Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

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

[edit]
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 portrait

[edit]

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 agree mainly because of the colors we associate with American political parties. Red is the color of the Republicans, Trump's party, while yellow is more often associated with the Libertarians. Also, we always picture Trump with a red tie. CoolGuy314 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[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]
Official Portrait
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]

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

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

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

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

The archived Talk page is linked here: [5]

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

References

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

The Roll Call has happened today

[edit]

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. [6]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per this CBS source [7], 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. [8] Reliable sources all say its official. [9] 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. [10]
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. [11] 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]

Kamala Is now the official nominee

[edit]

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

[edit]

We currently list RFKJR.’s residency as “California”, even though he claims “New York” as his place of residency. How should we handle this? [12][13] 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]
It looks like a court rejected Kennedy’s New York residency claim. Should we re-add California as his residency..? [14] Prcc27 (talk) 00:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC News: Kennedy resides in California with his wife, actor Cheryl Hines, but in testimony, he said the couple had always intended to move back to New York. This and the AP should be enough to re-add California. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:26, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Graphs in the aggregation section

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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. [15]. 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: [16] 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. [17] 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

[edit]

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.[18] GreatCaesarsGhost 19:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

trump dropped out of debate on abc

[edit]

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

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

[edit]

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?

[edit]

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]
You should note that North Carolina’s state assembly is veto-majority republican, and has only had three GOP governors in the last 100 years. So I oppose. Qutlooker (talk) 18:14, 12 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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
@Lukt64 Do Oliver instead of west. He's got way more ballot access Jayson (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The polls themselves (which we don't run since we're wikipedia editors lmao) tend to include West and not include Oliver, idk why. RickStrate2029 (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's start another argument

[edit]

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]
Ballot access news clearly states he is on the ballot in texas. See here Texas Secretary of State Says Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Petition is Valid | (ballot-access.org) XavierGreen (talk) 14:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Texas Secretary of State Says Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Petition is Valid | (ballot-access.org) XavierGreen (talk) 14:47, 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]
The consensus here was that presumptive nominations count, as Kamala and Trump were included on the page when they were only presumptive nominees.XavierGreen (talk) 14:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As said, *if* that is an issue. It doesn't help that the other sources are not the best for the Florida claim: One is NBC News, which should be good, except the only part of that article that claims he is on the ballot in Florida is a map that says "Source: State election officials; Kennedy campaign" while the other is some WordPress website called ballot-access.org that you mentioned above. (Note that despite both of these, NYT doesn't currently count Florida as a state where Kennedy has ballot access.) --Super Goku V (talk) 07:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your opinion is not grounded in norms. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:00, 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]
The opposite is actually more likely, Kamala's boost in the polling will fizzle after the convention. Most candidates historically get a boost around the time of their party conventions that dissipates thereafter.XavierGreen (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third party candidates usually don’t get a late boost, and I think Trump has more to gain from Harris fizzling out. But I’ll leave it at that since this is not a forum. Prcc27 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]

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]
I reinstated it for now, @Nixinova:. I think it should be kept. But perhaps a shorten version could do? KlayCax (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Way shorter. Right now it stands at "Donald Trump's 2024 campaign has been criticized by legal experts, historians, and political scientists for invoking violent rhetoric and authoritarian statements. During the campaign, Trump has repeatedly dehumanized those who he sees as his political enemies, while also repeating false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him, part of a broader election denial movement that has gained popularity among members of the far-right in the United States." Too long. Just maybe say "Trump's campaign has been criticized for its perceived violent and dehumanizing statements against political opponents, and has been accused of authoritarian rhetoric." We don't need to mention 2020, the media really doesn't do that. And we should find something the media criticizes her for too, maybe her Gaza policy. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that it doesn't talk about her shortcomings. All of this is accurate, but I think it's undue. Sure, the things he says are notable, but they aren't mentioned enough in the media consistently to get multiple sentences in his paragraph. We should just have a big section about the policy debates going on, and mention it there. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the lead is not neutral and this blurb should be removed. It's also true e.g. that Biden-Harris admin oversaw historically high inflation, but that campaign talking point is not appropriate for the lead. TocMan (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added a trimmed version. It seems WP:DUE to mention his authoritarian tone and his legal troubles. Prcc27 (talk) 08:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is good, thank you. Personisinsterest (talk) 07:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on inclusion of RFK Jr into the infobox

[edit]

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]
My point was that he's not being considered a major candidate. He's not considered on the same level as Harris or Trump, but rather on the same level as West, Stein, and others, which aren't being included in the infobox. I also don't think he'd be much higher if he was in the polls. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:16, 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]
Aye -Once he is Consistently polling lower than 5%, then it's a done deal. InterDoesWiki (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He already is. Of the last 5 polls in a five-way matchup, 3 of them are below 5% and 1 of them is exactly at 5%. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your vote doesn't make sense. You say AYE to include but only if his polling is below 5%? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure he actually has the 270. Do we have a source? I see some people pointing to the RFK WP page, but several of the references there are iffy. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
❌Nay The average of the five aggregators is under 5%. 2 of 5 are below, and the numbers are falling. While "generally above 5%" is open to interpretation, I would also ask everyone to read the prior discussion. Most of the people supporting 5% were conflating polling with results, and made no comment recognizing that partial ballot access would reduce this number. In any case, there is a generalized consensus to add him if appears to be a serious factor, expressed by some combination of ballot access, polling, and news coverage. While ballot access is expanded, the polling has fallen by more than half and the news coverage is exclusively laughing at him. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the access count is now 260, as IA, PA and LA do not have independent confirmation and we cannot ascertain with certainty what the primary sources say. If he is still at 5% in 3 out of 5 when he gets to 270, I would support interpreting that as meeting the qualification of the prior RfC's consensus. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:33, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to waiting for better sources for IA, PA, and LA. But even then, it looks like some people just don’t want to add RFKJR no matter what. Prcc27 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine you could ask an uninvolved admin if it came to that. I would suggest that the prior RfC still stands as consensus, and this one does not overrule it as it only asks "should we add him at this moment?" and much of the resistance is questioning whether he actually meets the standard of the prior RfC, rather than seeking to subvert it. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:55, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The previous RfC's outcome suggested general polling above 5% in major polling aggregators (mentioned 538, RCP) and 270 EV ballot access. He has reached this threshold with 538 and RCP, but not in The Hill. He generally meets that criteria. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the new threshold though is consistently polls above 5%, then Nay. Personisinsterest (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "new" threshold. The RFC result was about polling aggregators, not polls themselves.XavierGreen (talk) 17:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the recent polls show that RFK under 5% in state polls. There have not been a lot of polls lately that show him at all. the ones that do include him usually have him hovering above 5%. But it also brings up the point of when polls expire. Because he has polled as high as 21% albeit it was likely an outlier and against Biden. He has met the criteria that was outlined. It makes little sense to change it now. I say Yay to include him. 2601:243:2401:15A0:F497:92DF:61D6:E25D (talk) 14:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely. RFK should be included on the infobox because the precedent is that third-party candidates get on the infobox. We see this with elections just about every country aside from the USA, with candidates much less likely to win their elections than RFK Jr. All previous doubts as to if RFK will be able to get 270 EVs have been silenced and his polling generally shows him above 5%. The idea that he shouldn't be included flies in the face of all precedent outside of the USA, and the idea that he shouldn't be included because he is unlikely to win or that some think he is unlikely to cross 5% is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is not up to Wikipedia to judge candidates' chances of winning. RFK is a national candidate with the best polling for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot, therefore it is clear that he should be included. Frankly, I fail to even see the need for discussion on this issue. Collorizador (talk) 16:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All previous doubts as to if RFK will be able to get 270 EVs have been silenced Have you read any posts on this page? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RFK is certified for 293 electoral votes, with 209 awaiting certifiaction.[26] Collorizador (talk) 17:13, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia-made image is not a reliable source. Looking at a few states, I see discrepancies. Like a PA legal challenge for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTALBALL. We do not know what the legal challenge will bring. Biden was included in the Ohio infobox despite potential legal trouble as well. Collorizador (talk) 17:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, we don't know what the challenge(s) will bring. Therefore we should be defaulting to exclusion, not inclusion, until it's sorted out. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why was Biden kept in the Ohio infobox then despite the potential legal trouble there, then? Collorizador (talk) 17:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They had a workaround. RFK ballot challenges are different from the Ohio situation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AYE, Kennedy has enough electoral votes and generally polls above five percent. I see a lot of people commenting here, I respect their opinions, but we must also respect the rules. Fact is, most Americans know about Kennedy and a decent chunk support him. He will impact the election moreso than most other third-parry candidates and therefore should be included. 2600:6C83:1E00:24:773C:C1A1:3DEC:1D20 (talk) 18:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nay. He just doesn't have the polling anymore, and no RS has actually reported that he has actually achieved 270; to say he has is WP:SYNTH. In my view, he doesn't meet either criteria, let alone both. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, FiveThirtyEight has him at 5.1% and he's been falling. If they go below 5%, a majority of aggregators will be below 5%, in which case there's really no defense to putting him in; if we add him now, it's likely we'd have to remove him in a couple of days. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By stating he is at 5.1%, you are admitting that he has met the critera to be included in the last RFC and your edits removing him from the infobox are therefore disruptive by your own admission.XavierGreen (talk) 17:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please modulate yourself and AGF. The editor did not say "he is at 5.1%" he said "FiveThirtyEight has him at 5.1%" which does not meet the criteria of the RfC. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this discussion labeled an RFC? It hasn't been tagged as such. GoodDay (talk) 13:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay Sorry, its my first. Jayson (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an ongoing discussion regarding this above as well. He clearly meets the inclusion criteria, as he has at least 270 ballot access and is above 5% in a majority of polling aggregators as stated on the page itself.XavierGreen (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He does not have "access" to 270 EV. The Hill says 174 confirmed. Why do we have to continue to beat this dead horse? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu I can already spot a few inaccuracies. For one, the Texas AG certified him for the ballot. Let me go look for some more. Jayson (talk) 15:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jayson, the 174 confirmed includes TX. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Muboshgu Oof my bad XD Jayson (talk) 16:00, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill's chart is not a reliable source. For example, it says that NJ is not "confirmed", however the NJ Secretary of State (who has the final say on ballot access in NJ) has stated that RFK, Jr. is on the ballot in New Jersey. See here [27].XavierGreen (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen Also California. The state Independent American Party, which has ballot access last I checked, nominated Kennedy for the ballot. Jayson (talk) 16:05, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:THEHILL is reliable. Where's your source for "he has at least 270 ballot access" XavierGreen? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Hill's chart is not reliable. Another example, as another user stated is California where the AIP has nominated RFK, Jr. The AIP has ballot access in California. The Hill seems to be excluding states where RFK, Jr. is on the ballot via nomination by pre-existing third parties. See here [28]. NYT has him "confirmed" in California see here [29].XavierGreen (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NYT appears to give RFK fewer states than The Hill. We can't engage in WP:SYNTH. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of reliable sources does not violate Wiki SYNTH. See [30]. The ballot access page itself provides reliable sources for each state that shows he has access to more than 270 electoral college votes.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's SYNTH and an overreliance on WP:PRIMARY sources that are not taking into account ongoing legal challenges. Like PA for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That lawsuit in PA was literally just filed. The new jersey lawsuit ended, Scott Salmon's case was defeated. Other than the PA lawsuit, the ballot access page actual does note where RFK, Jr.'s petitions have been challenged. Excluding PA, RFK, Jr. is at 274 electoral college vote access.XavierGreen (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:SYNTH if we said “RFKJR has ballot access to a majority of Electoral Votes” in the article. However, if it is clear to us as editors that he has sufficient ballot access, we should at least consider including him in the infobox. Most of the readers probably don’t even know that ballot access is a criterion for the infobox. And we are not directly making that claim to the readers if we include him in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Winger, of Ballot Access News, states that RFK, Jr. has access to more than 270 electoral college votes. See the comment section of his post here [31]XavierGreen (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
❌Nay: As other editors have pointed out, the average of the five aggregators is under 5%. From The Keys to the White House: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has been polling at between 2% and 12%. Lichtman's criteria is that a third party candidate is required to poll at an average of 10% or more consistently to turn the key false: as of August 5, 2024, Kennedy's polling aggregate average in a three candidate race is 4.2%.
Key 4 is turned false when a single third party candidate consistently polls at 10% or more, indicating they are likely to receive 5% or more of the national popular vote: third party candidates typically underperform their polling by around half, with Lichtman saying they tend to fade in the voting booth as voters focus on the major party candidates.
There's also the question: Do news sources treat him as a major candidate? No, his candidacy is no longer covered seriously. Articles about him now read like The Onion, e.g., a worm ate part of his brain, he buried a bear cub in Central Park. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The keys to the white house is absolutely not a criterion for inclusion. Prcc27 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying it is, but his point that third party candidates typically underperform their polling by around half is true and not being considered by users pushing this "5% rule." GhulamIslam (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The 5% rule was already adopted in the past RFC on this page, and site wide for all elections pages.XavierGreen (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "5% rule" refers to votes, not polls. The polling 5% standard adopted at this page is explicitly NOT site wide, but only for this page. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
✅Aye, he is in the conversation in an impactful way that exceeds the typical situation for third-party candidates. BD2412 T 21:12, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - He's not a major candidate & we shouldn't be pushing that he is. GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You supported the ballot access and polling criteria at the RfC. Why the change of heart..? Many users feel like the goalposts are being moved. Prcc27 (talk) 23:10, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They supported the BA, but did not comment on the polling. Which is part of the issue with trying to consider so many hypotheticals simultaneously; you don't even consider the guy polling at 18 is going to drop to 4. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not he is considered by you personally to be a "major candidate" is not relevant or NPOV. The prior RFC established a consensus that any candidate that has ballot access to 270 polls and is "generally" getting 5% in polling aggregators must be included in the page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And for the millionth time, he doesn't have ballot access to 270. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

❌Nay and whoever added him to the article mid-discussion should remove him themselves to prevent edit warring over this. He's dipped down to 3-4% in most aggregates, so this is an odd time to add him per the 5% threshold. Right now he's looking more like a 2016 Gary Johnson than a 1992 Ross Perot. That said, maybe after the election, if a significant number of outlets report that he had a substantial impact on the election, we can revisit the 5% threshold and maybe think of some exceptions to it. I'm of the belief that Ralph Nader should be on the 2000 election page in spite of his low vote percent because it's widely believed he had a substantial influence on the election, so some tweaking to our criteria could be warranted. But for now, no. The 5% threshold is what we use today, and RFK Jr is struggling to meet it.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:10, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, as many others pointed out, the claim that enough states have put him on the ballot for him to have access to 270 ECVs is very questionable. The source appears to be a bunch of individual sources (some less reliable than others) about access in individual states all WP:SYNTH'd together to demonstrate that he's made it to 270, as opposed to any single reliable outlet reporting this.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:20, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballot Access News states he has exceeded 270 2600:1001:B121:9267:40FB:4D4D:2CF7:9184 (talk) 19:34, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ballot Access News is a WordPress website with one or two writers. I personally would prefer a more notable source say it. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exclude, it’s unclear whether he meets the criteria of the last RFC. Even if he does, the difficulty we are having applying those criteria illustrates the problem with them. They should be abandoned, and we should treat this by assessing whether reliable sources consider him to be an important enough element of this race that we should include his face next to the other two people. —JFHutson (talk) 23:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

538 is now <5% as are all other 3-way aggregators and 3/5 overall. I think this conversation is moot? GreatCaesarsGhost 15:51, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For now maybe. But polls can shift. Prcc27 (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They can, but the trend so far seems to be that Kennedy is trending down in polling. I personally doubt he will trend back up in any meaningful capacity. Talthiel (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Knew this was gonna happen; mentioned it above earlier. I really don't see how he could be added now, as he unambiguously fails to meet the criteria. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GreatCaesarsGhost
5 way aggregators have him above 5% still. Buildershed (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only 2 aggregators do 5-way aggregation, the majority do 3-way; there are more aggregators below 5% for him than above. The original RfC does not say "if one aggregator has the candidate above 5%", aggregators need to generally have him above the threshold. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 13:52, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium until November 5

[edit]

IMHO, we should have a moratorium in place concerning inclusion/exclusion in the top infobox, until November 5, 2024. These constant attempts to add Kennedy/Shanahan into the infobox, is problematic. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay No. It would make sense to include major candidates in the infobox, and right now he should be treated as such. Jayson (talk) 16:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A moratorium is only viable is RFK is included. Collorizador (talk) 17:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur that a moratorium should only be imposed if RFK is included, because he clearly meets the inclusion criteria set forth by the last RFC.XavierGreen (talk) 17:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The moratorium GoodDay is referring to is a moratorium on this disruptive WP:IDHT push to include RFK in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's disruptive is the constant anti-RFK POV-pushing. There is no sensible argument to keep RFK out of the infobox. Therefore, no moratorium should take places unless RFK is in the infobox. Collorizador (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sensible arguments: third party candidates always underperform their polling, he does not appear to be getting access to 270 EVs, and it's a two party system whether we like it or not. There you go. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn’t matter if third party candidates usually underperform polls. That is borderline WP:CRYSTAL. Besides, I argued for a 10% threshold, but the consensus was for 5%, so the time to argue 5% is too low is over. We are not “pushing” to include RFKJR. He met the RfC criteria, so now we add him to the infobox. We will survive having him in the infobox. FYI, in 2016 we had several third party candidates in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Attempting to enforce the results of the RFC that established the inclusion criteria is not disruptive. Attempting to keep RFK Jr. out of the infobox, when he meets the inclusion critera is disruptive.XavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@XavierGreen Let the fool in the infobox and let him in now! ✅️Aye is final for me Jayson (talk) 17:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not meant to be directed at you sry Jayson (talk) 17:44, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if RFK Jr. drops below 5% in just one other polling aggregator, he should be kept? This moratorium is just an attempt to keep him in the infobox until the election, which makes no sense as he is not truly considered a major candidate anymore. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It makes no sense to add him at all. Unfriendnow (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the overwhelming consensus is to include Kennedy. Someone add him to the infobox. -Jayson (talk) 22:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see no overwhelming consensus to do that. So, let's not add him. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really going to drag our feet with this? He meets the polling criterion. As for the ballot access criterion.. it looks like he meets that as well. The reliable sources seem to be doing a terrible job updating their ballot access maps. If that is the reason we are excluding him, maybe the ballot access criterion was a bad idea after all. We already had an RfC and I don’t understand why we are moving the goalposts. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thank you!! Kennedy has now met the Criteria for inclusion. Trying to find excuses to keep him off for longer is wrong. Again, the Criteria has been met!! Massive Aye Lostfan333 (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That whole RFC was a joke. You can't list 8 different options, have a combination of two of them get ~ 15% support and call it consensus. You are right about the ballot access in particular being a problem, but we also have the issue of what "generally" means. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:20, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the people supporting 5% were conflating polling with results, and made no comment recognizing that partial ballot access would reduce this number. He also does not appear to be getting access to 270 EVs. Adding him is ridiculous and unnecessary. Especially considering in the same time period, there have been 6 polls that show him below 5%.
He also is simply not a major candidate like the other two as many people and news organizations have pointed out. Unfriendnow (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I supported 10% for this exact reason. Partial ballot access makes it that much harder to get 5% post-election, and I did in fact make that argument at the RfC. Nevertheless, I was out-!voted, so we should stick with the consensus we came up with which is 5%+ polling average. RFKJR meets that threshold. Prcc27 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of the last 5 polls in a five-way matchup, 3 of them are below 5% and 1 of them is exactly at 5%. Other polls show him below 5%. Adding him now to the infobox 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 but he isn't, 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??? this all seems so unnecessary especially since his polling numbers are consistently going down ever since Kamala has became the Democratic Party's nominee.   Unfriendnow (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my gosh. We already agreed on using polling aggregates. Individual polls are useless. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Decision Desk HQ/The Hill as of August 9th has him at 3.4% (yesterday it was 3.8), Silver Bulletin as of August 9th has him at 4.1% (yesterday it was 4.5), and 538 has him barely above 5%. If they go below 5%, most aggregators will also fall below 5%, so adding him now will probably require removing him in a few days. In that scenario, there's really no reason to add him. Adding him to the infobox because only one polling says he is barely above 5% is simply illogical. Unfriendnow (talk) 23:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Bulletin being a major aggregate is debateable. Prcc27 (talk) 23:21, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nate Silver basically created the industry. RCP doesn't even weight polls. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order I don't believe the suggested moratorium would be remotely enforceable. GreatCaesarsGhost 23:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that this is most likely unenforceable as it's essentially asking us to keep a status quo until election day, regardless of discussion and regardless of polling. Polling which, just as a reminder to all the people asking that he be included, absolutely does not support his inclusion right now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:27, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornell West candidate box

[edit]

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]
We should keep the Green Party and Libertarian candidates’ candidate boxes. They have 270+ ballot access, and they are relatively mainstream third parties. Prcc27 (talk) 09:48, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Personisinsterest (talk) 14:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is included in most polling, so I would keep him there, as he is still a notable candidate. Lukt64 (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He is certainly notable enough to get a candidate box, there is a ton of media attention given to him (much more than Oliver). Due weight would argue that he is relevant enough to be included at the level of coverage on the page that he currently is.XavierGreen (talk) 17:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should because I think he was notable when he declared his candidacy and switched affiliation twice and he is still notable since he is way more regularly polled than a lot of other less notable candidates Punker85 (talk) 21:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but monitor I concur with above that as long as he is 1 of 5 candidates being frequently polled, it should stay. I don't know why they are still polling him, but they are. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the threshold for the third party candidates seems to be ballot access.. Seems weird to have one criteria for third party candidates and another for independent candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 21:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not exactly accurate. West and RFK got boxes long ago, before they had any access (or the opportunity to get access), on the basis of them being famous people and nominally credible candidates. I don't recall anyone arguing against this (and certainly not convincingly). Removing West now based on his campaign fizzling out is a reasonable suggestion, but it would be acting on vibes rather than any specific rule. But since we are making a decision based on vibes, I could not see the logic in having a box for Oliver and not West, given that pollsters are treating West more seriously. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trump authoritarian statements in the lead

[edit]

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

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

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

Adding current EV ballot access for RFK Jr. and West

[edit]

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

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

Trump's criminal conviction

[edit]

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 August 2024

[edit]

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

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

RfC: Projected Electoral Votes infobox

[edit]

There are two questions:

  1. When should we add a state’s projected electoral votes to the infobox on Election Night?
    1. When a majority of major media networks make a projection.
    2. When all major media networks unanimously make a projection.
    3. When one major media makes a projection.
    4. Other?
  2. Which major media source(s) should we use for the projected electoral vote tally?

Prcc27 (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Option 2: A state’s electoral votes should only be added to the infobox based on unanimously projected Electoral Votes. Unanimous projections for the infobox tally is the compromise we more or less settled on in 2020. But for the map, I think we should use light red/light blue shades for states where a majority, but not all major media sources have made a projection; and save the darker shades for when the major outlets unanimously agree. Some users got impatient waiting several days for all news outlets to call Georgia. I feel like if we would have shaded GA light blue (like this), users would have been more patient waiting to add Georgia’s electoral college votes to the infobox. Per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to add a state’s EVs to the infobox tally, if the state still has not been called by all major networks. Adding a state to the infobox based on only 1 or 2 media projections would be WP:UNDUE and problematic, especially in light of the AP/FOX Arizona projection controversy.
2. ABC, AP, CBS, CNN, and NBC are the sources we should use. These media organizations, (along with FOX, which we already agreed not to use), are usually considered the “major networks” when it comes to election projections (see National Election Pool and AP VoteCast). Last election, we used over a dozen news organizations, which made things very confusing and hard to keep track of. Narrowing the list of sources we use down to just five major sources will make editing drastically easier/simple, and would give due weight to the most prominent outlets and avoid giving undue weight to organizations that are less prestigious. Prcc27 (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Concur All of this looks good to me. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:37, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. We should probably start an FAQ. I’m surprised we still do not have one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 2 per Prcc27, literally agree with everything there. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Something like option 1 but this whole RFC is unnecessary and misguided. Existing Wikipedia policy is sufficient for content disputes. At this time, there is no content dispute to decide. WP:UNDUE says we reflect the prominence of views in reliable sources. If a few reliable sources disagree with a broad consensus, we should show the broad consensus and use a footnote. We need to stop treating this page like it’s special and that normal Wikipedia policy for content disputes don’t apply. —JFHutson (talk) 19:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The RfC is absolutely necessary. In 2020, we were split on when to add a state, and we ended up not updating the map on Election night because consensus was still divided; it was blank. We did not have an RfC in 2020, so I am hoping an RfC this year could avoid some of the issues we had last time. Requiring projections from only some/most of the sources only, rather than unanimous projections from the sources has WP:SYNTH issues. For example, in 2016 when we combined sources to call states, the race for Trump was called by Wikipedia several minutes before any major media organization had declared Trump the President-Elect. This was an extreme violation of WP:SYNTH that occurred because some outlets called WI for Trump, while others called PA for Trump (both states together putting him over 270 on our map); but no organization had called both states so every media organization still had him under 270. I also created plausible scenarios on my sandbox which show that Wikipedia could be the first to declare a nationwide winner (before any news organization names a President-Elect) again in 2024, if we jump the gun and add states where a majority (but not all) of the sources have made a projection. WP:DUE is met with the light blue/light red shades on the map. If we use option 1 or 3 for the infobox, we could end up violating WP:SYNTH and declaring a national winner before the media. Prcc27 (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The SYNTH issue is in updating the number of votes with our own calculation. We should wait until the broad consensus is that a candidate has x votes before updating that. It’s probably best to leave the projected vote count blank until that time. But if reliable sources agree that a candidate has won a state, we need to say that even if there are holdout sources. —JFHutson (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But we would be saying a candidate has won the state on the map (light blue/light red), and maybe even in the body of the article as well. We would just be more cautious on the infobox tally. We are allowed to make our own calculations per WP:CALC, as long as it is an accurate reflection of the sources. Obviously, having a candidate above 270 in our infobox tally when no major media organizations agrees, would not be in the spirit of WP:CALC. I do not think many users would agree with leaving the infobox tally blank. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah I take back the comment that we should leave the total blank. If there really was a general consensus at some point that Trump was projected to win enough states to win the election, then putting that in the infobox would have been a Dewey beats Truman kind of thing, but the media’s problem, not ours. I don’t think that was the case. In your scenarios, we’re just reporting what the reliable sources are saying. Though I don’t think we use a simple majority. It would be more like if one outlet is holding out, we shouldn’t let that keep is from showing the “consensus” view. — JFHutson (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Trump infobox photo

[edit]
Official Portrait October 6, 2017; 6 years ago (2017-10-06)

In March, a consensus was established not to use Trump's official presidential portrait from 2017 (right) in the infobox for this article. However, since then, editors have been unable to decide on which photo to use as a replacement (alternative options below), and some editors have expressed support for using the 2017 portrait for at least one of the following reasons:

  1. They never supported switching away from the 2017 portrait in the first place
  2. They think that reverting to the 2017 portrait would resolve the ongoing disagreements about which photo to use as a replacement

Should Trump's official portrait from 2017 be used in the infobox of this article? Vrrajkum (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - I believe that if you weigh the relevancy of his notability (the time he was president) vs the difference in appearance to a more modern one, we should just use the official portrait. I think he looks consisent throughout most of the alternative options, so let us just use what was prevalent when he was president.
MaximusEditor (talk) 17:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Options
  • July 26, 2024; 20 days ago (2024-07-26) (Option 1)
    July 26, 2024; 20 days ago (2024-07-26) (Option 1)
  • July 26, 2024; 20 days ago (2024-07-26) (Option 2)
    July 26, 2024; 20 days ago (2024-07-26) (Option 2)
  • June 15, 2024; 2 months ago (2024-06-15) (Option 3)
    June 15, 2024; 2 months ago (2024-06-15) (Option 3)
  • June 6, 2024; 2 months ago (2024-06-06) (Option 4)
    June 6, 2024; 2 months ago (2024-06-06) (Option 4)
  • June 6, 2024; 2 months ago (2024-06-06) (Option 5)
    June 6, 2024; 2 months ago (2024-06-06) (Option 5)
  • October 10, 2023; 10 months ago (2023-10-10) (Option 6)
    October 10, 2023; 10 months ago (2023-10-10) (Option 6)
  • July 15, 2023; 13 months ago (2023-07-15) (Option 7)
    July 15, 2023; 13 months ago (2023-07-15) (Option 7)
  • July 15, 2023; 13 months ago (2023-07-15) (Option 8)
    July 15, 2023; 13 months ago (2023-07-15) (Option 8)
Support As I mentioned above, news media are using Trump's official portrait for this election,[1] as did the June presidential debate on CNN. There is also nothing inherently wrong with or misrepresentative about Trump's 2017 photo; he still looks very similar to how he looked when the portrait was taken. Vrrajkum (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose A different portrait should be chosen. The problem is before no consensus was ever reached because discussions quickly petered out. I think a new discussion should be opened on a non POTUS portrait being used. Talthiel (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m sorry, but the current infobox photo is terrible. Head tilted, weird facial expression, terrible background. I would prefer something newer than the 2017 portrait. But between the current infobox photo and the official portrait..? I say yes, use the official portrait. Prcc27 (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose You seemed to prefer File:Donald Trump (53067468124) (cropped).jpg from the same July 2023 event as the current image. I would rather that than the 7 year old OP. GhulamIslam (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that image as well. Geffery2210 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support going with File:Donald Trump (53067468124) (cropped).jpg or something similar as a compromise. I do not support the current infobox photo though. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support is my !vote, at least until we can agree on a compromise. Prcc27 (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SupportThe 2017 portrait should be used because it’s his official portrait and there are no valuable alternatives. Geffery2210 (talk) 19:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: reliable sources are using it. He doesn’t look much different. An alternative has not been proposed. Generally, it is counterproductive to say that something else should be done without saying what exactly to do, so any “consensus” against this photo should be ignored. —JFHutson (talk) 19:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Like what JF said, reliable sources are using The Offical 2017 Portrait instead of the current one. And like I said before, other candidates in infoboxes in previous U.S Presidential Article's have their pictures from years aside from the election year. ( InterDoesWiki (talk) 20:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I think a more recent picture should be used because it would be more representative of his current appearance, it would be closer in time to the election and he is not the incumbent president Punker85 (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: As per reasons above, Trump is no longer President. Using a different picture of him solidifies that fact as the official portrait used in 2016 and 2020 implies otherwise. There is very little harm in using an updated portrait of his current appearance seeing as it's been nearly 8 years since the portrait was taken TheFellaVB (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtsey pings to those who commented on previous discussions @TheFellaVB: @IEditPolitics: @Punker85: @PizzaSliced: @Buildershed: @Goodtiming8871: @MaximusEditor: @Segagustin: @InterDoesWiki: @TDKR Chicago 101: @Herostratus: @Longestview: @Voorts: @Esolo5002: @Senorangel: @Tim O'Doherty: @GoodDay: @Some1: @Yeoutie: @LegalSmeagolian: @Fieari: @Thesavagenorwegian: @JohnLaurensAnthonyRamos333: @MarioProtIV: @Nursultan Malik: @Ahecht: @SquidHomme: GhulamIslam (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Just because there hasn't been a clear consensus for which up-to-date portrait to use, doesn't mean we should revert to this old one. I think the one in use at the rn, File:Donald Trump 2023 (double cropped).jpg, is preferable. We can start the ball rolling again with another image choice RFC if y'all think it's time. I'm content at the moment though. Just to be clear though, I prefer just about any recent image to one from 2017. TheSavageNorwegian 20:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Infobox portraits should be representative of the candidate at the time of the election. More recent photos are more accurate in this respect. LV ✉ ✎ 22:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: - This is the most neutral portrait which can be used until a consensus on what to change the portrait to can be found. The status quo should be reverted to until something else to replace it is agreed upon. Not change it, argue about the changes, and keep changing over and over. Change and replace with a consensus, not change and replace with no consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LawNerd123 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 10 Aug 2024 (UTC)
Oppose: I prefer a more recent image of Trump. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:29, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We basically want to use photos that make our subject look good, within the context of being accurate. There really isn't any way to make this guy look very good, but the official portrait is about as good as any. It is accurate enough. Also, how he looks right now is not supposed to be the major point. We're not a news site. Someday this guy is going to be dead, what photo will we use then? We are not supposed to be having to update photos as our subjects age. There are a fair number of articles about performers who are 70 now, or dead, that show them in prime. His prime was when he was in office, I guess. Herostratus (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not for the photo to be used on Trump's article (to the point of the performers), which has been established in RfCs already to be his official portrait. This is for the photo to be used on the election page, where it is more important to have the person who's running now in my opinion, not who they were 7 years ago. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Unknown-Tree: Biden's official portrait from 2013 was used on the 2020 U.S. presidential election page while the election was ongoing, despite the portrait being 7 years old. Vrrajkum (talk) 09:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your feedback. Using the official portrait seems fair and valid. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 02:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Every alternative option has at least one obvious downside (there's too busy a background, he's not quite looking forward, his facial expression is odd, etc.) that is not present in the official photo. If Trump got a huge makeover in the last seven years, it'd make sense, but he more-or-less looks the same. I really don't see a good reason to not use it. Nojus R (talk) 01:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support only as a placeholder until a more recent option is agreed upon. Yeoutie (talk) 01:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose - Too much time has passed. The Trump from 6 years ago is not running now. I STRONGLY believe a more recent picture should be used in articles about his current campaign. Fieari (talk) 02:31, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral: It has varied. 1988 uses a crop of George H. W. Bush's vice president photo. 1992 uses a crop of Bush's presidential photo instead. Also for 1992 and for 1996, we use a photo of Ross Perot from 1986 according to the file description. We don't have a consistent style so far as I can tell, outside of our preference for free use photos. Sometimes we even change the photo after the fact, as with the 2008 article using cropped photos of Obama and McCain taken the following year or 2016 using a crop of Trump's official portrait. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One photo has never been used to represent three different candidacies though (see Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson, & Clay). GhulamIslam (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using his official portrait. It's been 7 years, and he looks substantially older now; a more recent image would probably be suitable. Unknown-Tree🌲? (talk) 06:37, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As the person who took many of these photos being considered, I believe the official White House portrait should still be used. As I've stated before, his appearance has not changed that much, and it's still very obviously recognizable as the person it's intending to show. Calibrador (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose using a photograph from 7 years ago; he looks very different today. A more recent image, perhaps one provided by his campaign, should be used instead. LK (talk) 14:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support  : Three reasons support the use of the official portrait. 1) The existing photos of all US presidents, including Dwight D. Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Jimmy Carter,Ronald Reagan. Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, etc., are the ones that capture their best likeness. There is no need to replace these photos with awkward facial expressions simply because the president has aged. It makes sense to use the best available photo. 2. Until President Donald Trump designates another official portrait, it is advisable to use the existing official portrait that best represents the person. 3. The alternative photos have several disadvantages, such as complex backgrounds, the subject looking away, or awkward facial expressions. Unfortunately, there is no photo that can adequately replace the official award photo. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Lerer, Lisa; Igielnik, Ruth (2024-08-10). "Harris Leads Trump in Three Key States, Times/Siena Polls Find". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2024-08-10.

Harris portrait

[edit]

C'mon @Willform, this must be some kind of joke. We reached consensus on Kamala's Vice Presidential portrait being used. Just like how Al Gore, George H. W. Bush, Walter Mondale, and Richard Nixon (1960) all had their official portraits used. If you think a different image should be used please initiate a discussion about it instead of making the decision by yourself to change it. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Luntz ... Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House

[edit]

Edit ...

Pollster Frank Luntz says ... "I'm going to say this for the first time ... the Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3p8krLZneA

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz 67.173.189.1 (talk) 14:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is merely an opinion, it therefore does not belong on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 15:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pollster Frank Luntz said it again ... the Democrats could win the White House the Senate and the House
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2024/08/14/donald-trump-is-actually-giving-away-this-election-says-pollster-frank-luntz.html 98.46.118.50 (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Extended Confirmed Edit Request

[edit]


Please do one of the following.

  1. Insert "{{cn|date=August 2024}}{{As of?}}" after the last sentence in the section September 10: Harris vs Trump which reads "The two campaigns have not yet agreed to any other debates."
  2. Replace the period of that sentence with "as of {{subst:today}}}}.{{cn|date=August 2024}}"
  3. Cite the claim and include a date in prose.

McYeee (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would this count for a citation? "Campaign officials for Vice President Kamala Harris said they would consider debating Donald Trump in Grand Rapids, but first he must demonstrate his willingness to participate in an earlier commitment. Trump, the Republican nominee in the 2024 race for the presidency, last weekend announced on social media his plans to debate his opponent, Harris, on Wednesday, Sept. 25 in Grand Rapids. On his Truth Social account, Trump said the debate would air on NBC and be anchored by Lester Holt. Harris campaign officials, though, said they reached no such deal with Trump or NBC on the debate." The date of the article is August 13th. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:17, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That source looks good to me. Please replace the period at the end of that sentence with "as of 13 August.[1] McYeee (talk) 07:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done with some tweaks. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please replace the text inserted above with "As of 14 August.[2]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 20:04, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - nex time, please open a new separate edit request instead of reopening and already addressed one. Raladic (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Kamala Harris would consider debate with Donald Trump in Grand Rapids on this condition, campaign says". MLive. 13 August 2024.
  2. ^ Vadala, Nick (14 August 2024). "Kamala Harris and Donald Trump both slated to campaign in Pennsylvania this week". Philadelphia Inquirer.

Another Extended Confirmed Edit Request, 13 August 2024

[edit]

Please change the red link Silver Bulletin to [[Nate_Silver#Post-FiveThirtyEight_career:_since_2023|Silver Bulletin]] or to not be a link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McYeee (talk • contribs) 06:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved: I've created Silver Bulletin as a redirect to the target you mentioned. Left guide (talk) 06:36, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-Confirmed Edit Request: Please remove {{date}}

[edit]

Please remove the {{date}} template by undoing [32]. The documentation of that template reads, in part "This template should only be used internally in other templates". McYeee (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - thanks for pointing this out. Undone the change. Raladic (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1240415430"