Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

How recent should sources be?

I'm pretty sure the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article had a six months or sooner rule where no sources older than six months were allowed. Will this article still have the same standard? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I presume this would be something to discussed in that massive post 2020 election RfC everyone wants to have? Przemysl15 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:34, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Comment

The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article has been accepted. This should probably also be accepted similarly. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

no reason not to keep its, its fine

Proposal to merge with US presidential primaries

We don't need this page just yet until events are scheduled and people are actually running. Proposal to merge just like the 2024 democratic primary. Primus01 (talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

This article has primary election polls, which aren't included on the general election page. Also, if we do decide to merge, then we need to move this article back to draft space instead of simply deleting/redirecting it. --Numberguy6 (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

The inconsistency between the Republican and Democratic parties still remains. We should either keep both or merge this article with the main election until the primaries start. The inconsistency between the two rival parties is the key factor. Primus01 (talk) 18:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

In this case, inconsistency is good. The two parties are internally very different and the races will be very different from each other. Look at 2012./Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove the following section: 2021 January 20: The Trump administration ends and President Donald Trump will leave the White House.

The results have not been certified and the electoral college has not voted yet, so we can't definitely say this will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on potential candidate inclusion

Posting the following invisible comments here so that everyone is on the same page as far as the baseline for a potential candidate's inclusion on this list. Obviously this will change when we get closer to the election, however.

For candidates publicly expressing interest:

• Candidates in this section only need one source, but expressions of interest via social media do not count
• Sources in this section can go back a maximum of six months

For potential candidates:

• Potential candidates must have at least TWO separate references from reliable sources that focus primarily on them as a potential candidate
• Sources should provide substantive discussion of individuals, not a "kitchen sink" listing of numerous people or a minor sentence saying they could possibly run, or where the candidate themselves talks about the 2024 race
• Sources should be no older than 6 months

For declined candidates:

• Please only include people who have at least one source that speculates primarily on the candidate, and one additional source where the candidate states he/she is not running

Curbon7 (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Standalone page

Submitted bare-bones AfC given the increasing coverage of the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. The 2020 Republican primary standalone page was created in 2017, for context. I lifted the candidate section directly from 2024 United States presidential election. I do not know the proper way to resolve this, if resolution is necessary. Sorry, I am still learning. Mihir.pethe1 (talk) 07:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Trump May not run

folks have saying trump is about to announce for a long time. Renember when he planed to announce on july4. he should not be in the announcement pending catergoryCookiegator (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@Cookiegator He belongs in the section, as that is what reliable sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:04, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson these reliable sources say that is probably going to do it. Also they say that even if he runs the 14th is set in stone. Cookiegator (talk) 20:10, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

In addition this "big announcement" could be a him announcing a suscessor. Cookiegator (talk) 18:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Corey Stapleton?

Corey Stapleton has been open about considering a run for office, and seemingly has a website outright announcing his candidacy. I don't know if he's officially filed, but all signs seem to suggest that he is indeed planning to run. Should we add him onto the 'Openly Expressed Intent' section, or is there something that I'm missing here? Walpole2019 (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

@Walpole2019 He was listed earlier, I believe. I think he was removed because he wasn't a "major" candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Why is Corey Stapleton even in the same section of the article as Trump? It would make far more sense for him to be located in some sort of "notable individuals who are not major candidates section", such as where Zoltan Istvan and Bob Ely are located in the 2020 GOP primary page. ThatOneGuyWithAFork (talk) 03:42, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Corey Stapleton

Stapleton has held statewide office. Why is he at the bottom of the section in terms of candidates? Declared candidates should be at the top, or at least above potential and undeclared candidates. GeorgeBailey (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• Several reasons. Being a state's secretary of state is not a high enough office to automatically qualify a candidate as a major candidate. He has not been included in any national polls yet. And his presidential candidacy has received little coverage from mainstream media sources (personally, I can't find any such coverage in the last six months, much less since he declared his candidacy). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Try harder. See this Google News Search. It includes multiple references to his candidacy and Pay It Forward slogan. --Mpen320 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Misleading information

"Donald Trump was defeated by President Joe Biden by over 7 million votes in 2020"

And? The US president is NOT determined by the winner of a national popular vote and rather by 50 different popular votes, one for each individual state. 93.206.53.87 (talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

True. He still lost in a landslide! Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Looking for info on fringe candidates

I've heard that over 100 fringe candidates have already declared. I came here hoping to learn more about them, but I don't see any discussion of the subject. Nogoodbooks (talk) 17:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• You can find a list of all declared 2024 Republican presidential candidates on the Federal Election Commission website at https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/?election_year=2024&office=P&party=REP but there's not much we can write about the fringe candidates in this article, since hardly any of them have been discussed in reliable independent secondary sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I disagree with the removal of Corey Stapleton. He's a statewide elected official, and therefore not outside the realm of notability or credibility as a candidate. BD2412 T 15:52, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
    • Tell that to The Hill. They don't think he's notable or credible enough to mention in a list of candidates running for the 2024 Republican nomination. [1] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

What happened to the polling graph?

Was removed by Syaz. Why is that? GeorgeBailey (talk) 16:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This article should either have massive amounts of on-topic info added, or be sent to AfD

THere's virtually nothing in this messy complication [compilation, forgive the typo] of random data that actually discusses presidential primaries. The lede is devoted to lengthy discussion of Donald Trump rather than the article's supposed subject. Where's the guarantee there will even be a Republican primary process in 2024? Townlake (talk) 04:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This "messy complication of random data" is what most presidential primary articles look like. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Other pages and silly typos aside, my point about this article stands. Maybe this data will be useful when and if primaries actually start, but for now the article is not at all about the article subject. Townlake (talk) 16:37, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're suggesting that the Republican presidential primaries might not be held at all. Even in 2020, when there was an incumbent Republican president with only half-hearted opposition, as well as a pandemic which disrupted pretty much everyone's life, all of which might discourage the holding of primaries, the majority of states still held Republican primaries. The Rules of the Republican Party indicate that there will be some kind of delegate selection process (see Rule No. 16), and I haven't heard of any states seeking to abolish their 2024 presidential primaries and replace them with caucuses or conventions. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Show me a link that says Republican primaries will definitely be held, and I'll cheerfully drop it. Townlake (talk) 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Last call before AFD. Can anyone produce a source confirming the 2024 Republican nomination will be decided via primaries? Townlake (talk) 05:38, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Please_review_2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries. Posted to AFD talk page for discussion. Best wishes everyone. Townlake (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Nikki Haley Exploratory Committee?

Nikki Haley's Fox News interview today didn't state she had formed an exploratory committee for president yet. Nothing filed with the FEC either. I think she should be moved back to the "publicly expressed interest" category. Alexjjj (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Decision expected from DeSantis in May

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/ron-desantis-donald-trump-2024-president/index.html

Can someone add this? I'm not great at editing!! Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 17:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Polling change

I belive that a candidate should not have a place in the main polling box for the Trump and non-Trump categories until they hit double digits. Right now, it is very confusing to editors and viewers to have so much date for candidates polling with very low numbers. I would like to change this as soon as possible. GeorgeBailey (talk) 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Endorsement Section

The endorsement section of DeSantis seems at best premature. This article states he has not publicly stated his intention. Several of the endorsements don't even read as endorsements for President. I think it should be removed. Mpen320 (talk) 03:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Parallel endorsements section

I noticed there was an endorsements section for Donald Trump at the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign article, in addition to the one on this article. Would a transclusion there, linking to the Trump section of this article, be the best way to avoid any redundancy? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Roger Stone's endorsement of Donald Trump (source)

The present source for Stone's endorsement of Trump doesn't actually say that Stone endorsed Trump. It gives some of Stone's commentary on Trump, DeSantis, and the possible 2024 primary. It certainly implies Stone supports Trump, but other than calling Stone a 'Trump loyalist', it doesn't really say so outright.

I tried adding this CNN news release as a source for Stone: <https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/trump-2024-presidential-bid> (I think I was unable to just because I don't know how.) In the last paragraph of the section 'Beating Others to the Punch', it says, 'Other guests [at Trump's announcement] included longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone...'. If attendance at Trump's speech can be taken as tantamount to endorsement, this would seem more unambiguous than the other source (although I was trying to add, not replace). Toadmore (talk) 02:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Trump-DeSantis?

If Trump wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, then chose DeSantis as his vice presidential running mate. One of them would have to change their state residency, as both can't receive electoral votes from Florida, as a ticket. Note in 2000, Cheney had to change his state residency from Texas to Wyoming, so that both Bush & himself, could receive the prez & vice prez electoral votes from Texas. GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Ron Desantis

Should we move desantis from potential to publicly expressed interest? I feel like he , as a major candidate, should be above considering he is the favorite to win at the moment. 73.247.81.254 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Probably not at this time, at least given that; while there's been plenty of media speculation about a Ron DeSantis entry into the race, there haven't been any sources so far confirming that DeSantis personally has expressed any interest in running. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Best we wait. DeSantis may choose to serve his entire second term as Florida governor. GoodDay (talk) 23:12, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West

1. Is it confirmed that he's even running in the Republican primary?

2. Should he be listed if he hasn't yet filed with the FEC? Perathian (talk) 17:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

• Neither of the cited sources say that West is planning to run as a Republican, and considering that he ran under his own party in 2020, we can't just assume it either. He is already listed at 2024 United States presidential election#Declared intent to run in the section for independents, other third parties, and unknown parties. West should not be listed in the Republican primaries article at least unless it is confirmed that he will run as a Republican (not to mention that he needs to be ascertained as a major candidate to be listed in the top section of the article alongside Trump). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:20, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Do not list Corey Stapleton as a major candidate

Some editor or editors apparently are trying to push Corey Stapleton as a major candidate in this article. This appears to be against consensus. (See discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1#Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major".) As I mentioned above, being a state's secretary of state is not a prominent enough office to confer major candidate status. Stapleton has been included in zero polls that I know of. Also, he has received little if any news media coverage that I can find. (Note that the source cited for his candidacy is his own campaign's press release.) Can we agree that Stapleton should be demoted to the "Other declared candidates" section? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

No. I think we should be inclusive and add Stapleton running to be as accurate as possible, since he's one of two people who have announced. It doesn't hurt anybody to have him accurately in. If he's shunned from media and not included in polls, we can reconsider? GeorgeBailey (talk) 13:20, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, something like 139 people have filed statements of candidacy with the FEC as Republican presidential candidates for 2024. [2] Although Stapleton is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, he is not yet notable as a 2024 presidential candidate. Rather than saying, "if he's shunned from media and not included in polls, we can reconsider", we should hold off on promoting him to a major candidate until he is included in polls or is covered in media. Maybe he will achieve that, and maybe he won't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:33, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is notable as a candidate for an election that is such a long time away. Stapleton fits Wikipedia's notability requirements and has held an office notable enough that it also has it's own page. We should maintain accuracy above all else. Give it some time, and if nothing happens, I see where you're coming from. But since the elections are so far away, keeping this as is doesn't hurt anybody. GeorgeBailey (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

If we're concerned about accuracy, wouldn't our representation of the current stage of this nascent primary season be more accurate if we reflected what the reliable sources say rather than giving Stapleton undue prominence? If he gets recognition as a major candidate later, than we should treat him like one, but he isn't at the moment. Placing him next to Trump under the assumption that he might become relevant later is faulty reasoning. - EditDude (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

He has held political office, however i feel we should wait because the election is still very far away. News outlets have not reported on stapleton, because he is only testing the waters for a run. 73.247.81.254 (talk) 22:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that his status as a state legislator and an occupant of one of the main statewide row offices qualifies him sufficiently to be included as a "major" candidate, with such a small field of candidates with Wikipedia pages there are right now. Like they said above, maybe reconsider if he's ignored by the press. Tristanthebard (talk) 02:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

That relates to what I wrote a few months ago at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 2#Corey Stapleton: "... we shouldn't over-promote minor candidates just because they enter the race at a time when few others have done so and we don't have much else to write about in this article ...." Also, it's not the case that news outlets have not reported on Stapleton because he is only testing the waters, for two reasons: (1) Stapleton has already filed his candidacy with the FEC and is no longer testing the waters, yet has not received noticeable media coverage since declaring his candidacy, and (2) news outlets often report on potential candidates who have merely formed an exploratory committee or even those who are merely being speculated to run -- provided that those people are expected to become major candidates if they run. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:33, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

What matters is getting national media coverage of the candidacy. Stapleton doesn't have that. He has his own campaign's press release being circulated through Yahoo News. I've removed him. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Based on the available reliable sources, it's absurd to suggest that Trump and Stapleton are on the same tier of relevancy. Until the major news outlets start treating Stapleton like a notable candidate, we shouldn't be unnecessarily promoting him or his campaign. - EditDude (talk) 02:22, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

There shouldn't be an "other declared candidates" section. Either they're relevant or they're not. Hundreds of nobodies file to run. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Most of those "Hundreds of nobodies" also lack Wikipedia pages, while a select few, like Stapleton, have one, so they are worth mentioning somewhere in this page like an "Other declared candidates" section. Atriskofmistake (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I did a quick search and Stapleton's exploratory committee announcement appears to have gotten some traction in media across the country, see Montana, Oklahoma, Florida. However, I couldn't find any coverage of the declaration of his candidacy except a press release [3]. It seems odd to cut someone who's exploratory committee got enough coverage for inclusion entirely from the article because their announcement didn't get enough coverage.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

On top of that, both the 2020 Democratic and Republican primary pages, as well as the 2024 Democratic primaries page, features candidates with Wikipedia articles who weren't covered by mainstream news outlets. Stapleton should be mentioned in the article, just not to the same degree as Trump, who is a more obvious frontrunner at this early stage. Perhaps we could do away with the gallery and just have a list of candidates and their qualifications there. - EditDude (talk) 03:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to get rid of all galleries in election articles? They seem like a sneaky way to ever so slightly boost a "Wikipedia presence," in favor of candidates who have uploaded a photo.--Mpen320 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 22#Image galleries for non-Presidential primary candidates was an RfC that ended in the removal of galleries from non-presidential races this year. But this is a presidential race, so there would probably need to be another RfC to remove galleries here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I do not believe that a state secretary of state should be qualified automatically as a major candidate. If he garners media attention or is included in significant polls, then he can be added. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 03:31, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Stapleton's run did get noted in a local news source. https://helenair.com/news/state-and-regional/govt-and-politics/former-mt-secretary-of-state-announces-presidential-bid/article_7126a007-089a-5392-8390-f197d41fddb1.html I think he's notable that he should be listed but not as a major candidate.ObieGrad (talk) 20:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, I would be fine if Stapleton were listed in an "Other declared candidates" candidates section, like how Bob Ely, Jack Fellure, Augustus Invictus, and Zoltan Istvan are treated in 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Other candidates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:34, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Why should we include anyone who hasn't gotten national media coverage at all? Local news is not significant enough for a presidential run. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Because the standard for inclusion is verifiability and reliable sourcing. National media coverage is a proxy for WP:UNDUE that may justify a separate section for non-serious candidates, but undue concerns do not justify their exclusion from the article when their candidacy is verifiable and reliably sourced. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

That's actually not the standard for inclusion. It's a prerequisite. We have a policy that verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Due weight determines inclusion, so being undue is exactly the reason it should not be included. 25stargeneral (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE tells us "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." WP:UNDUE is a balancing test. Only tiny minority views are supposed to be entirely excluded under WP:UNDUE ("the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all"). Campaign announcements covered in local ABC/FOX affiliates aren't really the views undue is talking about. The policy cites flat earthers as their example. When WP:V is clearly met with a reliable source and the detail is a significant minor detail inclusion is warranted. I think Stapleton is barely meeting the requirements for inclusion, but it seems to me he meets them. I'm fine excluding candidates that get no media coverage outside their own press releases, blogs, FEC filing, etc. under WP:UNDUE, but newspaper and/or local broadcast and radio journalism coverage seems like good enough coverage to warrant inclusion. We don't even have a clear consensus of what "national media coverage" is. How do we apply that standard? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:26, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

You don't have to link the same policy four times in one reply. I'm aware of it. WP:VNOT is still a thing, which you have not addressed. If the candidate can only generate human interest coverage from his home state, then yes, that is not a significant aspect of the topic of this article. Under VNOT, you have to convince other editors of why it improves the article. That's a stretch when no serious commentary on the primaries has ever even mentioned Stapleton. It's ridiculous that editors want to spend so much time arguing we need to dedicate article space to obvious joke candidacies. 25stargeneral (talk) 03:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:VNOT is about consensus building. 2 editors and one IP have advocated total removal. 5 editors have advocated inclusion in an other notable candidates section and 2 editors have advocated inclusion as a major candidate with Trump. The consensus isn't leaning towards your position. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:45, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

• The Hill posted an article today titled "2024 Tracker: Here’s who is running for the GOP nomination". They listed in the "Running" section Donald Trump; in the "Unclear" section Ron DeSantis, Ted Cruz, and Kristi Noem; in the "Considering a bid" section Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, and Mike Pompeo; in the "Other possible candidates" section Larry Hogan, Chris Christie, and Tim Scott; and in the "Not running" section Tom Cotton. Notice anyone who didn't get mentioned at all? This guy. Because he's not a major candidate yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Why Stapleton as "Other declared candidate"

I do not think Corey Stapleton should be treated as just "Other declared candidate", I understand the case that he is nowhere near the top in the main choices for a potential GOP primary, but he is still a significant figure, and I consider every figure that held a statewide office should classify as a notable candidate, this unless the list gets increasingly bigger, but with only 2 individuals as declared candidates he should be treated the same as Trump. SuperGion915 (talk) 03:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

• I could be wrong, but it's not my impression that the editors who are pushing Stapleton to a more prominent place in this article are doing so out of support for him as a presidential candidate, but mainly because they want to have more content in this article. But "holding any statewide office" does not have a consensus to be a criterion to be considered a major candidate. The pollsters don't recognize Stapleton as a major candidate yet. The national media haven't acknowledged him as a candidate at all yet. Why should Wikipedia put Stapleton on a level where we portray him as competitive with Trump? Or even competitive with, say, Nikki Haley or Mike Pompeo if they join the race? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

The 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article lists Rocky De La Fuente as a "major candidate" for the 2020 Republican primaries, even though he had no previous electoral office, and was notorious as a perennial candidate who ran for various local offices around the country. So seems like for a consistent standard, Corey Stapleton would be just as notable. Perathian (talk) 04:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

2020 is year with an incumbent president running and not an open primary for the nomination. So first off they aren't really comparable races and that can account for style differences. Second, La Fuente is different in the quality of sourcing. It's a large newspaper source with an identifiable author. The sourcing for Stapleton's campaign is a Montana newspaper piece with no individual author identified. It reads like a press release with no analysis. Source quality is important when weighing prominence in the article for WP:UNDUE. Until his campaign gets solid coverage in better sources, he should remain in a separate category. His notability for holding statewide office is enough for inclusion, in my opinion, but there isn't sourcing that covers him as a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:00, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

As you can see from the discussion at Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2#De La Fuente and polls, the decision to list De La Fuente as a major candidate was controversial, and it didn't happen until he had been in the race for 8 months. The reason for that was that we had a criterion that a candidate included in 5 national polls would be deemed a major candidate, and in December 2019 one poll (YouGov/Economist) started including De La Fuente in its weekly poll, thus enabling him to meet the 5-poll criterion. Some editors thought that criterion was too lenient given that it allowed a candidate not widely recognized as major to be listed as major, but that was the criterion we had set beforehand. We shouldn't set our criteria so as to specifically include or specifically exclude certain candidates. At any rate, De La Fuente just barely scraped into major candidate status on one criterion, which Stapleton has not satisfied at all. The example of Rocky De La Fuente is probably an argument in favor of making our poll criterion tougher, not for deeming more non-major candidates as major. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:35, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Should a declined to endorse section be added?

many people in the articles say they are indifferent to trump's announcement or are not willing to comment. Should these people get a declined to endorse box? Free city of stratford ok (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Not yet, because those people may still endorse another candidate. The "declined to endorse" box are for people who have specifically stated they will not endorse any candidate. -- Vrivasfl (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Bob Iger

Bob Iger was listed as a candidate who filed paperwork. The paperwork in question is dubious and almost definitely a hoax. It's linked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221222041241/https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P40010167/1672914/ Oswako (talk) 04:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You are probably correct, I can't find any RS articles about this, which I would certainly expect if Iger had filed to run (and as a Republican no less!). Jacoby531 (talk) 04:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Decision Pending?

Somewhere along the line "Announcement scheduled" melted into "Decision Pending" which to me seems indistinguishable from "Publicly Expressed Interest". We are expecting a decision one way or another at some point from everyone wo has expressed interest. I don't see a meaningful difference between Hutchinson, whose decision is nebulously expected by April, from Mike Pence, who is basically already campaigning, and whose decision also expected sometime soon, likely by April, too. Someone who has an announcement scheduled with a specific time and place for said announcement is worth noting separately. Otherwise, "Decision Pending" doesn't strike me as a useful subsection. Vrivasfl (talk) 20:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with Vrivasfl about this. Unless the person has an announcement time which is apparently firm, "Decision pending" isn't a useful distinction. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:23, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Polling by year

I propose that we divide polling into boxes by calendar year, in the same way or a similar way that the article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries does. This poll box is getting very long, and as it continues to grow in size, it becomes more difficult to edit and work with. To make it easier to look at for viewers, and easier for editors to contribute to, I propose that we divide polling boxes into a 2020-2021 box, a 2022 box, and a 2023 box, (with an eventual 2024 box when that time comes). I would love to hear your feedback on all of this. GeorgeBailey (talk) 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

• This is fine with me. Keep in mind that we will eventually want to move all the polls to a separate polling page as was done with Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries, for example. We will probably wind up splitting the poll boxes for 2023 and 2024 as major candidates enter or leave the race (and thus will or won't need separate columns in the tables for them). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Who to put in the Polling graph?

Nikki Haley just announced she is running for president and is the first major formal challenger. The current graph has Trump and Haley who is running, Pence and DeSantis who seem interested, and then Cruz who is running for Senate right now. Should we keep the main graph just to the major declared candidates and throw Pence and DeSantis and Cruz into "other" until they announce, if they do? Also a noticeable January to June 2022 polling gap that should be fixed. JoshRamirez29 (talk) 17:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Pence and DeSantis have been polling ahead of Haley, so I don't see the point of removing them from the graph. I assume that the pollsters are going to stop including Cruz in the graph now that it looks like he will be running for re-election to the Senate only and not president, so that should basically take care of him (his trendline will stop once he is no longer included). There is a gap in the polls of several months in early 2022, but the editors who were working on 2024 United States presidential election at the time (when this article was a redirect to there) seem to have been pretty good at keeping up with the polls as they were released. I believe the situation may have been just that there were no national Republican primary polls conducted for several months and thus we have nothing to list for that period. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:26, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

New poll

Should this poll be added to the page? 98.20.155.249 (talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Don Bolduc endorses Nikki Haley

Should this be added to the Endorsements section?[4]https://twitter.com/GenDonBolduc/status/1626204788647170048 98.20.155.249 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Combining Declared+Other Declared

The section “Other Declared Candidates” is not really needed, obviously we are not going to add extremely minor candidates but people like Corey Stapelton and John Bolton have held high profile positions and were reported on by the media. 2601:18C:8C01:370:802E:5F97:FD21:A67C (talk) 21:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Does this count for a Nikki Haley FEC filing?

Found this on the FEC site, do not know if it counts for an FEC filing or not, here's the link. HurricaneKappa (talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• What we're looking for from Haley is an FEC Form 2 Declaration of Candidacy. Trump's looks like this: [5]. I assume that Haley's will be posted on the FEC website within the next few days. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I see, thanks for clearing that up for me! HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Trump considered frontrunner?

This is in the opening paragraphs, who considers him the frontrunner? At the time he declared his candidacy he was and still is significantly behind DeSantis in the betting and media analysis. The source cited to back up this claim is from 11 months before he announced. I've not bothered reading the rest of the article given this statement. 31.52.117.117 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Here we have a reputable source proclaiming DeSantis as the frontrunner.

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3803129-desantis-is-gops-early-front-runner-that-could-be-a-problem/ 31.52.117.117 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Publicly Expressed Interest Vs Decision Pending

Could editors please stop making arbitrary decisions of placing potential candidates under the sub-heading 'Decision Pending'. All of the PEI potential candidates have a decision to make which is pending. The 'Decision Pending' section should be reserved for candidates who have indicated that they are in the process of making a decision on a specific date within a very short period of time, say up to a fortnight. It's quite ridiculous to re-categorise someone who says they will make a definite decision in April. They will all need to make a decision at some point in time, probably in the first half of this year. Mrodowicz (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Boris Johnson...seriously?

Should British PM Boris Johnson be listed? I get that it's cited by a reliable source, but the man renounced his American citizenship, would he even be eligible? 2601:249:8E00:420:4816:6F6A:4385:1472 (talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

• Not without much better sourcing than what I've seen so far. Johnson not only renounced his U.S. citizenship, he is currently still serving in the U.K. Parliament, and is reportedly planning to run in the next United Kingdom general election, either in his current seat or a different constituency. [6] Not to mention that not only would BoJo need to get his U.S. citzenship restored, but the U.S. president must have been a resident of the U.S. for 14 years. I don't think Johnson has been a resident of the U.S. for much more than 5 years in his entire life, if I'm reading the Boris Johnson article correctly. If he moved back to the U.S. today and had his citizenship restored, it's not clear to me that he could run for president before 2032. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Boris Johnson was using a rhetorical device known as a "joke." If he actually wanted to run for president, he would have moved to the United States, gotten back his citizenship, and established residency by now. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 01:07, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that it's an obvious joke (seriously people, don't leave common sense at the door just because we have "rules"), it's been previously established that not ruling out a run is NOT an expression of interest. We can't infer any interest from what is effectively a refusal to comment. 25stargeneral (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

New drafts

In light of recent reports/announcements, I have created drafts at Draft:Chris Sununu 2024 presidential campaign and Draft:Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign. If these subjects do indeed announce campaigns as expected, the drafts can be moved to mainspace immediately thereafter. BD2412 T 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

I have also gone ahead and made Draft:Mike Pompeo 2024 presidential campaign. BD2412 T 18:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Rollan Roberts II

Just a heads up, the “Rollan Roberts II” link in the minor candidates section points to the Wikipedia article about his father, not Roberts himself (who doesn’t currently have one). The younger Roberts’ announcement got enough attention (due to the fainting-wife incident) that I think he _is_ now notable enough for his own WP article, but it doesn’t make sense to have the son’s name wikilink to the article about the father. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• I agree with you that we should not link Rollan Roberts II to his father Rollan Roberts. If you want to try to create a Rollan Roberts II article, you can do so, either via the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process, or by registering your own Wikipedia account and creating the article yourself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

  But why isn't he listed at all anymore? 84.135.22.8 (talk) 09:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Because some editors believe he has not met the notability criteria. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Intro trimming

I know there isn't a lot of content to work with, but seems unbalanced to have an intro that discusses a singular candidate in-depth at a length of 60% of the 2012 intro and virtually equal to 2016. There's presumably a lot more content to come and perhaps better to prune now, rather than later? Slywriter (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Tim Scott "Exploratory Committee"

I don't think Tim Scott should be classified in the exploratory committee section right now. I don't think having a political action committee set up translates to launching an exploratory committee. He hasn't filed with the FEC or announced one. Since it's been announced he's doing a listening tour later starting Feb 16th, which will lead into an announcement, I think it's more appropriate he be listed in the "decision pending" section. A decision expected in late February or March. Alexjjj (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on this, probably best to put him in "Decision Pending", maybe even "Publicly Expressed Interest"? HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I moved him back to the Publicly expressed interest" section. It seems like no concrete steps towards a presidential run have been taken yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:55, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

John Bolton declared his candidacy

John Bolton has just confirmed he is, in fact, running for president. Should we add him to the "Declared major candidates" list? The Sackinator (talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

That is not a reliable source, please provide another if one exists. --Pokelova (talk) 14:55, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

There are reliable sources confirming his candidacy. See https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/john-bolton-presidential-bid-trump-b2257585.html and https://nypost.com/2023/01/06/john-bolton-confirms-2024-run-against-ex-boss-trump/ and https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2023/01/john-bolton-announces-presidential-run.html--Jgtrevor (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jgtrevor Bolton himself denied he was currently running.

https://twitter.com/LucasFoxNews/status/1611354331701288960

The Independent source doesn't actually say he is running, it says if he runs. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I have moved Bolton down to the "Publicly expressed interest" category instead of "Declared intent to run". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:45, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Marco Rubio placed in the "declined" list?

There was a article from The Hill website that interviewed Marco Rubio about the 2024 presidential field. In the article, he was asked about a 2024 bid for president, he says he "doesn’t have any plans to run for anything in the immediate future.” - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3858306-senate-republicans-fear-trump-repeat-as-2024-field-emerges/

Would this be enough to move Rubio from the potential list to the declined list? With Trump in the race and DeSantis almost certain to get in, two candidates from Florida, it doesn't look like he would change his mind in the next few months either about a run for president. Alexjjj (talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Not enough. Declined requires a more unambiguous statement. Vrivasfl (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Add John Kasich to Potential Candidates

Fmr. Ohio Governor John Kasich should be listed under Potential Candidates 66.116.122.249 (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

This requires two separate references from reliable sources which are not older than six months. The sources should provide substantive discussion of the person as a potential candidate. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:NPOVN

Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries

As my previous discussion here got no attention, I have opened a discussion at NPOVN concerning content about Donald Trump. Slywriter (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Should a background section be included on this page?

I think it would be a good idea to include a section on how the public opinion of Donald Trump within the Republican Party has declined during his post-presidency. Utopiayouser (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Given the Democratic Party is changing the state primary schedule, was wondering why this page doesn’t talk about the schedule, nor is there a link to this page on the Presidential Primary main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.192.29 (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

• The Democratic National Committee can only change what it expects the schedule to be for the Democratic Party. Whether the legislatures or the secretaries of state in the respective states will go along with that as to scheduling the primaries for either or both parties is a separate matter. See [7], for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

"Other declared candidates"

One way to get into the major candidate section is "substantial media coverage". This is the requirement for *any* content to get into a Wikipedia article, though. The "other declared candidates" section is for candidates that don't meet Wikipedia's own sourcing requirements. Why are we ignoring WP:WEIGHT here and including total joke candidacies that RS do not consider worth reporting? 25stargeneral (talk) 08:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Where to put Ramaswamy

Do we put him in "Declared Major Candidates", due to him having substantial media coverage, abiet some, or in "Other Declared Candidates", personally I think "Other Declared Candidates", wanna see opinions on this. HurricaneKappa (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I’d vote for “Declared Major Candidates”. His campaign is being covered by Fox, NYT, Axios, and other major outlets, which I think qualifies as substantial media coverage. Kevingates4462 (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Where is it being covered? None of these sources are found at Vivek Ramaswamy 2024 presidential campaign. Numberguy6 (talk) 03:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Let's start with these six articles. And that's not even counting the Washington Examiner article already being cited. ~ EditDude (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Basically every major media outlet is covering it.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/21/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-gop-2024-campaign/index.html

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/conservative-entrepreneur-anti-woke-crusader-vivek-ramaswamy-launches-gop-presidential-campaign

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/21/us/politics/vivek-ramaswamy-presidential-candidate-2024.html

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-21/vivek-ramaswamy-esg-critic-takes-on-trump-for-2024-republican-nomination

https://www.wsj.com/articles/biotech-founder-vivek-ramaswamy-enters-gop-presidential-race-92accc7f

https://www.axios.com/2023/02/22/vivek-ramaswamy-2024-presidential-election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/02/21/ramaswamy-gop-president-primary/

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/21/vivek-ramaswamy-president-2024-00083903 Kevingates4462 (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think he should be put in the "other declared candidates" category until he's been included in polls. He's not an elected official nor has he been included in polling yet. Alexjjj (talk) 02:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think he has received the necessary substantial media coverage for inclusion as a major candidate. Vrivasfl (talk) 11:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree I think he should be put in the other declared candidates, he's not event polling. Haley is at least in the 1-10 range. No one knows who he is even though he has press coverage today (Aricmfergie (talk) 17:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think there should be a new section for some kind of vote to ask where Ramaswamy should be, because this seems like it might turn into some kind of editing conflict. HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:52, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy is not a major candidate

In the top paragraphs of the article he is called a "major candidate" I am not sure that is a truthful telling of events. He has not appeared on any polls to my knowledge, and other than his announcement he is virtually unrecognizable. So I believe he should not be declared as a "major candidate" in the top paragraphs. (Aricmfergie (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I think he is a major candidate, but in a case like this where we are relying on the more subjective third criterium of "substantial media coverage," there should be overwhelming agreement. There isn't one at the moment, so it probably is best to put him in "other notable candidates" for the time being. Vrivasfl (talk) 18:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I think a good marker besides substantial media coverage is polling. To my knowledge he isn't polling high enough, but if he does he definitely should move to the major candidates (204.126.3.198 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2023 (UTC))

Agreed. I think he needs to be included in polling before he's declared as a major candidate. Also, outside of Fox News channel, the cable news channels haven't been covering his candidacy yet, just their website counterparts have, and it was only for him announcing his bid. Alexjjj (talk) 19:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I think Yang was also listed as minor when he first joined the race. Does anyone know when he was included among the major candidates?3Kingdoms (talk) 01:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

It looks like he passed an RFC to be recognized as a major candidate on March 10, 2019. See Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 3#New "inclusion criteria". However, the criteria were somewhat different that time around (apparently anyone who had held any public office counted as a major candidate, which we are no longer following), and there had been a lot of advocacy both for and against listing him as a major candidate before that; see Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 1 and Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 2. For what it's worth, March 2019 seems to have been when Yang firmly established himself in other sources as being a major candidate, too; see FiveThirtyEight.com, for example. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:29, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Sounds like he should only be added to major candidates when he is included in more polls and coverage. 3Kingdoms (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy

Ramaswamy is not a major candidate. Polls were not cited for Ramaswamy. Even if he is featured in polls if he is below 1% he is not a major candidate. (Aricmfergie (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

He has got substantial media coverage. He is a major candidate. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

That is not the only criteria. Polling has to be significant too. (23.123.210.20 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC))

No, only one out of three required. Vrivasfl (talk) 16:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Screen-Shot-2023-03-01-at-9.32.27-PM.png

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

What is "substantial media coverage" (per the inclusion criterion)?

Is it defined in a previous discussion somewhere? David O. Johnson (talk) 05:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if an official definition exist, but I have understood the phrase to mean "detailed news coverage from multiple major media sources". "Detailed" means more than just a passing mention. The news coverage has to be about the candidate's campaign for president. Vrivasfl (talk) 11:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Article protection

I think this article may need a protection placed on it so that information remains accurate. I'm not sure what its called or how to get it. (Aricmfergie (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Protection policy. I tend to think that this article does not need protection at this point, because I have not seen significant vandalism or false information put in the article recently. What I do see is differences of opinion as to what information ought to be included and what should not, and which candidates are major and which are not. These differences of opinion are not a bad thing; those are issues for which editors should seek to establish consensus. There are plenty of editors watching the article and quite a few actively editing it, so if the article does get vandalized, it will probably be fixed quickly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

I think we're being too strict on the 'major candidate' criteria

Take a look at the major candidates list in the 2020 Democrat primaries: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates

It contains people like:

- Wayne Messam, who got very little media attention, wasn't in any of the debates, got 0% and 1% in the polls he was featured in and his highest office was a small city mayor.

- Richard Ojeda, whose highest position was a state senator.

- Marianne Williamson, who never polled higher than 2% in a poll.

If that list includes those people, we should DEFINITELY be including Vivek Ramaswamy and Corey Stapleton in our list of major candidates and then we should discuss the others. I don't see what reason there is for considering Wayne Messam as a major candidate but not Ramaswamy when he's gotten far more media attention.

I think we should have a vote on this. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 12:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I started a Request for Comments about this at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1#Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major" because I thought that considering Ojeda a major candidate had been a mistake. In my opinion, we should have been somewhat more restrictive as to defining a major candidate for 2020, rather than being just as unrestrictive this time. Currently, we have three possible routes to being considered a major candidate -- having held a significant elected office, being included in at least 5 national polls, or receiving substantial media coverage. The first two are basically objective criteria, whereas the substantial media coverage criterion is subjective, but allows us to include a candidate who is widely recognized in the media as being a major candidate. If we apply these criteria to the 2020 Democrats you mentioned, Messam and Williamson would have passed because they were included in over 100 polls each, but Ojeda probably would not have since he was included in only 2 polls before dropping out. I note that there have been 5 national polls for the Republican primary released in the last week. If pollsters keep up a similar pace, it would be easy for Ramaswamy to qualify unequivocally as a major candidate by next week if the polls start including him. Meanwhile, Corey Stapleton has been in the race for three months and still hasn't been included in even one national poll. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Candidate Colors

Current colors: Trump = Blue Nikki Haley = Orange

I think that, if/when Ron DeSantis declares, he should recieve the same red color Marco Rubio got back in 2016. Perhaps Pompeo gets green. WorldMappings (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

• Aren't these colors used mostly to indicate who has won various states/counties on our maps? What's most important is that the candidates who actually win things get colors that contrast with each other. (It's unlikely, albeit not impossible, that any of the candidates will have a signature color that people not reading this Wikipedia article will remember.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Why is DeSantis in decision pending category?

Struggling to understand why DeSantis is listed in this category. The other names listed here all have sources in which the person talks about their 2024 run. The DeSantis sources are articles that show he is a potential candidate but nothing more. Should I move him to the potential candidate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.117.63 (talk) 10:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Vrivasfl (talk) 00:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

No. WorldMappings (talk) 00:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Defining "substantial media coverage"

As it stands, our "substantial media coverage" criterion is essentially useless. It's laughable that we have such a qualifier on the actual page when we continue to exclude Vivek Ramaswamy, a candidate who has been consistently in the media in the past week. The issue, of course, lies in how subjective the criterion is, even if Ramaswamy blatantly passes any reasonable interpretation of what "substantial coverage" entails. Seeing as we have no clear idea how to apply it, we should remove the criterion from the page unless we can come to an agreement as to how we can determine whether a candidate has been taken seriously by prominent media outlets.

I believe that a substantial media coverage criterion can still have some value. I propose that a candidate has received substantial media coverage when their declared candidacy has been covered by five separate major national networks. This means that a qualifying article must:

• be primarily about the individual's candidacy rather than just mentioning it, as User:Vrivasfl mentioned in an earlier thread
  • Thus, list articles such as this one do not count, and this one casually mentioning Perry Johnson doesn't count either. A candidate's name being in the title is a good sign that the article is about them.
• be published by a reputable source that Wikipedia consensus considers to be reliable for political news
  • In edge cases such as Fox News, I think we can consider them reliable for basic facts such as whether a presidential candidate has declared. However, obviously unreputable sources like the Daily Mail would not qualify.
• not be published by an regional affiliate network
  • For instance, this article covering Ramaswamy would not count because it was published by ABC 25 Columbia, an affiliate of ABC News; however, this article from the national news site would count
• not be published by a network that already has covered the candidacy
  • In other words, two articles from the New York Times wouldn't count towards this criterion - they have to be from separate networks

Under this criterion, Ramaswamy easily becomes a major candidate, as shown by the examples listed in another thread. As far as I can tell, the other "other declared candidates" have all received much more limited coverage:

• Perry Johnson has been featured on FOX News and NBC News, mostly due to his Super Bowl ad
• Steve Laffey has been featured on ABC News, The Hill, FOX News, and Newsweek. I can't find a fifth source for now.
• Rollan Roberts II's declaration was featured on the Washington Times and Newsweek, both because his wife fainted at his launch event
• Corey Stapleton, to my knowledge, hasn't received any significant coverage at all outside of his press release getting published on Yahoo News.

I believe a criterion such as this would have recognized Yang's candidacy by mid-March 2019, when he started getting recognition as a major candidate. It's not perfect, but it's at least something.

One possible issue with this criterion that I can foresee is that it could lead to bloated citations. To prevent this, perhaps we could make it a habit to restrict the sources in our references section to just one once the candidate eventually meets our polling or electoral criteria.

Feel free to suggest any amendments or omissions to my proposal. It's important that we start nailing this down so that we can accurately reflect reliable coverage of presidential races. ~ EditDude (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I am fully behind an objective definition of "substantial media coverage," and I agree with all qualifiers for the articles to count. My only concern is that five is entirely too few. I would want to set it as 20 separate major national networks, which, by the way, Ramaswamy more already than meets: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32].

Vrivasfl (talk) 20:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm worried that'd be too many citations. Maybe we can meet in-between and require ten sources? That's way more than what I could find for Laffey and Ramaswamy still easily clears it. We could put them in a collapsable list in the references column until they qualify through another criterion. ~ EditDude (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

We would put those citations here in the talk page in order to reach consensus. I agree with you that, once there is consensus that an individual is major, only one reference is needed in the chart. For those who meet the polling criterium, we don't link five polls in the chart to prove it. That should resolve any citation overkill problem. I could live with ten, but I maintain twenty is not unreasonable, any major candidate for President of the United States should be able to reach that easily, and indeed Ramaswamy met it in less than a week. Vrivasfl (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Why is coverage about the campaign in a listed WP:RS not enough of a limiter on its own? I don't understand the instinct to limit including minor candidate when their campaign is verifiable in reliable sources. Most people who file with the FEC aren't going to have an article about them, but for those that do inclusion now seems fine to me. Especially considering the article is going to be entirely rewritten over the next few years and we'll have plenty of time later to cut WP:UNDUE coverage if their campaigns aren't notable in hindsight. Creating a criteria to try and WP:CRYSTAL which candidate will run notable campaigns seems like an impossible task. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The intent here is only to reflect which candidates prominent media outlets consider significant enough to consistently report. It's not WP:CRYSTAL because we're not making any predictions as to who will be a noteworthy candidate, we're only stating who's noteworthy now per our reliable sources. We shouldn't give minor candidates undue prominence on this page because they could maybe possibly end up being noteworthy later. ~ EditDude (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Other Declared Candidate table

Can we make a table for the other declared candidates so that they stop putting Johnson and Ramaswamy as major candidates (Aricmfergie (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

We try not to dedicate too much space to unimportant campaigns. People moving particular candidates between sections can easily be reverted if and when needed. --Pokelova (talk) 05:07, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Can we get some sort of page protection? (Aricmfergie (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

That would be a good idea. --Pokelova (talk) 05:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• I agree, but perhaps a collapsible table would work best. --73.110.175.228 (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't think we need page protection. I would rather work more on building consensus on this talk page as to who gets classified as a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

    I'd propose requiring two of the three points to be met to be considered a major candidate instead of just one. I.E they must have two of either been included in five major polls, held service in a major political position, or five major publications discussing them.

    Any serious candidate should be able to easily meet two of those conditions. Tipsyfishing (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

    I think a major candidate should hit all three points not just two of the three (Aricmfergie (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

    If a candidate had to hit all three points, then Donald Trump could not have qualified as a major candidate during his 2016 campaign because he had never held political office before. Two out of three should be sufficient. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

    Maybe we could have a fourth criteria be "substantial endorsements". We'd of course need to discuss what that meant exactly. But it'd give additional options. Though, two of the three existing options I'm game with too. Tipsyfishing (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Leave it at one, and here's why. The whole reason why we make a distinction between major and minor candidates is because we want to avoid giving undue weight to candidates who are not being treated on the same level by the reliable media sources we use. The article should match the reality, so the only real criterium is substantial media coverage. The other two are shortcuts. "Previous significant elected office" exists because it would be a waste of time to have to reach consensus on nearly every politician when these people, almost without exception, have been treated as major candidates by the reliable media souces. "Five national polls" exists to avoid continuing edit wars. Ramaswamy is a major candidate, and honestly, I don't even understand how people can disagree about that, but some people do. Ramaswamy will eventually meet the polling requirement, and when he does, the edit wars will cease. We really shouldn't have to wait for that to acknowledge the reality that he is, right now, treated as a major candidate by the reliable media sources. My vote is to keep the criteria as they are. If, however, consensus is that something must change, then I suggest simply removing "substantial media coverage" as a criterium. This will have the effect of removing Ramaswamy as a major candidate (which I think is wrong) until he appears in five polls (which I think gives undue weight to pollsters), but it is at least only temporary. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson Classification

I don't think Perry Johnson should be the major candidate section currently. He has never been elected or been a nominee for a race, has not been polled in any polls yet nor has he been interviewed on any major cable news channels yet like the current 3 have gotten. The CPAC poll that was mentioned when the user added him to the major candidates section, I don't believe is enough to justify for him to be a major candidate. Alexjjj (talk) 21:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. (23.123.210.20 (talk) 04:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC))

So do I. (Aricmfergie (talk) 04:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

@Aricmfergie:, I have no horse in this race but logging out to agree with yourself is a gross violation of WP:SOCK. --Pokelova (talk) 05:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

• Johnson is not a major candidate. --2601:249:8E00:420:90FF:3E6:FD02:B684 (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Surely getting 5% in one poll is better than getting 0.2% across 5 polls. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

CPAC straw poll isn't a reputable nationwide poll by a polling service. Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, if a candidate truly had 5% support nationwide among Republicans, as distinguished from 5% among the party activists at a specific conference, you would expect the candidate to repeatedly show up listed as a "volunteered" response in the national polls with, say, 2% to 8% support (to account for the margin of error). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:10, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe he should be a major candidate. He meets the criteria for media coverage. Look at the major candidates list for the 2020 democrat primaries. It had people like Richard Ojeda and Wayne Messam who didn't receive much media attention. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

The question is not whether he is as notable as candidates of some previous election, but whether he meets the criteria. He meets neither of the two objective criteria of polling or service in a major political position. Whether he meets the third substantial media attention criterium requires consensus. Ramaswamy remained in minor candidate until there was consensus. There is no such consensus for Johnson, and so he will remain in minor candidate status until such consensus is reach, or he meets the polling criterium. As or Ojeda and Messam, Ojeda probably should never have been included as a major candidate, but committing an error once is no reason to commit it again, and as for Messam, he was included in several polls. Vrivasfl (talk) 13:32, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson five polls

Perry Johnson was readded to the major candidates section because of inclusion in five polls. Can someone link these five polls here? On page for Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, Perry is only included in one poll. If Johnson has appeared in five national polls, they should be included on that page. I invite User:Zander123sims4, who made the edit, to respond. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I also want to see those five polls. HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:39, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You will probably have to wait for a while. I'm pretty sure that four out of those "five polls" don't exist. Maybe things will change and Johnson will get into five polls, but he does not have them yet as of this writing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I only see him in this Quinnipiac poll, he also appears in the CPAC poll but that doesn't count since it is a straw poll. Scu ba (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson media attention

In light of the substantial media attention Perry Johnson has received since his announcement for President, in particular, as a result of his performance of 3rd place at 5% in the CPAC straw poll, the SuperBowl ad he ran in Iowa, as well as the Fox Ads he perpetually is running in Iowa and New Hampshire, I think he should be reconsidered for the declared major candidates category. At the very least, he meets it based on the criteria used for approving Ramaswamy which was "detailed news coverage from multiple major media sources." I have linked some significant articles and interviews below. ABC News Washington Times Fox News AP News NBC Chicago Freep US News Yahoo Sports Fox News HuffPost NewsMax Michigan Radio Bridgemi WXYZ News Metro Times SandiegoTribune Morganton StlToday Desmoineregister Mediate Fortworth Inc WLNS Newsbreak Fox2Detroit SeattleTimes The Gazette Fox Business Interview

That is, as long as major media attention is a criterion for someone to get on this page. If consensus does change so that this is not a criterion, then both Perry Johnson and Vivek Ramaswamy should be removed because both have received attention substantial enough to be included, in my view. Anything but including or disincluding both would be arbitrary. It's hard to know exactly where the cut-off of "substantial media attention is" and unless there's a way to quantify that, this becomes a very difficult balancing act. Either way, both will be in 5 or more polls within the next couple months and then they will both meet that objective criterion. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow! What an anti-consensus view. It would not be arbitrary, and while I agree that Johnson should be added, you do not seem too fond of democracy. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Deciding someone has "enough media attention" is arbitrary. I'm simply saying if Ramaswamy has enough then Johnson should also. The cut-off on "substantial media attention" should not be just less than Ramaswamy by default. Any assignment of the "right" amount of media attention to be on the page is arbitrary, as it is not a quantifiable metric. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

In that sense, everything is arbitrary, which makes the word “arbitrary” meaningless. Nobody said the cutoff was just below Ramaswamy. You are making a fool of yourself. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:49, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

It was implied by him being on and Johnson being off. Every rationale set forth on this talk-page previously would have Johnson on as well. None of them were accepted as firm criteria by consensus, by the way. 3 articles, 5, 10, each were proposed at various points. Thus, to have Ramaswamy on and Johnson off implies a hidden criteria not outlined exists. My argument is that any such criteria would only exist to specifically keep candidates with lower recognition than Ramswamy off the "major declared candidates" page. Perryj1622 (talk) 22:06, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I don't know how in the world you got that I wasn't a fan of democracy from that. Is disagreeing with consensus "anti-democracy"? Perryj1622 (talk) 22:01, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

This totals 24 news reports and 2 “national interviews.” I give the go-ahead on adding Johnson. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll preface this as saying that I think that Johnson should probably be added but I have some qualms with this whole situation.

@Perryj1622 is being decried as being anti-consensus even though it is plain to see in other entries in this talk page that there really isn't a consensus. I feel like we should try and pin down one before we go ahead with adding Johnson. Also call me paranoid but I've got a feeling that perryj is someone's sock puppet or biased based on their name, how they've only ever edited on this page, and how their advocating for their namesake to be added. Scu ba (talk) 02:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, you do seem pretty paranoid here and your comment was a little nameist but more importantly I think this whole discussion has been avoiding the main issue. My argument with BuiltByBromine was not really related to the issue and was really only because of a couple unnecessarily incendiary remarks by BuiltByBromine which did not really pertain to the issue at hand which is if Perry Johnson should be re-added to the Declared Major Candidates Page. BuiltByBromine agrees he should be added, Scruba agrees he probably should be added. I think that we should have some sort of a vote on the matter and if we agree he should be added, he should be added. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, I agree there isn't really a consensus here. I saw the comments and there has been debate back and forth on this with Perry Johnson once being added several weeks ago because of him being in 5 polls and then being removed because of a failure to prove he had been in five national polls. I think the numerous news articles and interviews, many of them recent, that Perry Johnson has had up until this point, make it clear, however, that he should be added on the basis of significant media attention. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

While we are doing this, we should also come to a consensus opinion on what "significant media attention" means. Perryj1622 (talk) 04:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It seems we should create consensus on a numerical standard for number of articles. This should’ve been done before-hand, to prevent from “fixing” the standard to selectively include and reject certain candidates, however, it seems a necessary requirement. BuiltByBromine (talk) 09:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Allow me to remind everyone that we did provide an objective definition of "substantial media coverage" on an earlier thread. Please feel free to go and look, but for everyone's convenience, I will copy it here:

• be primarily about the individual's candidacy rather than just mentioning it

• Thus, list articles such as this one do not count, and this one casually mentioning Perry Johnson doesn't count either. A candidate's name being in the title is a good sign that the article is about them.

• be published by a reputable source that Wikipedia consensus considers to be reliable for political news

• In edge cases such as Fox News, I think we can consider them reliable for basic facts such as whether a presidential candidate has declared. However, obviously unreputable sources like the Daily Mail would not qualify.

• not be published by an regional affiliate network

• For instance, this article covering Ramaswamy would not count because it was published by ABC 25 Columbia, an affiliate of ABC News; however, this article from the national news site would count

• not be published by a network that already has covered the candidacy

• In other words, two articles from the New York Times wouldn't count towards this criterion - they have to be from separate networks

At the time, no one voice ay opposition to these requirement. We did not reach an consensus on how many such articles. For what its worth, of the articles cited at the beginning of this thread, I counted 12 that might satisfy this standard, though maybe less if we treat local newspapers as local news affiliates and not count them. Is that enough? My vote is a soft no, but I can take it or leave it.Vrivasfl (talk) 13:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You've convinced me, @Vrivasfl. I'm at a hard no, and I believe 20 articles should be the bare minimum. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This is an interesting point, but I'm not completely convinced. If we are going to have stringent requirements for a candidate to meet the media requirement, there should be relatively few articles required. I think 5 is a good number for that. For the general criterion, either we should be less stringent with the nature of the articles and allow all articles of whom the candidate is the central focus, in which case we can raise the requirement to 10 or 20, or keep it at 5 articles and maintain these very rigid standards. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

With the 20 major article requirement, maybe you should hold a vote because that would have major ramifications for current candidates currently considered "Major Declared Candidates." It would be so restrictive that it would be tantamount to removing it entirely. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

"He would flex his muscle within the GOP..."

What in the world? 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C476:A9B4:928F:3F53 (talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed, that entire section feels like it should be in a gossip tabloid, not Wikipedia. ill see if I can reword it for neutrality. Scu ba (talk) 23:00, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Is is possible to have criteria for inclusion somewhere on talk page

Hi all, I've seen a few editors cite old discussions for what the current consensus is on inclusion in this page. Would it be possible to list the current consensus somewhere on the talk page permanently so new editors can know the criteria and experienced editors can all have the criteria in front of us when we're debating particular inclusions? There is something similar on Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus that lists current page consensuses and I think something like that would be helpful here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with this suggestion Perryj1622 (talk) 04:12, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Other Criteria for Major Declared Candidates

I think it should at least be considered that many of the candidates who would have been said to be a "Major Declared Candidate" in previous Presidential races would not have been included until very late based on the current criteria. In light of this, I think we should consider updating the criteria to include candidates who meet any of the following criteria:

1. Have finished in the top 5 in any reputable national poll, or straw poll that has a track record of accurately predicting the nominee, as long as the percentage of the vote received is 2% or more (candidates who finish in the top 5 but do not get 2% may be included because of preferential treatment that is not reflective of their true current performance and people may only be voting for them because their name is on the ballot; while this is significantly better than the 5 polls criterion, even without this stipulation, I think it would help distinguish strong candidates from very unpopular candidates who managed to get listed on a poll- we could consider an exemption for those who finished in the top 5 with less than 2% of the vote but did not appear on the ballot in the poll). I think it would be prudent to include the top candidates over worse-preforming candidates, regardless of sheer amount of polling which is a less reliable indicator of good performance in an election than ones actual performance in polls. This would have captured candidates who preformed well in polls who did not get a large amount of media coverage early on (i.e. Andrew Yang for the 2020 Democratic Primary). This is especially necessary before most candidates have an opportunity to be included in five national polls. If one is able to ever preform in the top 5 and get 2% in a national reputable poll, or highly correlative straw poll, they are a major candidate, regardless of any other factors.

2. Have spent or pledge to spend ten million dollars or more during the Presidential race, as these pledges reliably have tract to candidates who preformed near the top of the primary heap (e.g. Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Tom Steyer). Tom Steyer would not have been included for some time based on the current criteria, but would be considered a major candidate by this criteria which reliably predicts candidates who perform well. Perryj1622 (talk) 04:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

1) I disagree on removing the media coverage as part of the major candidate qualifications. Based on prior Ramaswamy discussions, I believe that 5 media entries is too little, while 20 is too much with 10 being a good balance.

2) I believe that the poll requirements should be presence in at least 5 reputable national polls, so the CPAC Straw Poll wouldn't count, which I believe was the consensus prior to this conversation

3) I believe that a major candidate should follow the previous two requirements. They need 10 qualified sources and a presence in at least 5 reputable nationwide polls.

Scu ba (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

My major point was that the requirement of five major polls is

1) less important than ones performance in reputable national polls

2) is not much of a metric at the early stages in a primary race as fewer of these national polls have been conducted.

I never commented on the desired number of required media entries, but I might as well mention I like the initially proposed number of 5. The requirements for the nature of the entries is stringent, so if one is able to meet that criterion on five separate occasions, I think they should be considered a Major Candidate.

It is also worthy of note that if we were to adopt your proposed third criterion, only Haley and Trump would be currently considered, "Declared Major Candidates" which I think would be too stringent as current consensus at least sees Ramaswamy as a major candidate. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

1) he hasn't been in reputable polls either, CPAC is a straw poll, not a reputable poll. The only poll that I can find where he makes an apperance is this poll from Quinnipiac where he gets - and NA due to him getting less than 1% of the vote.

2) I'd suggest you head over to Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries to see that there have been quite a few reputable national polls. I count 6 in march alone.

3) yeah sorry, I just felt that the early conversation kinda ended without a consensus and wanted to bring it up again in this conversation. Ramaswamy is pushing the border of what is and isn't a major candidate too, but that whole conversation was already held and it was determined via consensus that he was. Scu ba (talk) 15:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

1. I suppose if this new criteria were adopted we would have to have a vote on whether that poll is reputable. I would argue it is, as it has been the most accurate predictor of the Republican primary winner of any poll since its conception in 1980, predicting Reagan as the nominee, Dole, Bush and Romney in 2012. Further, regardless of whether the inclusion of this criterion would put Perry Johnson as a major declared candidate, I think it should still be adopted for the reasons I stated earlier.

2. It appears you might be right on this. There have been about twenty national polls since Ramaswamy, Haley, Johnson and Trump were all announced.

3. Consensus was also reached that only one of the three is required for a candidate to be major so that is the current rule under which Ramaswamy is a Declared Major Candidate. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia has never counted any straw poll as a reputable poll. CPAC polls and other straw polls usually get included in their own sub-section of the opinion polling page. There is no need for a vote on that. Scu ba (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We could also consider removing the "significant media attention" requirement if we cannot come to a consensus on a quantifiable metric for this criteria. 1 could be a replacement to the 5 polls criteria, or they could both be considered criteria. 1 can be amended as needed, but I think at the very least, an objective poll performance criterion, for reputable polls, should be permitted to allow candidates to be included under "Major Declared Candidates" for the reasons outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perryj1622 (talk • contribs)

• I believe the premise for this section is inaccurate when it says, "... many of the candidates who would have been said to be a "Major Declared Candidate" in previous Presidential races would not have been included until very late based on the current criteria." In fact, most of them would have been included as soon as they entered the race based on the current criteria, since most of them had held major political offices before. Of course, there were also some who had not, most notably Donald Trump in the 2016 race, but others as well such as Carly Fiorina, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, Steve Forbes, etc. But the major non-officeholders who ran for president were included in national polls and so would have qualified that way. In fact, Trump, Fiorina, and Carson all reached the 5-poll mark even before they declared their candidacies in 2015. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Neither Andrew Yang, Marianne Williamson, nor Tom Steyer in the 2020 Democratic Primary would have been included. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Looking at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries, it appears that Andrew Yang's 5th poll came no later than March 18, 2019; Marianne Williamson's no later than March 31, 2019; and Tom Steyer's no later than July 23, 2019. So it took Steyer no more than two weeks after entering the race to meet the poll criterion, and Williamson only about two months. It took Yang more than a year, but that's because (a) he entered the race in November 2017, and there were few polls held until 2019; and (b) he was not generally recognized as a major candidate at first; it took him a while to achieve that. See, for example, this 538.com article published March 19, 2019: "We started off the 2020 cycle with an informal heuristic: While many long shots would run for president, we would focus our coverage on candidates who had previously held elected office; others would have to earn enough media attention to prove they should be taken seriously. When businessman Andrew Yang, a political rookie, launched his presidential campaign with a New York Times profile in February 2018, he didn’t meet our standard for coverage. But Yang now looks likely to qualify for the Democratic primary debates this summer, so here is our belated take on the strengths and weaknesses of his candidacy." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:34, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

• I would not agree with expanding the criteria for inclusion as a major candidate with the goal of getting a specific candidate included. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  seconded Scu ba (talk) 17:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  This is not expanding the criteria with the goal of getting a specific candidate included. This is expanding the criteria with the goal of improving the metrics for deciding who "Major Declared Candidates" are. These new criteria would have included candidates who were major candidates in the past and would not be so expansive as to ever include candidates who are not notable, as the addition of these criteria never would have resulted in the inclusion of candidates who were not major in any democratic or republican primary. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  @Perryj1622 It might help if you look at policies like WP:UNDUE that are part of the reason we make the distinctions we do here. We have policies that instruct us to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. I'd highlight the phrase "in proportion." Here, we're trying to balance our listing in proportion to what the reliable sources say. Its not enough to have media coverage in reliable sourcing for us to call someone a "major candidate" we need the proportion of coverage to also reflect that in line with WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we are giving a candidate more prominence than the sourcing justifies and we're violating policy. That's why we don't just list everyone as a major candidate and we try to reach consensus on who we label a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  I understand that we are trying to avoid giving undue weight to candidates but I think we should have a robust and provable standard for approving candidates as "major." I was always arguing that the inclusion of Perry Johnson as a major candidate was not giving him undue weight. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  In my view the classification should be somewhat fluid. Perhaps requiring 5 news articles within the last month. Perry Johnson is a major candidate at present because he is one of only a few who have declared. If more candidates enter the race he could drop down to minor candidate status depending on if he is still getting the same media coverage. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

  Johnson doesn't have 5 articles at all let alone in the last month. Scu ba (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, he does. Many of the articles were too hastily removed. Fox News, Washington Times, HuffPost and NewsBreak articles should still be included by WP:RSP and none of them are synicated. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

  That is the Fox News article, not the Fox business interview Perryj1622 (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Rectifications

Is Johnson not considered a well-covered enough candidate? BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

He has a lot of local coverage from Detriot and Michigan media, but those articles aren't considered for his media notability.

The articles that I could find that are from reputable sources that would count to his tally are:

1) this AP article

2) this ABC article

3) this US News and World Report article

4) this NBC article

5) this CBS article

This would put him at a perfect 5 articles, which is the minimum needed to be counted as notable. I will note he has also made an appearance in a huffington post article, but they're the huffington post and I wouldn't cite them for anything serious, and a fox sports (not fox itself) article, but that was just talking about how he bought a superbowl ad, and not about his presidency as a whole, also its sports media. I still have reservations about including him in the major candidates list due to the simple fact he isn't being included in any polls, besides a CPAC straw poll which doesn't count as a reputable poll, and this Quinnipiac poll, where he got a negligible percent, less than 1%. Scu ba (talk) 15:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I just want to say that five articles from major media is, in my opinion, far, far too low for someone to qualify as a major candidate based on media coverage alone. If a candidate is covered when he declares his candidacy, and then afterward is largely ignored, that suggests to me that the media don't consider him to be a major candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:49, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's just that for some reason the earlier consensus was 5 articles. Scu ba (talk) 16:07, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

What was your rationale for disinclining the Fox Business interview, the Washington Times Article and the US News article? Perryj1622 (talk) 16:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Both the Fox and Washington Times article are WP:MREL at WP:RSP and probably shouldn't be used if other better sources exist. Not sure on the US news article TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

U.S. News and World pass General Reliability. Command F for them in WP:RS. Scu ba (talk) 17:35, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I see them now. I Command F'ed "US News" and not "U.S. news" and missed them. Thanks! TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:08, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As I understand, Fox is considered an edge case and can be used for purposes of proving significant media attention, as per previous consensus. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I also question what was wrong with the ABC News article, as I believe that is an approved source as well. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That list is counting the same article (the Associated Press article) three times, once for the AP, once for US News & World Report, and once for CBS. It's the same article reprinted in more than one source and should only be counted once. See WP:SYNDICATED. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Got it, ill run a strike through now.Scu ba (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

We should probably attain a consensus of either a minimum of 20 or 10 articles. Clearly all the major candidates have numerous (far above 10 or even 20) articles about them, and Johnson barely makes 3. BuiltByBromine (talk) 14:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like 10 would work, 5 is just too small of a number. I wouldn't be opposed to going to 20 but that would re-open the Ramaswamy can of worms. Scu ba (talk) 14:57, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it, as it seems that @Perryj1622's objections were mostly invalid. It seems Ramaswamy has 21 articles at least. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, referring back to the previous criteria Scu.ba agreed to, "not to establish criteria with the goal of getting a given candidate approved." This violates your proposed rule. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

What is wrong with this Fox News Perryj1622 (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Never mind, I had not previously realized the consensus was to use the incredibly strict standard of rejecting all WP:MREL articles. In that case, yes, all of these would be rejected, but so would many of the articles previously deemed acceptable for other candidates. We should have a fully-fleshed-out catalog of articles that are properly vetted to meet the standard for each questionable candidate, which we started to do, but there seems to be some disagreement with Ramaswamy articles when there shouldn't be because we can pretty easily verify which articles meet this standard. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Candidate Colors

What should the colors for each candidate in the Wikibox be?

Here's my personal take:
Trump = Blue
Nikki Haley = Orange
Ron DeSantis = Red (similar to Rubio's color in the 2016 Wikibox)
Vivek Ramaswamy = Yellow
Mike Pence = Green
Tim Scott = Purple
Asa Hutchinson = Unsure. I put dark red there for now.
(italicized text are candidates undeclared but are likely going to run) WorldMappings (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Remember, not all of these candidates are necessarily going to need to have colors assigned. Some may drop out before the primaries even begin. What's important is that the colors we do use contrast with each other so that it's easy to "read" them on maps and the like. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:02, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would use pink for Hutchinson MarblePolitics (talk) 18:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I would stick with green for Ronny, as that's his current color on Wikipedia poll graphs, and it contrasts well with Trump's dark blue. Longestview (talk) 19:21, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Greg Abbott?

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.

---

He was listed as a potential candidate, then removed entirely from the article. Thats the first time I can remember that happening and ive been following election pages since the 2016 election. I'm just asking if that was an error or if I missed something. Usually if they go out of the 'potential candidates' its because they declined or are about to announce. Any reason why he's nowhere now? Thanks! Sneakycrown (talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

His entry was hidden by @Kkuchnir: as one of Abbott's references had become outdated (older than six months). --Pokelova (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Potential candidates are only kept in the article if there has been speculation on their candidacy from a reliable source within the last 6 months. That hasn't been the case for Abbott and his entry was hidden. If you can find a new reliable source talking about him possibly running for president he can be added back. Scu ba (talk) 22:58, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I did a quick google search and I actually found some articles about Abbott saying he isn't going to run and is instead focusing all his attention on originally the 2022 Texas gubernatorial election, and after he won that, the 2024 Texas House of Representatives election.

[33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]

Specifically one quote here from the Houston chronicle about a possible presidential bid:

“We’ve never discussed this,” said Dave Carney, Abbott’s top political adviser who has worked on several presidential campaigns. “Never done any plans for it. No travel that would be a prelude to testing-the-waters type stuff. Just focused on things here in Texas.”

.

That being said he has yet to officially decline running himself, but I feel Abbott is no longer in the picture as a possible candidate. Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Huh, interesting. Thank you! I was wondering why he had just disappeared. Thanks for keeping me up to date! Sneakycrown (talk) 10:59, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Still; Abbott should be included 200.68.167.223 (talk) 19:39, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Donald Trump's primary colors?

Resolved

In the 2024 primaries, should his candidate color be the same as his previous 2016 and 2020 ones? 72.183.119.220 (talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

yes Scu ba (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Larry Elder Declared Classification

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.

---

Since Larry Elder is announcing his run for president today, I think we should have a discussion on whether he should be classified in the 'major' section or the 'other' section. I believe he should stay in the 'other' section until he has been included in 5 national polls. Right now, he has only been included in 3 2024 national presidential primary polls, all of them being polled by Trafalgar. He has never been elected to any office and he has not yet been considered a substantial candidate with the media at this point. Alexjjj (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

He should be put as a major candidate, as like Ramaswamy, he has had significant media coverage and has recieved significant support due to his run in the 2021 California Gubernatorial Recall Election ~ HistorianL (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

yes he should be a major candidate,

[40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

he has plenty of media coverage.Scu ba (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think just an announcement throughout the different media outlets qualifies him as a major candidate immediately. He has to show some support, by getting in polls, continuing to have articles written about him and doing interviews on various media outlets. My take is you qualify immediately if you're already gotten the 5 national polls required to be on the list or you've held significant elected office before, i.e; governor, US senator, US house rep, cabinet member. Alexjjj (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Announcement through different media qualified Ramaswamy, it should qualify elder too. Scu ba (talk) 13:37, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Elder has enough media coverage, in my opinion. I think we should wait for two more national polls until putting Elder in the major candidates category. MarblePolitics (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Also, he has yet to file with the FEC yet. I'd wait a bit, like we did with Ramaswamy to see him get more polls and continue to be talked about in media, beyond just an announcement. Alexjjj (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

This is completely asinine you do this literally every time someone who isn’t an elected official jumps into the race. Listen buddy idk if you recall but there was this guy named Donald Trump, he hosted a reality television show called ‘The Apprentice’ it aired weeknights on NBC before his career took a little detour into the 2016 Republican presidential primary contest. He got elected without any government or military experience and so can anyone else with enough media attention. This little “let’s give it a month before listing him as a major candidate” song-and-dance you do once a month shows me this is either your first rodeo in observing American presidential politics or you’re trying to skew people’s perception of who is electable and who isn’t. This is just an incredibly tedious procedure like you guys aren’t gonna stop the “next Donald Trump” by doing this, you’re just obscuring the truth. 2601:18D:C180:7D20:BCF8:4B99:AB03:C41A (talk) 04:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Joe Exotic is running for president as a Democrat in 2024. He too got famous from television but he isn't considered a major candidate just because he's well known. The criteria states a candidate needs to be included in 5 national polls or receive substantial media coverage. My interpretation by substantial is more than just a single day of coverage and he has yet to be polled in 5 national polls at this time. I think it's fair to not consider a candidate a major one only from the basis of how well known one is. Alexjjj (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you really comparing Elder to Joe Exotic? Elder has political experience from the 2021 recall election and has reputable notability for running a pundit show. Scu ba (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I was only talking about them from a celebrity aspect. I do think Elder has more reason than Exotic to be considered a major candidate. The NYTimes and WSJ have yet to include Elder on their lists on who’s running for president. Both do currently include Ramaswamy, so I think that’s another notable point to consider. Alexjjj (talk) 14:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Since we started this talk page we've gotten more media talking about elder

[49] [50] [51] [52]

Bringing his total up to 12 articles, well above the 5 needed for inclusion that was set with the Ramaswamy inclusion. The media is treating him as a major candidate, it is impossible to argue otherwise. Scu ba (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@Scu ba I agree with you. Elder should be moved. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely a major candidate. He is a notable person, more notable than Ramaswamy. And the fact he's been in THREE polls before he even declared shows this. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The three polls were done by one pollster, Trafalgar. I'd like to see more than just one pollster include him in polls or at least reach the 5 national poll requirement. Also, these polls weren't included on the wiki page on 2024 republican primary opinion polls. Alexjjj (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we do this every time someone who isn't an elected official jumps into the race, because it's more difficult to determine whether they will or won't be generally treated as major candidates. When Donald Trump entered the race in 2015, though, he had already been included in 11 national polls. So he would have met the criterion that way. We want to make sure that we do treat major candidates as major candidates, but we also want to make sure that we don't treat minor candidates as major candidates. We've already seen people trying to push Corey Stapleton, Steve Laffey, and Perry Johnson into the ranks of major candidates on this page when at times when they shouldn't have been recognized as such. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Hutchinson Declared

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.

---

I feel like it should be unanimous to include him in the major candidate tally.

[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]

Im working on his section right after adding this topic Scu ba (talk) 13:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

As a former governor, he definitely qualifies. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I second that he meets the criteria based on being a former governor. Anyone who has previously held public office should be included as a major candidate per the criteria. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:13, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:27, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Revisiting Ramaswamy's Inclusion as a "Major Declared Candidate"

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.

---

It seems there is substantial disagreement as to what the requirement for the number of articles there has to be for someone to be considered a "Major Declared Candidate." The only candidate who has achieved this status via the fulfillment of this requirement and this requirement alone is Vivek Ramaswamy, who achieved it upon 5 unique reputable national news articles about him being cited. It is currently being argued that because another candidate, Perry Johnson, does not meet a much higher threshold of articles, he should not be included as a major candidate, even though he meets the criteria by which Ramaswamy was first added. I propose we have a vote to determine the exact numerical requirement for one to be considered a major candidate and apply it accordingly. If we keep the requirement that we had previously, both candidates should be added. If it is changed, we should demonstrate Ramaswamy still belongs in the category based on the new criterion. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

As per the earlier consensus this is a closed case. Despite him not being a prior politician, Ramaswamy passed notability due to being regularly included in polls, and the shear amount of media content that is out about his candidacy. Sure he is a fringe long-shot that probably stands no chance but with over 20 articles about his candidacy being published by over 20 different sources he has to be included. I copied and pasted a list from the earlier talk here:

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

Meanwhile Johnson only has 3 notable media stories, and has appeared in 1 singular poll, and hasn't held prior office. He isn't a major candidate by any of the established definitions. Scu ba (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Deseret News (8), New Republic (10), Intelligencer (12), Gizmodo (14), The Daily Best (18), Yahoo Life (20) seem dubious. The Nation (17) is an expressly progressive-opinion source. I'm not sure about The Times of India (16) or TH (21), as these are international. The Washington Examiner (22) would be considered an edge case, but I think it would be allowed for these purposes. The same possible objection applies for Reason (11). Fox News is 23, but I believe it is considered reputable for these purposes. WSJ Opinion (24) is an opinion piece but I believe that is allowable for proof of media coverage. I'm not sure if we count RCP (25). This totals at most 19 sources and likely many fewer. Perryj1622 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

They're not my sources, but a list from the earlier talk on the subject. 19 is still more than 5 which is the requirement, or even 3 which is what Johnson has. Scu ba (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

If the requirement really is five, Johnson should be included. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems, from this list, that most of your objections conflict with WP:RSP. These are:

• Deseret News
• New Republic
• Intelligencer
• Gizmodo
• Yahoo Life! has no consensus; to be determined
• Washington Examiner is fine for our purposes, and the statement was not published in an opinion column.
• Reason is an approved sources, nor was this announcement made in an opinion column
• Fox News would be considered allowed for our purposes, as this is not a specific political announcement nor a scientific one

Please refer to WP:RSP when disputing sources. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the new count, the only concerns are Times of India and RealClearPolitics. That makes 23. Far above any form of requirement, and as @TulsaPoliticsFan pointed out, he is listed in over ten polls on Fivethirtyeight. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Errata correction: Times of India, RealClearPolitics, Daily Beast, and potentially Yahoo Life. WSJ Opinion should be fine. This makes 21. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You do not seem to be following the consensus standard of the disinclusion of all WP:MREL articles, under which all of these sources are disincluded. Fox News is a political article as it is discussing the candidacy of Ramaswamy, as it must for the article to even be considered. Reason has the same issue. Each of the sources I discussed are indeed WP:MREL for politics. Gizmodo, for example, is only reliable for tech, popular culture and entertainment articles. Deseret is considered credible only for local news. Please refer to WP:RSP. This brings Ramaswamy down to 17 acceptable articles. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Correction: WSJ Opinion is WP:MREL as well as The Daily Beast and The Washington Examiner, and RCP, though I believe we already agreed The Daily Beast and RCP are not credible for these purposes. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

This brings Ramaswamy to 14. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

We refer to WP:RSP but all WP:MREL articles are also excluded. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, his number is more than three. Fox Business was not included in that tally, nor ABC News, both linked in the original post on that topic. If those are included, there are five very robust national articles that have Perry Johnson as the center of the article. The Washington Times, NewsMax and Newsbreak were all disincluded, even though they are national news websites just because they were not reputable enough. A large contingent of the sources listed for Ramaswamy here would be disqualified if the same criteria were applied to Ramaswamy's sources as were to Johnson's. It seems to me that at the very least Johnson still has five sources, as he would with the mere inclusion of the ABC and Fox Business articles.Perryj1622 (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The ABC article is included in the tally. Ramaswamy still has the required number of articles even with the disqualifications. 19 articles, you said so yourself. The Fox Business article isn't an article its a video, during which he talks about the SVB crisis the Tik Tok's stocks, the only mention of his presidency is a brief introduction in the beginning. Scu ba (talk) 21:32, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Ramaswamy has been in over 10 polls listed on Fivethirtyeight since the earlier discussions on this talk page in late February/early March about his inclusion. He clearly meets our polling criteria now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

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