Talk:2024 Democratic National Convention/Archive 1

Archive 1

Aspects of note about location

Sources should probably be found before any of this is added but, with Chicago and Milwaukee hosting the two major party conventions, this is the first time since 1952 that both major parties will hold their conventions in the Midwest, the first time since 2004 that both major parties will hold their conventions in the same region of the United States

I also believe that this is geographically the closest that the two major parties have located their conventions without actually sharing a venue. But I could be mistaken. Doubt any source will report that, though. SecretName101 (talk) 19:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this is the closest. 1872 was in Baltimore and Philly, which is farther. But given that the conventions have been in the same venue in the same year, it doesnt seem noteworthy that they are in cities 92 miles and a few weeks apart. Simon12 (talk) 02:11, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

This article comments on the close proximity https://www.wispolitics.com/2023/chicago-selected-to-host-2024-democratic-national-convention SecretName101 (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Another thing worth noting, this is the first city to host that is not located in an anticipated swing state since 2004, when Boston and NYC held the two conventions. SecretName101 (talk) 01:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Why delete the Biden/Harris pictures?

Biden is the Democratic nominee for president. He has the delegates. He and Trump are featured prominently in the main 2024 article. Hell, even this article states later in the infobox that he and Harris are the presumptive nominees. If you believe that anyone other than Joe Biden will be the nominated in Chicago, barring some unforeseeable turn of events, you're crazy. KoopaDaQuick (talk) 08:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Because they haven't been nominated for president & vice president by the party yet. True, barring the unexpected, the majority of the delegates at the convention will nominate Biden for president & Harris for vice president. It won't hurt to wait until they actually do so. Notice we don't have Trump's image in the 2024 Republican National Convention's infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

While it is technically true that neither major party has officially nominated anyone in their respective 2024 conventions, I don't see why it would hurt to feature Biden, Harris, and Trump in the convention infoboxes, as they're already featured in the infoboxes of essentially every other article related to this election. Heck, in the very same infobox on this article, Biden and Harris are already listed as the presumptive nominees. If anything were to happen to Biden, Harris, or Trump between now and the conventions, I don't see why we can't just edit it later after it happens. KoopaDaQuick (talk) 23:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Since both Biden/Harris & Trump/TBD are already in the infobox of the 2024 United States presidential election page. Then I guess it's alright to add them to the infoboxes of their respective national convention pages. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Photo used for Biden

Not loving how squinty his eyes look in the photo being used at the moment. SecretName101 (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to 172.58.164.157

@172.58.164.157 Thanks for this. You are right, that fact that had been added by whomever was incorrect. Not only was FDR a five-time nominee on a major party ticket (as you pointed out in your edit summary), but so was Nixon (twice for vice president, thrice for president). SecretName101 (talk) 16:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Portraits

Shouldn't the official portraits for both Biden and Harris be used? Seems to be protocol to use the official portrait for the candidates if they are the incumbents. Last time it happened for the democrats was the 2012 Convention, and both Obama and Biden are featured in the article with their official portraits from back then. Same for Trump and Pence on the article for the 2020 RNC. LucasBitencourt (talk) 16:05, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. I am unsure of the context of the current photos used, and doing it the way you suggest would clarify this, especially as there is a precedent. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 16:20, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

My reverts

I seriously thought vandalism was occurring. My bad. I will no longer revert. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden drops out

Not sure where to add this. But, I believe Biden is the first incumbent to drop out after the primaries & before the convention. GoodDay (talk) 20:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Williamson

@Spanneraol:, Williamson is a major candidate.

Looking at older version of the 2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates article, you can see that she qualified as a major candidate, per Wikipedia's standards. [1]. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

A wikipedia article is not evidence that she is a "major" candidate.. the source next to her name even calls her a "long shot" candidate, and that was for the general. There are exactly ZERO reliable sources describing her as a major candidate. Spanneraol (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Take a look at the second Marianne Williamson section in the archives: [2]. It was decided that she was a candidate as she met coverage in reliable sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

She was a candidate yes... but clearly not a major candidate as she never polled above single digits. And that was in relation to the primaries.. calling her "major" in this respect indicates she has an actual chance to get the nomination... no one is even talking about her and the only source listed is her personal twitter account. If she is getting no media coverage at all she is not a major candidate. Spanneraol (talk) 15:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

That Williamson is receiving "No media coverage at all" is objectively false. She had an interview with ABC News yesterday. [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Presidential nomination section

@MrJRSmith and Glide08: I am confused by the line, In doing so, Biden freed the DNC delegates bound to him from their pledge to vote for his nomination, though it is unknown whether they are now free to vote for their desired candidate or have their pledge carried over to Harris.

To me, it seems already clear enough that they can vote for someone other than Harris without being a faithless delegate. But in any case, I don't get the "bound to him" part. Biden's delegates were not bound to him, which is why he didn't have to release them. Thus, I was wondering if there were objections from either of you to remove or alter the sentence. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

The delegates are no linger pledged to Biden. Because this is an unprecedented situation, it's unknown whether Biden's withdrawal made the delegates unpledged or pledged to Biden's own endorsed replacement (which is Harris). Glide08 (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Here’s the deal: Once he released his delegates, they became “Uncommitted.” They can technically vote for anyone they wish, however…

In practice, it’s a bit different. Since 1996, it’s been either anyone who’s been nominated or an abstention. In 2004, there was a near riot over Dennis Kucinich, when almost 50 delegates were forbidden to vote for him. (See the article on the matter)

Another 55 WERE allowed. I know, I was there.

In 2008 They cut the Roll Call short, infuriating the Hillary camp to no end. Four years later, The DNC made up some bullshit excuse to exclude four minor candidates who earned delegates in the primaries (the guy sitting in jail in West Virginia got something like 46%). I well remember the aftermath of the literal riot by Bernie Bros, where they totally trashed the press tent (I was there the following day and heard reports) in ‘16. Hillary had tried to do the same thing Obama did and the Bernie people threatened violence.

What the DNC rules committee will do is probably just have Kamela or abstentions. 64.18.11.14 (talk) 12:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Massive edits and why i did them

The situation vis-à-vis this article, is thus:

The President’s withdrawal has led to a bifurcation of the Convention into two parts: The virtual one and the TV show. The former is the one that counts obviously, and we have an abbreviated process akin to what happened in the days of yore. This is as much a part of the convention process as the speeches and the balloons. I’m sorry about forgetting the proper procedure for moving a section. But this was totally good faith.

The chart should stay as it is until they announce the results next week. Wowizowie57 (talk) 12:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Brokered convention

Just posting here since I've had to change it twice now, but a convention is not brokered until the first vote fails to reach a majority. The convention is not yet brokered, and WP:CRYSTAL applies. It's bordering on undue to even bring the possibility up in the lead. TheSavageNorwegian 00:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

It is not expected to be open and require multiple rounds of voting... whomever wrote that is simply wrong.. no one expects that. Also, saying "Manchin expects to become a candidate" is definitely CRYSTAL. Spanneraol (talk) 01:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Harris isn't the presumptive nominee and betting markets give a substantial probability to the chance that she isn't.

Most observers expect challengers. KlayCax (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

:That "open convention" article is pure speculation, not fact. No one is expecting multiple rounds of balloting and Machin is not expected to run. Spanneraol (talk) 03:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I will remove the "open convention" material as outdated and now WP:UNDUE; its sources are WP:CRYSTAL and all from July 21, one day before a majority of delegates rallied to Harris. New York Magazine and Axios now call her the "presumptive nominee", with only ABC quibbling. As of July 26, Harris has a >=95% chance of being nominated (per Polymarket). Jade Ten (talk) 19:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Abbreviated campaign section

Would it read better if it was integrated into the other sections? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it should stay as its own section for now. The withdrawal and rallying of delegates to the VP is so remarkable that it should be given due weight with its own section, like the "Email leak" subsection or the "Superdelegate reform" section in the article for the 2016 convention, or like the Obama keynote section in the article for the 2004 convention. Jade Ten (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

It'll probably be filled out as we get closer to the convention. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why these odd oval pics that give us less flexibility?

The current oval pic seems less flattering than the usual images we see of this subject in the media. Insisting on this oval one, let alone any oval one, seems to give us less flexibility in finding a suitable one. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 00:34, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I went digging and apparently this is the result of some 2016 edits. A user by the name of Spartan7W went to various DNC and RNC articles and changed the images to new, oval portraits that harken back to campaign posters of 19th and early 20th century. The earliest of these are the 1832 DNC and the 1860 RNC. Neither the DNCs nor the RNCs are consistent, but the RNC has less gaps as Spartan7W skipped all DNCs from 1835 to 1868 when compared to just skipping 1856, 1916, and 1940 for the RNCs. In any case, Spartan7W did receive some pushback, but that was it. (Additionally, this is also why the colors are different between the RNC and DNC; Spartan7W claimed that the Democrats abandoned the color red, so he used [t]he de facto official shade of blue of what looks to me to be teal.) --Super Goku V (talk) 03:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Should the "Pre-convention delegate count" section be renamed?

It seems like it should be renamed, since the virtual roll call is where Harris will (presumably) be nominated.

Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I propose renaming it to "Delegate support by candidate". Jade Ten (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Harris has already obtained enough votes (>2350) during the virtual roll call.Seaotter26705 (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Is Harris the official or unofficial nominee as of August 2?

Hi,

I believe that Harris still remains the unofficial candidate as of today, despite the fact that she gained enough delegates.

The CBS ref I provided [4] states, "The vote closes at 6 p.m. on Monday, when her nomination will become official."

You even have a quote from DNC chair Jaime Harrison, confirming the same in that CBS article: "I am so proud to confirm that Vice President Harris has earned more than a majority of votes from all convention delegates and will be the nominee of the Democratic Party following the close of voting on Monday," Jaime Harrison, chair of the Democratic National Committee, announced during a call with Harris' campaign."

Just because WaPo and the AP say Harris is the official nominee doesn't make it so. Even the WaPo article [5] has this caveat from Harris:"“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."

The voting is still ongoing, in any case.

Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 22:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The Washington Post article was corrected to remove the line "officially making her the party's presidential nominee". It jumped the gun. Even the older version included a quote from DNC Chair Harrison saying that Harris "will officially be our nominee next week". The AP article never explicitly said that Harris "received the nomination" or that she is the nominee, only saying that she "secured" enough votes "to become" the nominee. Therefore, CBS, AP, and WaPo now all support the case that she will become the nominee on Monday. Wikipedia:Verifiability now supports removing the lines saying that Harris "received the nomination". Pinging Bri (talk · contribs). Jade Ten (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

If the WaPo corrected itself, then so be it. ☆ Bri (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Jade Ten (talk) 00:33, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

More than 3,900 votes for Harris

Purplebackpack89, I believe the reason Harris received more than 3,900 votes is that superdelegates were allowed to vote on the first ballot. Please see [6]

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: then the delegate totals at the bottom need to be updated _pbp 17:49, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

It's been updated. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

The Walz nomination

I mentioned the process and the certification. The convention is now redundant. 64.18.11.13 (talk) 10:44, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

The convention is still going to be held. I wouldn't say it's "redundant", just symbolic. David O. Johnson (talk) 11:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Delegates voting Present

The delegate support by candidate section shows that 52 delegates voted Present. At least 15 delegates who were once pledged to Biden did not vote for Harris and unsuccessfully attempted to nominate another candidate. Should we address what other candidates or voting options these delegates who were once Biden delegates voted for instead of the candidate that Biden had endorsed?

Does the Democratic National Committee intend not to release the names of the 52 delegates who cast votes for someone other than Harris, who were recorded as 'Present'? Have they given a reason to the public why it was not included in the virtual roll call results by state? Also, does anyone know why the results leave out the counts of delegates who abstained from voting? Results from the Associated Press are here: https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/dnc-roll-call/ There was also an option to abstain from voting for the Democratic National Committee’s presidential nominee, chosen by the Alaska Congresswoman Mary Peltola. The listing of results from the virtual roll call by the Associated Press gave the appearance that it was correct and comprehensive yet it was not discernable that Alaska had 20 delegates to the convention because it only shows 19 delegates as having voted and did not include those that abstained. Listing of all of Alaska's delegates to the DNC: https://www.thegreenpapers.com/P24/AK-D By not reporting the count of delegates who abstained from voting, the public is left unaware of how many superdelegates were not willing to engage in the modified process to support Vice President Kamala Harris. Smobes (talk) 21:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Should we add the count of delegates who abstained from voting in the DNC Virtual Roll Call as a new row to the delegate support by candidate section? Smobes (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

They don't list the names of any of the delegates...and the counts are of delegates who voted..if they didn't vote they wouldn't be counted in the totals. You can figure out the numbers by using the total number of delegates if you so desire. Not sure this is important though. Spanneraol (talk) 22:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be insightful to find out who the delegates tried voting for instead of Vice President Harris, whose votes were counted as just present. The 52 Present delegates come from more than the 37 delegates that were pledged to be uncommitted, so it would be enlightening to know what other candidates or voting options these delegates voted for instead of the candidate that Biden had endorsed. This means that 15 delegates who were once pledged to Biden did not vote for Harris and unsuccessfully attempted to nominate another candidate.

Also, I think mentioning just the count of super delegates who abstained from voting in the virtual roll call as a new row to the delegate support by candidate section would be of importance to show that some high-ranking members of the Democratic National Committee were not willing to vote for Vice President Kamala Harris to be the nominee for President. Smobes (talk) 23:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Well... the ones who abstained might have not been available for the vote or were otherwise engaged.. it wasn't a close vote so their votes didn't matter. They just didnt cast a ballot they didn't say "I abstain." Doesn't mean they were opposed to Kamala. Regardless none of this matters as far as this page is concerned. Spanneraol (talk) 00:49, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

The 'Present' vote being 15 votes more than the uncommitted delegate count from the 2024 Democratic primaries matters as far as this page is concerned. It means several Democratic delegates across the country that were elected as Biden delegates did not support Vice President Kamala Harris in the roll call vote and instead voted for someone else. In a democracy, it's important to note that the votes of the delegates who only became uncommitted after Biden withdrew ended up voting 'Present' should be heard because they disagreed with the majority. Smobes (talk) 02:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

There are many reasons they could have voted that way, could have objected to the process for instance... don't make assumptions. Spanneraol (talk) 02:48, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. It would be noteworthy to give people the reasons why those delegates who previously pledged to Biden voted that way. If it gets reported by the media or the delegates themselves explaining it, then we could add it. Smobes (talk) 03:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

I also found that the Hill reported that Montana Senator Jon Tester abstained when Montana’s Democratic delegates joined a virtual roll call to vote for Harris to become the party’s official nominee. This article by the Hill delves into the possible many reasons the Senator could have chosen to abstain. Smobes (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

References

security and the planned riots

The “Hamas fan club” tried to disrupt the NY Harris rally after party in Harlem with flash-bang bombs, and are hoping to “shut down the convention. How do we handle this? 64.18.11.14 (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

I decided to add a section on the planned rioting/protests. Remember, the big show starts in 48 hours…Wowizowie57 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

No one is planning "riots".. that added section was unsourced and POV nonsense.Spanneraol (talk) 17:33, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Refs for "Notable speakers" in infobox

Hi,

I don't think the refs need to be there, since they're already sourced in the 2024_Democratic_National_Convention#Schedule section. Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing for "Recreated Balloting"

Wowizowie57, could you please provide a source or sources for your edit on August 18? Jade Ten (talk) 17:31, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Removing "non-notable speakers"

Is it really the best option to only include "notable" speakers and portions of the programs each night? @Crazysportsdude1 Brad (talk) 23:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

That’s what we did for the RNC. Otherwise there will be like 100 people every day. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 23:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Then there should be 100 people listed per day, for both articles. We don't get to pick and choose. Brad (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also, a user looking at this page would just assume this lists all the speakers with no notice of "missing" people from the table. Brad (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Notability is a key tenant of Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NNC: "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guideline does not apply to the contents of articles." I agree with Brad that either both articles should have a complete listing of speakers, or it should be made clear to the reader that this is a partial listing which includes only notable (by WP standards) speakers. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

For example the 2020 DNC page lists “select speakers” Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 01:53, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

At the very least can we agree we don’t need to include the pledge of allegiance and the flag guard and a summary of every video etc. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with listing "select speakers", which acknowledges the list is not exhaustive. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Genuinely: why not? Shouldn't the article about the 2024 DNC include everyone who spoke during it? Brad (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

See also section

Per WP:NOTSEEALSO, As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body.. A few minutes ago, I removed 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2024 Republican National Convention and two other pages from the See also section of this page because they already appeared in the article's body and it goes against the guidance above. A few minutes after that, the two pages listed above were manually reverted by User:FellowMellow. I attempted to discuss the matter with them here and here but these inquiries were reverted with edit summaries that accused me of being "incorrect" with explanation and then an outright WP:ASPERSIONS of vandalism. I am not 100% sure of the rules of WP:CONTENTIOUS topics and the [[WP:1RR], would it be within my rights to remove the offending pages or can I ask someone else watching this page to do so...and perhaps also add a note with a reference to this section of WP:NOTSEEALSO. Thank you in advance. Kire1975 (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

In response to the comment, @Kire1975 appears to be unaware of the rules and my edit isn’t constituted in vandalism, as I have only made this edit once and no reverts were in place. However, the user seems to be interested in attempting to instigate an unnecessary conflicts by persistent vandalism on talk page and I have deleted the comments, as the user made false allegations about the use of "personal and abusive attacks and inappropriate uncivil, inappropriate or otherwise unconstructive comments." As you can look here User talk:FellowMellow, no such remarks have been made and the user is again persisting in vandalism. - FellowMellow (talk) 07:07, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

You could have said that you were unaware that those two items were recently removed in accordance with WP:NOTSEEALSO instead of blanking the content and continually casting WP:ASPERSIONS about me personally. Now that you have falsely accused me of vandalism a fourth tiem, I'm sorry but I'm going to have to add a level 4 warning to your page. I would invite you to read the warning before blanking it this time and also to seek the advice of an administrator on this question as you have previously threatened. Kire1975 (talk) 07:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

References

Ref removal for first night

Why were the refs removed for each speaker? I know there's a C-SPAN ref there before the table starts, but first party refs aren't the preference. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala spoke on night two

We should include Kamala’s remarks on the night 2 table with a note that she was telecast to the United Center from Milwaukee’s Fiserv Forum SecretName101 (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Grace Meng

I believe that Grace Meng was scheduled for the first day, but I haven't seen her. Did she not appear, or did I just miss her? Should she be removed from the list? Di (they-them) (talk) 03:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

She and some other speakers were removed at the last minute due to the schedule running very long on Monday night. Simon12 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Why was notable name removed?

Dear User:Personisinsterest: Why did you remove notable protester Jeremiah Ellison's name from this edit? Kire1975 (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Error(s) in "Delegate Support by Candidate" Table?

I do not know if this is a factual question (my misunderstanding) or an error. There are two things I note, both focusing on the table under the "Delegate support by candidate" heading.

First, the left column is marked "Pledged delegates", but so is the final row. This seems to suggest that the two numbers on the bottom row are pledged-delegate pledged delegates (?), and final-result pledged delegates. This suggests to me a nomenclature problem.

Second, since we have an 'uncommitted' row in that table, wouldn't the number totals for both columns be the same? In other words, I assume that there was always the same number of delegates, presumably, i.e., that new delegate votes did not appear from thin air. I would assume it would be more accurate to say that is just that some went from being uncommitted (or uncounted at first) to other choices. In that case, the 'uncommitted' number in the first column would need to be increased.

Again, politics is by no means my area of expertise. These are just inconsistencies I see when reading that table. MollyRealized (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe making two separate tables would be clearer? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

this article has transcluded sections

This article has transcluded sections. References must be defined within those sections, otherwise the referencing article will end up with undefined reference errors. I have fixed transclusion problems here, affecting 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, five times, now. Please exercise care when editing this article so that transclusion doesn't continue breaking. -- mikeblas (talk) 19:53, 24 August 2024 (UTC)