who has major media coverage, and is polling at 6% nationally already [44]. His candidacy is clearly far more notable than the Libertarians who have come forward already.XavierGreen (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I would assume we should use the same (or at least similar) criteria that we have for the major party primary pages: has held/holds a “significant” political position, has been in at least 5 general election polls, and/or has substantial media coverage. Does Cornell West meet the last requirement? If so, I would support having a table for him. I might be wrong, but it appears he might even have more media coverage than Kanye West. Prcc27 (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

If No Labels gain a majority of states ballot access, should they be mentioned?

Since No Labels is likely to have Larry Hogan or Joe Manchin if ballot access is gained, would those candidates be major enough to be listed, as this is the first time in a considerable time that a party has gained ballot access with such a major nominee compared to others (see Lib and Green party regular nominees. Also, count their media coverage and polling from third parties on their likely performance. IEditPolitics (talk) 23:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes YangGang2024 (talk) 02:12, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Worry about what to do with No Labels if and when they get ballot access. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:07, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
They don't just need to get ballot access, they also need to get a candidate. In 2012, Americans Elect managed to secure ballot access in the majority of states before winding up not having a candidate to use that ballot access. Admittedly, that was a somewhat different story since Americans Elect was supposed to have an online primary but nobody actually qualified for it. However, No Labels still needs to have someone commit to running as their presidential candidate, which has not happened yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Democratic/Republican template restrictions.

Due to the restrictions, for some reason, Perry Johnson is still on here. He also had no picture. Mistakes like these are regularly left untouched. Having the template restricted means users like me who are trying to make a difference on the article are stopped from making those changes. Either remove the restriction or make the right changes. It's a repetitive mistake this article makes. IEditPolitics (talk) 21:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

We have come to a consensus on the Talk page of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries article that Perry Johnson qualifies as a major candidate.
That article and the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article are essentially links that display on the 2024 United States presidential election article, to make maintenance easier. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Archive, please. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:05, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Excessive number of stub-articles for campaigns

An excessive number of stub-articles have been created for campaigns. At this stage, most campaigns can be appropriately covered as mere sub-sections of the candidate's own biographical article.

Some of these articles are artificially lengthened with the addition of sections summarizing the candidates' stances, which largely duplicate (or which can be merged with) similar sections on the candidate's main article.

I think we should seriously consider merging the following campaign articles into the respective candidates' main article for at least the time being:

SecretName101 (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Beginning to officially propose these mergers SecretName101 (talk) 15:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the exception of maybe Pence, who's campaign seems to be covered a little more reliably in itself. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Robert F. Kennedy Jr has similar coverage and polling numbers as Ron DeSantis, he should be treated as such. 92.12.12.233 (talk) 11:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
I generally oppose these merges as short-sighted, since a campaign almost immediately becomes more than one person. BD2412 T 20:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Seconding this for the moment, though I do think that an early withdrawal would warrant the removal of their campaign page. PeacockShah (talk) 20:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Also oppose these merges. Most would likely take up far too much of the subject's article and we'd just need to split again; better to keep them as their own articles for consistency. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
At this point I think an administrator (other than myself, obviously) can step in and WP:SNOW close the lot of these. BD2412 T 04:55, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Better Source Needed

Guys! You can't just cite the constitution when explaining the requirements to run for president. According to the wise man @David O. Johnson that wouldn't be an independent source. David, please explain to them we need a random website to back up the United States Constitution or the page will be biased. I have attached a better source needed tag. Veganoregano (talk) 16:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Can we please get a photo for Perry Johnson???

Like my god it shouldn't be this hard YangGang2024 (talk) 20:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC) — YangGang2024 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

It does not exist. I took an hour out of my day searching. Each time I found a CC license it was invalid for commercial purposes. I will PayPal you 10$ if you seriously find a PJ picture that ain't copyrighted. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
lmao I love this talk page
nobody else on earth would care about a photo of perry johnson besides us YangGang2024 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
See Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle for why that argument doesn't work. reppoptalk 21:13, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
why dont yall just use the shirtless pic of him at like 15 years old and watch the campaign finally respond and put a real pic of him in public domain Veganoregano (talk) 16:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
yesssss YangGang2024 (talk) 21:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Marianne Williamson logo update

Everyone, Marianne Williamson has updated her logo. It is no longer what is seen on the dem primaries table. This new logo is being used on her website, social media, etc. I'm not sure how to link it here but please look at her website in the top left hand side and somebody please update it. YangGang2024 (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Campaign issues section contradicts WP:NPOV

Given that the election is still over a year away, there's naturally going to be some amount of guesswork & speculation. But this section reads like it was written mostly from a left-wing perspective, without regard to both sides of the political debate.

  • First off, the economy is always going to be the number one issue. Particularly when a supermajority of Americans say the economy is in "fair" condition or worse.
  • Next, per FiveThirtyEight, when voters, grouped by party, are polled on what they consider as the most important issues after the economy, Republicans say crime & illegal immigration. Neither of these issues are mentioned here. In contrast, there are lengthy sections on abortion access & election denialism which are top Democrat concerns.
  • The section on election denialism goes into detail about Trump's attempts to overturn the 2020 election, but doesn't mention the mostly Democrat-led effort to greatly expand absentee voting & ballot harvesting during COVID, yet refusal to undo them now that the emergency has ended.
  • With abortion access remaining a states' rights issue for the foreseeable future, and each state's abortion restrictions (or lack thereof) rapidly converging to their respective political preferences, many predictions within this section are largely premature & speculative. For any action to be taken at the federal level requires multiple Supreme Court vacancies, a filibuster-proof Senate majority, or a simple Senate majority willing to abolish the filibuster, none of which are likely to happen in 2024.

2001:558:6045:B5:1134:9219:8250:87F3 (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Probably true, but not necessarily.
  • There was already a section on this talk page about adding immigration, and users supported the addition of the section. If you want to add it, by all means, go for it! The reason abortion access is a lengthy section is because it gets a lot of media coverage as a 2024 issue, so we give due weight to it, albeit it probably should not be too much longer than the economy section. But I think it’s WP:DUE for it to be longer than the immigration section if it gets more media coverage. FWIW, abortion was the second most important issue among 2022 voters overall, regardless of party affiliation.
  • Any sources that absentee voting is a 2024 campaign issue? Also, your ballot harvesting claim seems WP:FRINGE, so should not be included.
  • Not necessarily. Republican candidates may still campaign on a national abortion ban, even if it is highly unlikely to be enacted, (and vice versa for Democratic candidates). Also, candidates may promise to only appoint SCOTUS justices that align with them on abortion, as a campaign promise.
Prcc27 (talk) 17:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia isn’t always about giving every single thing the same weight. There’s a reason more of the page is dedicated to Trump than to Perry Johnson, and that’s their frequency in the media. The way a judge can’t admit evidence on their own and has to weigh only the evidence given to him. Wikipedia is just a condensed mirror of credible media coverage. Some of the issues you brought up are not talked about and the issues of abortion and denialism are. They were also critical in the midterms. Veganoregano (talk) 07:38, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Ukraine, leading issue

Do you all think Ukraine should be added to: Crime,[4] education,[5] immigration,[6] gun control,[7][8] healthcare, abortion access,[9] LGBT rights (especially transgender rights), the state of the economy,[10] and election integrity[11] are expected to be leading campaign issues.

I personally think it is worth talking about — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotQualified (talk • contribs) 23:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Colors beside candidates

What do they indicate and can someone add what they indicate into the Wiki for everyone - it is confusing — Preceding unsigned comment added by NotQualified (talk • contribs) 23:19, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

They are mainly for the purpose of coloring maps and other images once primary elections and caucuses take place. They are somewhat arbitrary (candidates who were in previous election cycles have the same color as before), and they should be distinct from other candidates in the same party. There has been alot of premature discussions and edit warring over choosing colors, and one editor has even been unfortunately blocked as a result. Honestly, I don't think they all need colors, as some will drop out and many are unlikely to win a single delegate (see 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries). I hope the palette of colors used here will be adjusted once it is clear who actually needs one. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:06, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Is "Predictions" section really necessary? Isn't this a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue?

I don't recall this being included in past election articles. It seems overtly WP:CRYSTALBALL, am I correct in saying that? It's extremely presumptive and we can't predict ANY of this. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:07, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

I will also add, Wikipedia should not be predicting this, but we should not be relying on OTHER sources to be predicting this. Thanks conman33 (. . .talk) 04:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
This section appears to contain only predictions made by other sources. Perhaps the header should be adjusted to note that these are predictions by political forecasters. BD2412 T 04:40, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
the section is not predicting, but rather presenting the predictions of electoral analysts which are commonly referenced in sources. i think it provides useful coverage of the context surrounding expectations of the election. i’m not sure if other presidential articles provide predictions but the House and Senate elections articles consistently provide summaries of pundit forecasts/models Griffindaly (talk) 07:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Both 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Predictions and 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Comparison_to_polls_and_other_forecasts exist. There's nothing wrong with including reliably sourced predictions made by notable organizations.--JasonMacker (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I think there is. It's speculative, often POV content. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Of course it's offering a point of view. That's the whole point of election forecasting! As long as the predictions are properly attributed to the reliable source, there's nothing wrong with it. WP:CRYSTALBALL clearly states:
"Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."
If you have any information how Sabato's Crystal Ball or Inside Election or Cook PVI provide undue bias, feel free to explain. JasonMacker (talk) 14:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

More candidates under Independent/third party section?

As per the relevant page, both the Prohibition Party and the American Solidarity Party have nominated their candidates. Strategos' Risk (talk) 06:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on including a margin in Forecasts section?

Hello all! I was taking a look at the article and saw the forecast section and was wondering if it was worth adding a margin section to the Forecasts section, e.g. what you see at 2020 United States presidential election#Close states. I took a cursory look at the sources presented and didn't see the winning percentage listed, so I can see how including a margin in the table might be more helpful than simply stating the winning percentage. Thoughts? Or would that be considered WP:SYNTH? Jay eyem (talk) 20:51, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Additionally, would it be worth including the electoral votes that a state has for 2024 in the same table? It's easy enough to look up that information on its own, but the overall section has a breakdown of D, R, and tossup votes and it might be helpful to break that down further. Not sure it makes any sense to include both 2020 and 2024 electoral votes, just 2024. Jay eyem (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_3&oldid=1170965619"