Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Michigan

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance

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

Kennedy in infobox

Is Kennedy being on the infobox the right decision? I have not seen it discussed here, and on the main page the general consensus is no. Why is Michigan different Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 20:27, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus for state infoboxes is consistent state polling of 5%+ and ballot access (see here). Prcc27 (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It it isdifferent because Kennedy across states has gained hundreds of thousands of signatures this year to get onto ballots unlike other 3rd parties, which is a lot of support. He is polling at least 5% in some states which meets the consensus like Prcc27 said, this is the correct decision. BRENNAN123456 (talk) 16:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I removed RFK, a minor candidate with no consensus for inclusion in infoboxes. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is in fact a consensus to include on state page infoboxes where any is generally polling above 5%. Your edits are disruptive. If you propose a change, propose it on the main 2024 presidential election page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus for this. Prcc27, show me where in that link there is a consensus to include him on polling. Existing consensus is based on results. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is literally about including him based on polling. The consensus is clear, there and here at this talk page, regardless of whether you ignore it or not. Prcc27 (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no consensus in that thread. There is no uninvolved editor determining a consensus. The current consensus is the same as the main election page, which is to not include RFK Jr. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There doesn’t have to be a closer for every single discussion. Especially when it’s a non-RfC section. You are more than welcome to request a close though. The consensus is not “do not include RFKJR”; the consensus is ballot access & 5% polling average. RFKJR meets the criteria for Michigan, but not for the national infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A straw poll that dies out with a 50-50ish split is not a consensus in either direction. He does not belong in the infobox. According to his own runningmate, he may not be in the campaign much longer. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Until he suspends his campaign, he should remain in the infobox. Wikipdia is not a cyrstalball; we should not assume he will drop. Prcc27 (talk) 01:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is terrifying. The Democrats, who claim to stand up for Democracy, are always trying to find excuses to ban candidates from the ballot. The Green Party, other minor parties, and of course, Kennedy himself. Pretty pathetic. Don't see Republicans trying to remove Libertarians from the ballot. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a close. Are you willing to revert until then? --Super Goku V (talk) 04:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not willing to self-revert. The consensus is clear, the margin in favor of option “B” is a comfortable margin. And I feel it is unfair to stonewall the inclusion of RFKJR. I think the closure request is unnecessary, but of course I welcome an uninvolved user closing it. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Prcc27, but my request is for Muboshgu to self-revert. Sorry for it not being clear. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see where I goofed. I was under a false and self-inflicted impression that Muboshgu's edit was the last to the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are other articles he made the same edit on against consensus, such as Nevada and California.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFKJR does not have ballot access in Nevada so that is actually the right move, for now. As for California, he has only been included in 3 polls, so I’m neutral on whether we include him in that infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My position remains the same, and I think we could certainly re-litigate due to limited participation. But I don't believe we need a supermajority to adopt the 5% rule as there is no precedent for following the national infobox, AFAIK. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this may be moot very soon anyway.

RFK Jr. plans to drop out of presidential race by end of week: Sources – Muboshgu (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not moot, it is entirely possible that another candidate could poll above 5% at any given time in a presidential election, either it be this one or a future one.XavierGreen (talk) 20:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moot for this race, I mean. I don't expect that lessons will be learned about the insignificance of third-party candidates in US presidential elections from RFK dropping out, but WP:CRYSTAL applies to our expectations as well. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not moot at all, under your assertion then there is no inclusion critera and all candidates who have filed to run in each state must be included per Wiki:NPOV on that states campaign page. I am more than happy with that stance. Your personal beliefs regarding the validity of 3rd party campaigns are of utterly no relevance.XavierGreen (talk) 23:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My personal beliefs and interpretation of policy are shared by enough of my fellow editors that we wisely kept RFK out of the infobox on the main election page. This discussion is unproductive. Probably best to reconsider it after the heat of the moment passes. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFKJR. is only kept out of the national infobox because he is polling below 5% nationwide; most users do not support an absolute ban on third party candidates in infoboxes pre-election, unlike you. There absolutely could be a third party candidate that meets the statewide infobox criteria in the near future (especially in Utah where Trump is less popular with Republicans). I hope this dispute will be resolved, regardless of whether Kennedy drops out. Prcc27 (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should absolutely discuss these matters when there is not a specific person we're talking about, which poisons the conversation. I do think this whole dumb thing could be informative for the future. For example, I did not anticipate that ballot access would be so difficult to ascertain; it is now clearly a bad metric for this purpose. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bad metric that we wait until it is verified that a candidate has an actual chance of reaching the required threshold to become President or am I significantly misunderstanding here?

(And again, we will very likely have a similar discussion four years down the road, whether or not this one is continued.) --Super Goku V (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The community wants to include serious third party candidates pre-election while excluding non-serious candidates. We used ballot access as a reasonable standard for serious, which is a good metric in principal. But what we have found is that while Reliable Sources provide some coverage of ballot access activities, they completely ignored others. Even in the case of the Hill and NYT, who seemingly intended to provide up-to-date tracking, we have states added to one tracker and not the other weeks later. It ended up being moot as RFK's polling cratered, but imagine if he was polling at 20 and we were hemming and hawing about which source to trust of ballot access in mid-August. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:57, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We might have to ignore WP:SYNTH, and just do our own calculation like we do on the third-party article, for a ballot access criterion to work. Either way, verifying which states had ballot access was a pain. Prcc27 (talk) 16:25, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I understand your meaning. I do agree that attempting to determine the states that Kennedy was on the ballot for was a painful experience. Even now, there is still a disagreement between sources on Kennedy's status in Arizona compared to New York. The Hill says that Kennedy's campaign does not claim Arizona and does claim New York, except that Kennedy's "Ballot Access HQ" does for both. NYT says that Kennedy failed to qualify in New York, but lists Arizona as "in progress" instead. CBS News does actually have both marked as "Not on Ballot" which makes the most sense with Kennedy withdrawing from Arizona's ballot, but they disagree elsewhere. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the other issue, it likely will be moot. We can (and near guaranteed will) have a new discussion four years from now regarding independent candidates for the 2028 election. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]