Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by KlayCax (talk | contribs) at 09:48, 9 August 2024 (→Removal of Trump authoritarian statements in the lead). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal The New York Times[3] and The Hill[4] seem to be keeping track of ballot access in an editorially responsible way. Nevertheless, there are discrepancies: NYT gives him CA & HI, where The Hill has SC, NV, and FL. I would like to suggest that we give him credit for either, with the rational being that adding a state to these trackers is a discreet act. Either RS could omit a state through negligence, but neither would add a state negligently. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Trump's current potrait

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

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

Last sentence should be stricken. (47th president)

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

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

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

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

Silver Bulletin forecast

I want to see some consensus before I try and implement this because it will probably take time to fiddle with that chart, but what do you all think of adding the Silver Bulletin forecast by Nate Silver to the forecast chart? [5] R. G. Checkers talk 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Excessively bold edits

Maybe it's just me, but in an article with so much activity on the talk page and so many potentially partisan editors quibbling over individual sentences, WP:CAREFUL should be in play. I don't think anyone should be striking multiple well cited paragraphs[6] without discussion here. The material stricken here is generally accurate and relevant to the section. If we need to tweak, that's fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Roll Call has happened today

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

It looks like someone has already updated the infobox; here's a source for it. [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this CBS source [8], Harris won't accept the nomination until voting closes on Monday. I think we should wait until it's official. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We removed “presumptive” from Trump before he formally accepted his nomination (even though I argued we should have waited for him to accept it). I think we added him only after every delegate had voted, so we should be able to remove it on Monday, regardless of when Harris will be formally accepting the nomination (if we want to be consistent). Prcc27 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with @Prcc27. –yeagvr · ✉ 18:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We may want to go ahead with it before Monday, if it's clear she is now the nominee, or we might have a weekend of edit-warring back and forth again by various editors on the articles. Related, there's already another edit request at Talk:Kamala Harris#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024 and I'm sure it won't be the last. Raladic (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not official until voting closes, though. I'd rather have some edits that need to be undone than put inaccurate information in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also similar to how we handle the infobox for when states are called since they are not called by media organizations until voting has concluded in a state. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's wait until the delegates vote at the Democratic National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to ask, what would be the benefit of doing so? My understanding is that this is the official roll call for the DNC's presidential nomination. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, the DNC has said she has the nomination. [9] Reliable sources all say its official. [10] There are no other candidates. It's done. I'm removing presumptive now. Editors here saying they want to wait for some future date need to rationalize why with sources; we are not going to go by vibes. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've reverted the edit.
That linked AP ref says "She’s looking to officially claim the nomination on Monday evening when the DNC is expected to release final results."
The WaPo ref says the same thing:"“I will officially accept your nomination next week, once the virtual voting period is closed,” Harris said on a live stream as delegates continued to cast ballots. “But already I’m happy to know we have enough delegates to secure the nomination.” The process officially continues through Monday, despite the foregone conclusion."
Please see the previous discussion here. [11]
I can't get the section link to work, but it's the right page.
Let's not jump ahead of the sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She can "officially accept" whenever she wants; That's not the same thing as officially being the nominee. Even if you were right on the technicality (which you are not), you are now editing purely to make a pedantic point. It is disruptive. Please stop. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why should we do things any differently than what we did for Trump? Even when Trump had a majority of delegate votes, we waited for every delegate to vote before we removed “presumptive”. Is Kamala Harris the official nominee? No? Then that must mean she is still presumptive by definition, right? Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we waited for every delegate based on this edit. The source in the edit summary says Trump announced the choice just ahead of the Ohio delegation’s roll call vote on the convention floor. Shortly after the announcement, Trump officially became the nominee with Florida’s roll call.
Still, I don't think we should remove the presumptive part until the roll call concludes on Monday. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the time stamp of that edit and the time when the vote concluded, I believe we did in fact wait for the voting to conclude. [12] Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. Then I am mistaken. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permission to edit this page?

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

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

Kamala Is now the official nominee

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

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

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

RFKJR residency

We currently list RFKJR.’s residency as “California”, even though he claims “New York” as his place of residency. How should we handle this? [14][15] Prcc27 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we just omit it? Listing either California or New York without elaboration could be an issue. Is there really much value in listing a candidates declared home state? I'm aware that his running mate is also from California, but the "concern" about them winning the state is a little silly. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It might look a little weird omitting his homestate while leaving everyone else’s homestate, especially in infoboxes. Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump's and Harris' aren't showing in the infoboxes in the candidate section. But if that doesn't work for everyone, I would favor listing New York with a footnote indicating the dispute. GreatCaesarsGhost 10:50, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason, the candidate boxes for third party candidates and Vance do mention the home states. As for the infobox.. this is what it looks like if we leave that field blank. But listing NY with a footnote could work. Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I added New York as RFKJR.’s home state, with a footnote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs in the aggregation section

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

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

Running mate

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

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

Walz portrait

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

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

Walz as presumptive nominee?

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

Fixed, thank you. Uwappa (talk) 15:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aaaand it’s been reverted already. Did this page have Vance as presumptive in the period of time where he was named but not officially nominated? Dingers5Days (talk) 15:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vance was “presumptive” until all of the delegates finished voting for VP. We should do the same for Walz. Prcc27 (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like once Minyon Moore declares Walz the VP, that's it. [16]. There is still a ceremonial vote at the convention, as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with removing “presumptive” once that happens then, since the RNC and DNC rules seem to be different. Prcc27 (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The certification has occurred: [17] GreatCaesarsGhost 00:34, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources for this? Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one. [18] Prcc27 (talk) 01:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

trump dropped out of debate on abc

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

Added. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:06, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump is now offering to return to the ABC debate if Harris agrees to debate on Fox beforehand. Harris has not responded, so this should not be added yet. The Debate section should only list debates that have been agreed to by both sides. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trump has agreed to do the ABC debate
[20] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

North Carolina swing state?

Shouldn’t we list North Carolina as a swing state? Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. The six states listed all went for Biden last time despite having a partisan lean towards Trump (relative to the nation). They are rated as "Toss-up" by at least half of the listed forecasters. North Carolina may be won by Harris, but only in a mini-landslide scenario. It is unlikely to be near the tipping point for victory. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:27, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those forecast ratings are before Biden dropped, so not really relevant. NC seems to be in play now that Harris is the nominee; she is polling within the margin of error. What do the sources say, though? Being the tipping point ≠ swing state. Past performance in previous elections do not always have an effect on the next election. Prcc27 (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well sure, if you disregard all the evidence, your case gets a lot stronger! :) The forecasts are sources. They have said NC is not a key swing state; until they say something different, who are we do disagree? ~ Also, where do you want it added? We do already note NC as a "battleground state" in the Electoral Map section. The lede indicates the six as "key" swing states. The word key implies we do not intend to list every state that could swing. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:59, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the forecasts are literally “frozen”/“suspended” (in the case of 538 and Decision Desk HQ) or have Biden’s name instead of Harris’s. So no, those sources are not useable. But I guess I am okay with waiting to see what happens when the forecasts are activated again. What should be the threshold for adding NC to the lead? Georgia had half of the forecasts lean R half tossup. Prcc27 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As you suggest, I would go with the sources. I did a search for key swing states, and there isn't a lot of commentary after the Harris switch period. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support as North Carolina voted for Trump by less than 1.5% in 2020, has a Democratic governor, and is being seriously contested (i.e. both campaigns spending significant time & resources there). JohnAdams1800 (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, I've found a few reliable sources that use the term "swing state" to describe NC.
Di (they-them) (talk) 03:32, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harris note

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

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

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 August 2024

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

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

kennedy has 270 now

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

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

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

Criteria for Third Party Candidates to be Included in Polling Graph

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

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

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

Polling includes west, but not oliver. I dont know why, but they do. Lukt64 (talk) 23:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start another argument

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

I think RFK polls close enough to meet the threshold, hitting 5% more often than not. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He generally polls at about 5%, and in some polling reaches 10, 15, or 20% Lukt64 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There has not been a single poll since Biden's withdrawal that shows him at or above 11%, so those later two numbers are just wrong and the 10% number is barely correct. In the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFK almost always polls >5%, so yes he meets the criterion. RickStrate2029 (talk) 00:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aggregators do not show that he's consistently polling above 5%, as can be seen at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election#Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.. You can see this at his polling is also falling, as can be seen in the graph (which goes below 5%!). As I said in my edit summary, I do not believe he should be included in the infobox. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 01:32, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: He is not consistently polling above 5% and actually his polling numbers are consistently going down ever since Kamala has became the Democratic Party's nominee. No need for him to be in the infobox at all. Unfriendnow (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original RfC said 5% in major polling aggregators, and explicitly listed 538 and RCP. He has more than 5 percent in those aggregators, as of right now.[21][22] Personisinsterest (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5% as @Unknown-Tree has stated. His numbers have not been consistently polling above 5% is the main point. Unfriendnow (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is irrelevant. The RfC agreed on this page explicitly said that 5% in polling aggregators was the threshold. The two explicitly named organizations have him above 5%. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't irrelevant. If polling aggregators tomorrow or the following week show him below 3% are we then going to have to take him out of the Infobox? are we going to have to check the polling aggregators every hour??? he simply has not been consistently polling above 5%. Unfriendnow (talk) 02:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since when was "consistently" part of the RfC result? It said generally. The two explicitly mentioned aggregators show him above 5%. That is generally. And yes, if he goes under 5 percent in even one of those aggregators mentioned, because he is on thin ice with only 538 and RCP, that is no longer general and he will be removed from the infobox. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decision Desk HQ/The Hill as of August 8th has him at 3.8%. Silver Bulletin as of August 8th has him at barely 4.5%. Again 6 other polls that show him below 5%.
How is all in general??? adding him now when he hasn't been consistency above 5% is ridiculous, it would make sense to add him if he was above that number in general as you claim but he isn't you even admit he is on thin ice even with other factors included. There is no need for him to be in the infobox when he simply isn't consistent. Unfriendnow (talk) 02:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Bulletin is not a reliable source. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Er, at least not a confirmed one. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
However the Wikipedia for Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election#Kamala Harris vs. Donald Trump vs. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is currently using it so...anyways as @Unknown-Tree has stated his polling is also falling, we can see it in the graph which goes even below 5% so that has to be taken in account. Adding him to the infobox because only two polls say he is barely above 5% is ridiculous. Unfriendnow (talk) 03:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point about the polling aggregators though. But first, Nate Silver is in a grey area where we know he's reliable but haven't really established his website is. However, Decision Desk HQ showing him below the threshold is not consistently showing 5%.
But the RfC didn't ask for that. It said generally polls over 5%. This is generally, and especially considering 538 and RCP were explicitly mentioned, I think we can put him in. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a degree to which we need to apply a little practical realism here. It is widely known and widely reported that Kennedy is the third-party candidate of this election cycle. Historians are not going to lend any consideration to the presence of Green Party and Libertarian Party candidates in the 2024 election, but they will give some to Kennedy. I would include Kennedy at this point. BD2412 T 02:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Kennedy's news coverage has been falling a lot recently. Little has happened with him recently besides the Central Park statement; everything else has effectively been cast to the side. Putting him in the infobox lends too much credence to a campaign which is near-certain to not get over 5% of the result (which he's barely getting in only some polls, many polls have had him below the threshold); he's falling in the polls, and the decline shows no real sign of stopping. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 03:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The prior RFC established that if he is stated to be polling above 5% in a polling aggregator and has access to 270 or more electoral college votes, he is to be included. He has now clearly met both prongs, and is thus required to be included in the infobox according to the inclusion criteria established in the RFC results.XavierGreen (talk) 02:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See the RFC results establishing the inclusion criteria [23]. The inclusion critera is not "generally polls above 5%" as some have stated above. It is "generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators". Kennedy is above 5% in all but 1 polling aggregator, he thus clearly meets the threshold for inclusion.XavierGreen (talk) 02:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Nojus R Include him. Consensus shows he consistently meets the guidelines. Jayson (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this, it makes no sense to not include him when we've included John Anderson, Eugene Debbs, & Ross Perot's 1996 bid all of which did received around 6%, similar to where RFK is at now. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is how many votes they received, not how they polled. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And? If polling consistently shows RFK at that level of support then we should be working with the assumption that that is how many votes he will receive. If the polling changes or he doesn't achieve that level of support in the actual election then he can be removed but otherwise it's clear as to what we should do here. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

According to [24]Media Bias Fact Check, The New York Times mostly posts articles that are "moderately left-leaning" and can require "further investigation". In my personal opinion, this goes against Wikipedia's "NPOV" (neutral point of view) rule. Also, as the 2024 elections near, this Wikipedia page could cause misinformation to be spread due to the independently reviewed findings of Media Bias Fact Check that TNYT also uses "loaded words" that "attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes". I vote for either new sources or this article needs the NPOV Dispute tag until further neutral sources can be added. Matiss o (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lead is not neutral

This lead is not neutral. I'm certainly no fan of Trump, but I think that the lead could be more balanced.

The lead mentions a lot about his authoritarian, dehumanizing, and false statements he's made. But this does not happen in Harris' paragraph. It simply states facts about her campaign. And I think it might be irrelevant, given no other political things are said in the lead. I think if you want to mention this, you should just expand the section about policy. Personisinsterest (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead mentions a lot about his authoritarian, dehumanizing, and false statements he's made. But this does not happen in Harris' paragraph. It simply states facts about her campaign. – that seems a factual and accurate summary of how the campaign has gone so far, though.  Nixinova   T   C   08:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on inclusion of RFK Jr into the infobox

Now, I would like to specify some things.Firstly, there is ongoing debate on whether he qualifies for the info box based on previous Rfcs, which mainly states from my observation that he needs to: A. Poll consistently above 5% B. Be eligible for 270+ electoral votes Today he qualified for B with Texas certifying him for the ballot, but he has dropped in some polls to just below 5%. Knowing these things, can we say that he qualifies or not? Do you think: ✅Aye: he does qualify for the infobox ❌Nay: He does not. Leave your comments for why so and elaborate on it. The specifics for what the info box will look like will be seperate. Jayson (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The RFC does not say "Poll consistently above 5%"; it specifically mentions "generally." The agreed upon criteria were: "Criterion #1a: A candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)" and "Criterion #6: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and meets criteria #1a, #1b, or #1c." See here for the RFC:[25] David O. Johnson (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David O. Johnson Ah, thx. Also leave your opinion on inclusion of him in the infobox Jayson (talk) 04:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jayson Aye
To comment on the polling, there are a lot of issues going on with the polling at the moment and we shouldn't take them for granted. Many of the polls, which are also being listed in the aggregators, that include Kennedy and third party candidates didn't include them as separate options for the respondents but rather as something to put in under "Other". Some polls will make this easy by labeling it as (VOL) for voluntary. YouGov doesn't do this to point out but they do have the option "Other" and list only Trump and Harris. Compared to appearing on the ballot as an option, this is equivalent to a Write-in which unless you are Joe Biden in New Hampshire earlier this year, you will barely get many votes.
TLDR, many polls will portray their results like they gave Kennedy, West, etc equal chance to Trump and Harris but when in reality, made people have to write them in.
For accuracy's sake, we should only include polls that we know provide the other candidates their own option to the respondents. Buildershed (talk) 07:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://imgur.com/a/evidence-Tl3Mr6u to back my claims up Buildershed (talk) 07:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand how aggregates work, and I am not going to explain it again. Prcc27 (talk) 07:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Prcc27 I have read what you said already. Buildershed (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, this just furthers the fact that he's not considered as major of a candidate as Harris or Trump, and thus is evidence against including him in the infobox. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 07:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Unknown-Tree 2%-4% as a write-in? Buildershed (talk) 09:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Massive Aye from me. Sure, Kennedy has dropped in the polls but he has now reached 270+ EV, so I say it's time. No excuses. Lostfan333 (talk) 09:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell West candidate box

I think we should remove Cornell West’s candidate box. He is still way below 270 EVs ballot access, and it does not appear that he will hit this threshold anytime soon. Prcc27 (talk) 05:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally like Cornel West, but you are likely correct. It is an enormous shame that the U.S. system is not truly democratic, so a proportionate percentage of influence depending on the total number of votes is granted to all of the parties that enter the election, like in many European countries. David A (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Prcc27:, as a third-party candidate, only Kennedy even deserves to be considered for a candidate box. (And it seems like he'll barely finish with 5% due to double-haters dramatically decreasing after Biden dropped out. 15%-> 7% in 2 weeks is insane. A lot of Kennedy's support, of course, was not about him, but because of a strong dislike of both Trump and Biden that many people had. With Harris: that seems to be reduced quite significantly.) KlayCax (talk) 09:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trump authoritarian statements in the lead

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

What does everyone here think? KlayCax (talk) 09:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1239445874"