Wikipedia

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

< Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries
Latest comment: 1 year ago by TulsaPoliticsFan in topic Why has Greg Abbott been deleted from Potential Candidates
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Rolland Roberts II

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Why isn’t Rolland Roberts II in other declared candidates list when he raised over $1,000,000 64.255.149.196 (talk) 04:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

As has been explained elsewhere on this talk page, he is not considered notable. A million isn't very much for a presidential campaign anyway. --Pokelova (talk) 04:12, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
could it be that he is so un-notable that he doesn't even have a wikipedia page of his own? Scu ba (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Steve Laffey in Declared Major candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

Do you think Steve Laffey should be in Major candidates? WONKAKlD (talk) 11:35, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

No, he does not meet the criteria MarblePolitics (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
And just as a reminded to everyone, the criteria are: (1) current or former major office holder (Prez, VP, governor, senator or U.S. representatives; mayors not included); (2) inclusion in five national polls (Laffey has been included in zero); and substantial media coverage (anyone is welcome to make the argument that Laffey met this criterium, but this is well-trodden ground, and every previous discussion has concluded he falls well short of meeting this high burden). Vrivasfl (talk) 12:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Sir, in what world is this fellow I’ve never heard of a major candidate Veganoregano (talk) 08:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This is the Nth time this topic was brought up. Being the mayor of a town in Rhode Island isn't a notable topic, he hasn't been included in enough news sources, nor has he appeared in at least 5 polls. Scu ba (talk) 12:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Proposed new color palette to put this issue to rest

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments5 people in discussion

There's been way too many threads suggesting new candidates and new colors for those candidates and acknowledging how we've been going back and forth for a while now.

In the above section I criticized the current colors for lack of contrast, ugly hues, and lack of accessibility for colorblind readers. But complaining won't really solve the problem, so I took the time to look up some colorblind accessible palettes and tried to make one that's both visually pleasing and easy to distinguish.

So here is my suggestion:

     Red: DeSantis

     Orange: Haley

     Yellow: Ramaswamy

     Green: Christie

     Lime: Pence

     Teal: Scott

     Light Blue: Elder

     Navy Blue: Trump

     Indigo: Youngkin (Should he run)

     Magenta: Hutchinson

     Peach: Burgum

     Brown: Suarez

     Grey: Possible Future Candidate 1

     Pink: Possible Future Candidate 2

Any thoughts? Support/Oppose? I think it's an improvement from the old/current colors (see above for comparison)

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed! MarblePolitics (talk) 01:56, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed but sadly there is no peach color pallette. WONKAKlD (talk) 18:18, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Since there hasn't been a lot of discussion here aside from two users agreeing I've boldly implemented most of these changes. I kept Burgum and Hutchinson's colors the same since there's no need to split purple into indigo and magenta unless/until more candidates join, same goes for Burgum's altered color. Trump and DeSantis have the same hue since my suggestion also kept theirs the same. I think it's looking better now, but if the field gets more crowded, we can adjust the colors as needed in the future.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The reason I wanted to change Burgum color is because there is no peach color palette and the orange looked too much like Haley’s WONKAKlD (talk) 18:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a legitimate concern. Since Youngkin isn't in the race yet, perhaps we make Hutchinson's color the indigo one and use pink for Burgum? Not sure if pink and magenta would be too hard to tell apart on gradients, but for now we don't have enough candidates to worry about that. Using pink instead of magenta for him since pink is closer to his current color.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I think Hutchinson purple, and Burgum pink Expoe34 (talk) 04:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I support it! Expoe34 (talk) 04:08, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe change Christie to this #415bcd JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 11:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks like      #415bcd is a bright blue color. This might be an issue on gradient maps since a color like this is likely to be used to represent some % of the vote received by Donald Trump whose color is navy blue. Christie being bright green should work out fine since the other green candidate, Pence, has a more chartreuse hue.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Campaign Finance

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

One of the prerequisites to be in the debates is: 40,000 unique donors to candidate’s principal exploratory/presidential campaign committee, with at least 200 unique donors in each of at least 20 states/territories. Where or when can this information be found? The page also still has no campaign finance information for most candidates

gop.com/press-release/rnc-announces-criteria-and-date-for-first-debate-in-milwaukee/ Veganoregano (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

  • If you mean, where in Wikipedia should we list the prerequisites to be included in the debates, that would best be included at 2024 Republican Party presidential debates and forums. As to campaign finance information, there is good reason why we don't have it for most candidates. As indicated at FEC.gov, presidential campaign committees are required to file reports only quarterly during non-election years. Most of the current candidates didn't enter the race until after April 1, 2023, so they weren't required to file reports for the first quarter of 2023. They will have to file their reports for the second quarter by July 15, 2023. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Potential Candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

This section is going to have to go or the criteria be modified at some point. The current criteria is two sources in the past 6 months discussing them running. But launch season is wrapping up. 6 months is a long time when talking about a year long process. In 6 months new people wouldn't even get on the ballots in significant states. It would be absurd if at the end of the year we're still entertaining the possibility of governors starting campaigns, referencing sources that clearly meant the possibility of them launching by now. No sitting official has ever started a campaign that late in modern presidential elections. Not to mention, the sources in this section are very flimsy and some of these governors have signaled themselves they aren't interested. There is always going to be "speculation" over just about about any high-profile figure. This criteria should at least be strengthened. Veganoregano (talk) 23:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg didn't announce until November last time around. I don't think there's any harm in having the potential candidate section, though I think it should be less prominent. I suggested removing the photos. Vrivasfl (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
they werent sitting any office Veganoregano (talk) 21:06, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I would support changing the criteria to two sources in the past 2 months. However, this cycle is unique and shouldn't be compared to other modern presidential elections so readily. 80.41.165.93 (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright, I’ll make these two changes if no objections come in Veganoregano (talk) 07:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we should leave it at six months per Vrivasfl's point on historical late entries being possible and having recent precedent. You're not citing any sources that the launch season is wrapping up, you're just asserting it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:24, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting Perry Johnson as a Major Declared Candidate Again

Latest comment: 1 year ago54 comments23 people in discussion

In the past, many people have argued that Perry Johnson should be considered a major declared candidate. While 27 different sources that specifically covered his candidacy were cited, 23 of them were disqualified for a variety of reasons, including them being syndicated, too local, not focusing enough on the candidacy, the sources not being reputable enough, along with a variety of other reasons. As a result of these disqualifications, he was then declared ineligible to be a major declared candidate. The full list of these sources and the discussion about them can be visited in the archives for anyone who wishes to see them. As of April 26th, TulsaPoliticsFan stated that Perry Johnson appeared in five polls according to FiveThirtyEight. Regardless of his poll situation, I think that at this time, Perry Johnson clearly has the consensus five national source requirement to appear as a Major Declared Candidate. The following sources were agreed to have fulfilled the requirements before the aforementioned discussion was archived:


He has since gained considerably more traction. For example, these articles have all appeared in the past week, are specifically about his candidacy and each have national reach: Market Realist, VB News, Ground News, another VB article, USA News, Head Topics I'm not sure how videos are counted, but for what it's worth, this is a YouTube video from Forbes specifically about Perry Johnson's candidacy posted in the past week: Forbes YouTube Video

Keep in mind, all of this was in the last week and there are many, many more articles that have appeared about him before then. However, as per the consensus requirement for significant media attention, only five sources are required and Johnson clearly meets that standard. Perryj1622 (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Obviously, correct me if I'm wrong, but I actually don't think we came to a five-article consensus. If you recall, I was arguing that there should be no specific threshold and that significant media attention was more of a "I know it when I see it" kind of thing. If there must be some kind of objective measure, it should be 25 articles. I know someone suggested five, but there were suggestions for ten and fifteen, as well. I thought the debate trailed off at that point, and no consensus was reached. Vrivasfl (talk) 12:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I recall when we discussed this earlier that 20 was considered too many by most parties. The more recent archived section "Larry Elder Declared Classification" seems to suggest that 5 is consensus. Perryj1622 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think Perry Johnson can come to the Declared Major Candidates but I think he needs a Picture which will be hard to do. 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:14, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I need to apologize for my prior comment on 538. I misread two state polls as national polls which puts Johnson at 3 national polls, not 5. That's my mistake and I should have read more carefully. As far as the substantial media coverage goes, I don't really have an opinion and will defer to consensus.
Also just for ease of access here are the archived discussions on Johnson: Johnson 1, Johnson 2, Johnson 3 Johnson 4 TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we've reached a consensus as to how many articles are needed to satisfy the media coverage standard. If I had my preference, it would be a lot more than 5 articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Elder was admitted with very few actual sources that satisfy the requirements that were solidified in the last Johnson topic page. Refer to "Larry Elder Declared Classification." Out of those, two of the articles are videos, which was enough to disqualify some sources for Johnson. Four of the articles are syndicated. Even if the requirement were ten, Elder would not have met it (he may not have met seven), yet he was admitted as a Major Declared Candidate, at the time, solely based on his media attention. Now he does also meet the polling requirement but during the time he was first added to the section, he didn't and those few articles were enough to qualify him. We have to apply the standards we are using to include candidates equally. Perryj1622 (talk) 23:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. If we make a mistake and add a non-major candidate, then that shouldn't be an excuse to compound error. If some editors added Elder before he should have been added, that is not a reason to add Johnson before he should be added. It's silly to argue that we both listed Elder too early and that we should list Johnson now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that Elder was admitted before he should have been. I'm saying he was admitted using standards that obviously align with consensus by virtue of the fact that he was admitted (and which I view to be reasonable) and that we should apply those same standards to all other candidates. Otherwise, we are giving preferential treatment to some candidates over others. Perryj1622 (talk) 00:40, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I believe that was a mistake. He only barely qualifies now based on polling, which strengthens my belief that the polling threshold is too low. I agree with you that he really hasn't received significant media attention, and he should not have been added on that basis. I'm not in the business of moving goalposts, but if it were up to me, I'd remove Elder. I don't think he's a serious major candidate. Alas, he meets the agreed-upon polling threshold, so what's done is done. Vrivasfl (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
We could revisit Elder, there is still an open discussion from a few days ago on it, it might get more traction if more than one editor wants to revisit it. But I don't think we're too far off the mark. The NYT had Elder in their major candidate list alongside the Desantis announcement announcement; 538 wasn't including Elder polling averages last I checked. It seems WP:RS are divided; I'd be more worried if no RS was listing Elder with their major candidates. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
There is no consensus to if the Washington Times is a reliable source per WP:RSP so it should probably be omitted. The ground news article is a regurgitation of the Des Moines Register story. Ground news, despite its name, isn't a news site in its own right, it just hosts stories from other networks and sorts them based on political affiliation and other factors to check for biases. None of the national reach articles you mention appear on WP:RSP, ill open discussion about them in WP:RSN.
I still don't think that he should appear on the list of notable candidates. 1) we still haven't established if he has significant news coverage, that could change depending on how the RSN talks go. 2) he hasn't been in enough polls 3) he's held no prior notable office. By all accounts he should be included as a minor candidate at best.Scu ba (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Articles with no consensus have been added in the past for candidates to verify media attention, such as Ramaswamy. For The Washington Times specifically, it is reliable by WP:RSP when there is a lack of other sources. Since we are having this discussion, it should be included. We had the argument for its inclusion over a month ago which seemed to end in the consensus that it should be included. Perryj1622 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
regardless, you'd still be one short. As per WP:RSN VB is closer to a blog than a news source. Scu ba (talk) 14:08, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
It does seem a bit off to me that candidates such as Perry Johnson, running and featured in major media and some polls, are less prominent in the article (due to lack of a picture) than potential candidates that only require a couple of local news sources to be listed. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 13:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this. Potential candidates shouldn't have photos. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:45, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There seems to be another push to have him added to the "Declared major candidates" section. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Then How are we determining who is and isn't based major based on media coverage.
Perry Johnson has seen far more coverage than people like Mike Rogers, Steve Laffey, and Corey Stapleton, yet Rogers has hardly any coverage the past month Rhian2040 (talk) 04:08, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Johnson may make it by polling now. He was included in another national Quinnipiac poll and a McLaughlin and Associates poll, where someone named "Perry" polled at one percent, but since there is no one else in the race with that first or last name, I think it's safe to assume that is referring to Perry Johnson, who likely got that as a write-in.
Since I am not sure if the other 3 national polls have been included, I will write them here for reference:
Quinnipiac poll
Cygal
Quinnipiac University. Perryj1622 (talk) 14:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I am on your side but Perry probably refers to Rick Perry as they go by surnames. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
You may be right. If that is the case, that would put him at only 4 polls. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
National polls that is Perryj1622 (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I think we should make Johnson a major candidate now. In my opinion, he is getting sufficient media coverage and he has been in various polls. Many news sources include him when listing out the major candidates. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with that assessment. Perryj1622 (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Out of interest, are you Perry Johnson or part of his campaign? Your username has perryj in it and all your contributions are on this talk page. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No, just happen to have a very similar name. I thought it was funny a candidate was running with the same first name as I had and thought that based on the media attention he had received at the time that he should be included so I created a Wikipedia account to make my case here. Perryj1622 (talk) 17:23, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
That really stretches believability, and I note you haven't responded to COI questions on your talk page or the COI noticeboard. --Pokelova (talk) 17:43, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any harm in listing him. He just about makes it on media coverage from what I can tell, and is 4/5 in polling, but candidates only need to meet 1 of the criteria anyway. It doesn't look like there are that many potential candidates on the horizon so the page isn't going to be swamped, I think someone said the 2020 Democrat page had 20+ candidates. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I know Wikipedia isn’t a bureaucracy, but I like sticking to whatever criteria was agreed upon. It is important to be consistent with our criteria, especially since we do not know if we will be swamped in the near future. Prcc27 (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
There's a criteria of substantial media coverage, but as far as I can see it has never been agreed upon what this actually means. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
To summarise the media coverage he has received so far,he has the big four listed in the opening post, the AP article was shared by the independent and the hill, which are 2 major media organisations with national reach in their own right.
He is talked about amongst other candidates in Politico and Reuters articles,he has been covered by fox news,huffpost, Forbes video and dozens of local sources.
Not going to get a much better spread,going forward it's unlikey there will be articles solely about him, they will be like Reuters in which they talk about the positions of all the candidates on certain topics. 2A00:23EE:2500:91C0:964E:2740:4989:8297 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
per Wikipedia:Syndication the AP story repeated by the Independent and Hill would only count as one source. He might be listed in Politico and Reuters but they've yet to run an article just on him. Fox news is listed as Generally unreliable in WP:RSP and should never be included. Huffpost has no consensus, and the Forbes video is a video, can't be used as a source. Scu ba (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Mediaite can be used and that would be 5. 2.103.101.211 (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I say include him as he has fulfilled atleast one of the needed criteria, however with that said, he currently doesn't have a photo on Wikipedia, and should only be added after someone uploads a (hig quality) photo 2603:8080:4D01:6516:15E2:B8B9:4C09:440D (talk) 08:27, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
He doesn't have enough media coverage
he doesn't have a presence in national polls
he has held no prior office
he actually has fulfilled none of the criteria. Scu ba (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Huh... not strange at all. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
he doesn't have major media coverage. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
If the criteria is 5 sources he qualifies. All these sources are 3 to 4 months old though, I think we need a recency clause of say within 3 months. It shouldn't be hard for major candidates to achieve that.
2.103.101.211 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Mediaite is not a major news source and is not counted. Scu ba (talk) 12:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Found another article talking about him... circumventing election law... from Politico. Not sure if this helps or hurts his case. Scu ba (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Make Perry Johnson a major candidate! According to 538 i=he has been in five national polls!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by YangGang2024 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I still see four national polls on 538. Vrivasfl (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
yep, same here HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The coverage of him seems primarily on him as something of a minor eccentric and hardly warrants inclusion alongside DeSantis, Trump, or even Burgum. PeacockShah (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Five poll discussion (June 2023)

For Johnson we have Quinnipiac (Mar. 9-13; 0%), Quinnipiac (Mar. 23-27; 0%), Cygnal (Mar. 26-27; 0.4%), Quinnipiac (May 18-22; 0%), and Big Village (June 9-14; 1%) listed on FiveThirtyEight. We're at 5 national polls for Johnson. Is there consensus to move him to the major candidate section and close this discussion? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

As he has now been included in at least five national polls, then Johnson meets the standard for a major candidate used in this article. I would support including him as a major candidate. Jacoby531 (talk) 20:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I also agree that Johnson qualifies based on him successfully meeting the polling criteria. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Johnson has met the criteria, however, I don't think he should be moved to major candidates until we a potrait on wikipedia that is on quality with the rest of the fellow candidates (It's been back in forth between Johnson having no image, or low quality ones) Expoe34 (talk) 18:07, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the 5 poll threshold meant 5 different polling agencies. If that's true, then it has not been established that Johnson meets the criteria. I'm only seeing three polling agencies listed above: Quinnipiac, Cygna. and Big Village. Yes, there is a total of five actual polls cited, but Quinnipiac has three of them. I apparently misunderstood the criteria, but IMO the standard should be five unique polling companies/agencies and not just a raw total of polls taken. Is it not a better indicator of "major" candidacy to be listed by at least five different national polling firms than, say, to be included on five polls from just one particular polling company? I don't think the latter scenario would be a reasonable benchmark for major candidate status. If it is not currently the case, I strongly believe that the criteria needs to be revised to mean five unique polling companies/agencies, and clarified as such. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I mean it says included in at least five national polls not pollsters or polling agencies and revising a criteria we've been using the whole cycle right when a candidate meets it is probably not best practice. When we applied the polling criteria for Larry Elder, we did not check for 5 unique polling agencies just 5 unique polls. Honestly, I think revising the criteria will just delay when he meets it a few more months while people post complaints about it on the talk page. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
There it is, he has finally reached a qualification to be included. However, I still think he should be omitted until we find a portrait for him on Wikicommons. Scu ba (talk) 11:56, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I would concur here and have removed him for the moment. PeacockShah (talk) 21:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Perry Johnson didn't look very strong on paper but fair play to him, he has proved resourceful. We will see if he makes the debates. He should be included up to that point. 2A00:23EE:1230:9808:CAC4:77E5:8FC9:2D9E (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Johnson has been included in five major polls, so by default he's considered a major candidate. Should he make it to the debates is another story but should he be excluded from the debates that shouldn't disqualify him as a minor candidate as some other candidates listed such as Hutchinson, Hurd, Suarez might not be qualified for the debates yet they'll still be included as major candidates. I definitely think we should prioritize in finding a free-use image for Johnson, however him not having an image shouldn't disqualify him either. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lost our minds

Latest comment: 1 year ago31 comments13 people in discussion

Perry Johnson is apparently a major candidate according to us and just about nobody else. He’s never held an office and literally has 0% support. I continue to ask for a reasonable modification to the criteria, which will also make it objective - At least establish a minimum polling threshold, like 1% is not too much to ask for.

Also, there has been a lot of debate over the “significant media attention” requirement. If it’s practical, we may want to change this to a threshold of Republican voters who have heard of the individual before. For example, this website has been tracking that.

pro.morningconsult.com/trackers/2024-gop-primary-election-tracker Veganoregano (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The rule is that appearing in five national polls makes you a major candidate. Perry Johnson has met that criteria and we're not going to make an exception just because people "feel" he's not as important as the others. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
The changes I suggested are objective. I didn’t say make an exception, I said we need to change the criteria. Veganoregano (talk) 20:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
There is too much focus on following "rules" that we create which is not really how Wikipedia is supposed to function. Rather than creating "rules" we should be evaluating how each candidate is treated by RS on a case-by-case basis. Johnson is not considered to be a major candidate by RS. He is usually not included in lists of candidates, and when he is, they refer to him as a "long-shot". 25stargeneral (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, Johnson is not a major candidate, heck he doesn't even have a photo on Wikipedia and barely even passes the polling threshold. Expoe34 (talk) 20:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the nom. The inclusion of such a person in a comparatively minute percentage of polling alone is, frankly, a bizarre measure of being a "major" candidate. BD2412 T 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
    I agree. I have long thought (and argued) that the only "real" criteria is substantial media attention. The major office holder criteria is just a shortcut because those people, pretty much without exception, always receive substantial media attention and are treated as serious major candidates. The polling criterium is supposed to prevent edit wars for candidates like Ramaswamy, who was the subject of weeks of back-and-forth, even though the RS clearly treated him as a major candidate from day 1. The polling criterium put a stop to that. The polling criterium, however, leads to unusual results, and not just here. 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries includes Rocky de la Fuente, even though an honest review of the RS in 2020 would limit major candidates to Trump and the "three Stooges," Mark Sanford, Joe Walsh and Bill Weld. Setting a minimum threshold won't help, because then we'll have to decide which polls or poll aggregator to use, what threshold minimum is appropriate, and why. If the polling criterium leads to untenable results, I suggest eliminating the polling criterium. Vrivasfl (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Not saying I agree or disagree with him being listed, but when we agree on a criteria and then try to change the criteria once a candidate meets it, that does not seem neutral. I would like to revisit the criteria in August. Candidates should be considered “major” if they qualified for the debates and/or held/hold a significant political position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prcc27 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
NPOV means neutral with respect to sources. It's not a requirement to stick with any arbitrary rules we create when the sources go against them. Sources treat him differently than the other candidates, so we do too. 25stargeneral (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
He was included in five polls, which means there are at least five sources that view Johnson as a candidate worth mentioning. Consensus can certainly change, and I think a 1% threshold as well as a criterion that the five polls all have to come from different polling firms is fine. But at the same time, we do have sources that mention him, it’s not like he was added out of nowhere. Prcc27 (talk) 23:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Prcc27: Which five sources would those be? BD2412 T 01:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
The five polls he was included in. Prcc27 (talk) 01:45, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You said "there are at least five sources that view Johnson as a candidate worth mentioning". I just want to be clear whether you are asserting that there are, in fact, five sources, and not multiple statements being republished by a single source. BD2412 T 01:54, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I think they mean the five polls on the talk page here (and here). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
We don't even have Wikipedia articles for Cygnal (currently a redirect to a section of Gnash (software) stating "Cygnal is the Gnash Project's Flash Media Server-compatible audio and video server") or Big Village. I have no sense of their significance, reliability, or independence as sources. As for the rest, we have Quinnipiac, Quinnipiac, and Quinnipiac. A reputable pollster, but they seem to have dropped Perry Johnson from their most recent poll. At what point does a candidate cease to matter when the pollsters stop considering it worth asking about them? BD2412 T 02:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
At what point a candidate ceases to matter when the pollsters stop considering it worth asking about them was not discussed beforehand and a good point open for discussion. As far as the polls reliability goes, they're all on the FiveThirtyEight polling aggregator which has an open editorial policy and expertise in the subject area I do not have. Their ratings of the polls are here: Cygnal and Big Village. I don't think there is a WP:RS issue here, but I could be wrong. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think 538 speaks to the reliability of the sources. They only care about how accurate their past polls were, which says nothing about their independence or general reputation as organizations. BD2412 T 02:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I would also like to point out there is a phenomenon in polling called the “lizard man’s constant” where roughly 4% of respondents in any given poll will choose the most ridiculous response. Veganoregano (talk) 03:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I would bet that a substantial number of the miniscule percentage of people picking "Perry Johnson" thought that this was "Rick Perry". BD2412 T 03:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, it could help a candidate qualify for the debates. Prcc27 (talk) 04:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
A 'phenomena' that was coined in a blog that pulls one google scholar result (the blog post)? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:34, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we can finally end this major candidates debate and speculation over potential candidates once it’s announced who’s going to be in the August debates Veganoregano (talk) 07:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree, adding Johnson to the list is nothing short of Insanity. Scu ba (talk) 11:50, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It also only makes sense when the national gop announced 1% is the minimum to even participate in the debates Veganoregano (talk) 00:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Please see my comments in the "Five poll discussion" above. I had thought that the five_poll threshold meant that a candidate had to be listed by five different polling companies/agencies, not just included in a total of five polls with no regard to how many polling agencies listed the candidate. By this standard. Johnson doesn't qualify as a major candidate. Inclusion on polls by five different agencies/firms should be the standard,IMO, for reasons given in my comments in the aforementioned discussion. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson is the very definition of a minor candidate by any rational metric and including him based on him barely passing the five national polls criteria seems clownishly pedantic. As if the Pro-Inclusion people where just waiting for another 0 % poll to come out. This isn't just an issue of box space, including people like Elder, Johnson, Suarez and (possibly) Rogers as "major" candidates gives undue weight to them, as many people that don't follow politics closely might get the impression that they actually matter in any way, which they obviously don't. I definitely agree with the point Vrivasfl made regarding media coverage, and if it were for me, the criteria would be way stricter, i.e. significant media coverage AND inclusion in at least five national polls OR substantial office held (with a stress on "substantial"; being a former Rep. isn't "substantial") Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree the "5 national polls" standard should be from 5 separate polling outlets. I don't think 5 national polls from one polling company would justify putting a candidate in the major candidates section. Alexjjj (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Search for a Perry Johnson Potrait

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments8 people in discussion

He has passed one the requirements however, Johnson currently has no photo on wikipedia, which I feel is odd for someone who's considered a major candidate by the community, so I suggest we look for a potrait of Johnson, as currently it messes with the page visaully. Expoe34 (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't you create a picture from his campaign website or his campaign Facebook/Twitter page and use it here ? Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:17, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It needs to be “public domain” which idk what that even means Veganoregano (talk) 06:29, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
come on, it means it doesn't have a copyright on it. Scu ba (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Nope, twitter and facebook would own the copyright to that image. Scu ba (talk) 15:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
You know he’s in a bad position when his ”portrait” on this page is a crop from a shirtless group photo 60 years ago Veganoregano (talk) 07:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
lol i know right YangGang2024 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=Perry+Johnson&title=Special:MediaSearch&type=image JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 11:03, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
There is also this: https://ballotpedia.org/Perry_Johnson we could use that image JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 11:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I know for a fact that very image got deleted off commons for copyright violations. Scu ba (talk) 12:39, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I added a picture now and wrote an email to his site for copyright confirmation, so that it won't get deleted. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
It has been deleted for some reason, even though I sent an email to his website confirming copyright status. The pictures are usually deleted after just 1 week, but here after a few days already. It's pointless. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I have removed Johnson for the moment. I was wrong to do so on the grounds that I did at the time, however, I believe it would probably be reasonable to wait until we have an image to include him. Thank you for contacting the campaign. PeacockShah (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Some image considerations from these articles:
https://apnews.com/article/perry-johnson-2024-presidential-campaign-b734b469aa0b56a94e19ef0125cf5997
https://www.wkar.org/wkar-news/2022-06-14/federal-judge-says-perry-johnson-wont-appear-on-gop-primary-ballot
https://www.9and10news.com/2022/03/17/perry-johnson-visits-traverse-city-talks-quality-energy-policy/
https://hillsdalecollegian.com/2023/03/johnson-is-not-a-serious-candidate/ HurricaneKappa (talk) 03:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
AP: Source: a photographer from the AP named David Eggert, who holds the copyright to the image, cannot be used on wikicommons
WKAR: Source: Courtesy photo from his campagin, for use solely by WKAR in that sole article, cannot be used on wikicommons
9and10: Source: Someone named Zachariah Wheaton, who holds the copyright to the image, cannot be used on wikicommons
hillsdalecollegian: Source: Facebook, that image is copyrighted, cannot be used on wikicommons
copyright really isn't that tricky to figure out. if someone owns the picture, we cannot use it on Wikipedia. Scu ba (talk) 00:34, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
You would think his campaign would have spent 2 minutes giving him a picture Veganoregano (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Missing Perry Johnson picture.

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments8 people in discussion

I was banned on Wikipedia Commons for uploading one. It was deleted before I was even able to confirm copyright for it (I sent a mail to his campaign for confirmation). Usually, it gets deleted after just one week, but this was deleted the next day already. Can someone upload a valid picture and post it here ? Thanks. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 20:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why you would post a picture before confirming its copyright status.. Also, since Wikipedia is not a newspaper, Wikipedia users generally do not reach out to campaigns for information. If there was a valid picture for Johnson, I'm sure it would have already been posted, and one will be posted as soon as we find one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:46, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
it's ridiculous how hard it is to find one. I looked through so many sites, their TOS to find one. Not a single one exists. I'm ready to literally take a picture of him myself at this point. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
I found one. Uploaded it just now. Licensed under Creative Commons 4.0 from Michigan Advance. https://michiganadvance.com/blog/after-failed-gov-bid-republican-perry-johnson-launches-presidential-campaign-with-super-bowl-ad/
[[File:Perry Johnson Campaign (cropped for portrait use).jpg|thumb|Perry running for governor.]] IEditPolitics (talk) 01:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi IEditPolitics, I'm a license reviewer on Wikimedia Commons. I left you a message on your talk page there but in case you're not checking it I will comment here. The images you are uploading are not compatible with Wikimedia Commons because they are licensed for non-profit purposes only. Commons can only accept content that is freely licensed for anyone to use, including for commercial purposes. c:COM:Licensing lays out the policy. I would absolutely encourage you to take your own picture as you suggested you might. Uploader-created content is the backbone of Commons! 25stargeneral (talk) 02:39, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Their campaign hasn’t taken 2 minutes to give their man a public domain picture?? Veganoregano (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I was banned on Wikipedia Commons for uploading one. It was deleted before I was even able to confirm copyright for it
Shocking
during the upload process you have to put down a copyright, if it doesn't have a copyright it gets smote, that's the whole point of wikicommons, everything there is either original work for wikicommons, or copyright free. If you keep breaking that rule, yeah you're gonna get banned.
as it stands, there are no copyright free pictures of the guy floating around, and the only way I can foresee one coming about is if there is some Iowan wikipedian in this talk page that is willing to be one of the 50 people showing up to a Johnson rally and personally taking a picture of them and then releasing it to commons.Scu ba (talk) 00:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

There's a picture on his wiki page. It is a group photo but I will see if I can crop it so we have just his head. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.94.19 (talk) 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

If you are talking about the high school photo, please don't. It has been tried and rejected. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis tag

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hi,

I've added the Synthesis tag to the last sentence in the Debates subsection here: 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Debates, as the cited Morning Consult article itself does not indicate that "Trump, DeSantis, Pence, Haley, Scott, Ramaswamy, and Christie" (per the Wikipedia section as written) would qualify; it is improper to combine sources to say something that isn't there, per Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it be acceptable to say (list of candidates) are polling above 1% and let the reader draw their own connection? Veganoregano (talk) 17:31, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Ballot access deadlines

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

The article currently says, "At least 17 states have filing deadlines for presidential candidates seeking the nomination of their party in order to appear on the state's ballots. ... If a candidate files in a state without a deadline, but too close to that state's primary, that candidate may not appear on the ballot." This seems to be somewhat confused. Unless it's a caucus state that doesn't even use a ballot, doesn't every state have a filing deadline to appear on the ballot? The states need sufficient time to print the ballots. (And, in the consideration of some states, setting a relatively early deadline may limit the ability of "outsider" candidates to get on the ballot.) But with delegates for the presidential nomination at stake, I can't imagine that a state would go without a filing deadline. How would that work?

"State Division of Elections, may I help you?"
"Yes, I'm calling from the John Doe presidential campaign. Can you tell me the rules to be listed on the Republican primary ballot?"
"Sure. The primary is on March 4, and you will need to submit petitions signed by 1,000 voters who are registered as Republicans in this state."
"Okay. When do we need to submit the petition signatures by?"
"Oh, we don't have a deadline. Just make sure it's not too close to our primary or your candidate might not be listed on the ballot."
"But will we qualify if we submit 6 weeks before the primary? 8 weeks before the primary? Or what?"
"Like I said, we don't have a deadline ...."

This situation doesn't seem plausible. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

The presidential primary/caucus calendar for 2024 is still in flux and a lot can still happen. Many states have not set their dates yet and therefore have not issued filing deadlines. Ballotpedia tracks filing deadlines here: https://ballotpedia.org/Deadline_to_run_for_president,_2024 The state with the first filing deadline is Nevada, where Republicans and Democrats must file by 16th October to be on their presidential primary ballots for the February elections. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand what you mean, so I'll revise the paragraph to have it make more sense. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Original author of that paragraph here. I analyzed that ballotpedia page to write it. There’s a reason I said “at least.” Veganoregano (talk) 06:29, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I still think the following sentence is unclear: "If a candidate files in a state without a deadline, but too close to that state's primary, that candidate may not appear on the ballot." Just because a state hasn't announced its deadline to qualify for the primary yet doesn't mean the state won't announce a deadline later. The sentence as we have it now implies that candidates are at risk of not learning the date when it will be "too close" to the state's primary to file. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
I updated the section as well, because the Ballotpedia link lists just 16 (not 17) states yet with a filing deadline. Some are twice in there because California or Texas list filing deadlines for D and R primaries separately (or other requirements to file). I also updated Nevada, which uses a primary in 2024 for the first time for both parties. Passed by law and signed by the governor. The Republicans are suing, because they want a caucus again. It's unclear at this point what Republicans will use, or what the lawsuit will end up with. The filing deadline was Oct. 15 in the article, but I corrected it to the actual Oct. 16th. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Where's Rick Perry and John Bolton?

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Last week they were in publicly expressed interest and now they're gone. If they're no longer in publicly expressed interest, is there a source that says they've ruled out a bid? Shouldn't they be in potential candidates or in declined? 2601:249:8E00:420:68E7:4BC7:F41D:FBFF (talk) 18:44, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. While I agree that they probably shouldn't be considered publicly expressed interest, given Bolton hasn't talked much about running since January/February. However an April 2023 article from PBS called him a potential candidate. As for Rick Perry, while his CNN interview said that he's considering a bid, he did say “It certainly is something that I haven’t taken off the table, but the chances of it happening are probably a little bit slim" CNN. Given these two sources, I feel that they both warrant to be in the potential candidates section until they either endorse a candidate or decline to run. MSNBC that called Bolton and Perry potential candidates and listed them alongside Kristi Noem, Mike Rogers and Glenn Youngkin who are listed in this article. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Rick Perry and John Bolton are potential candidates.

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Rick Perry the former secretary of energy under president Trump has publicly expressed interest in running for president from 2 notable sources within the last 2 months. Also, John Bolton, Trump's former National Security Advisor John Bolton has also been named a potential candidate in many news sources. However, the rquirements to be in potential candidates have changed. Even so, I believe both of these candidates should remain in potential candidates. Any thoughts? 189.135.171.243 (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Were they in potential? Last I checked it was 4 governors
I think there’s no shortage of media speculation over just about anybody who has a high profile, which is why I don’t agree with having this section in the first place
But if they meet the new requirements feel free to add them Veganoregano (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
They were actually both in publicly expressed interest but were suddenly removed, since the page is semi-protected and I can't edit. Could someone put these two candidates back in publicly expressed interest? Mister Conservative (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that they were removed since the sources didn't really meet the requirements. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:38, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
What requirements are you joking? Mister Conservative (talk) 01:48, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
The two articles have to substantially focus on the individual (simply being a list including them isnt admissible), be from within 2 months ago, and the 2 sources have to be different and reliable Veganoregano (talk) 01:53, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
All you have to do is make 10 edits dude Veganoregano (talk) 01:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that Perry and Bolton shouldn't be included as publicly expressed interest, however they shouldn't be deleted all together. I already added updated sources from April and June for Bolton and Perry respectively that says they're potential. Here's an article from MSNBC that called Bolton and Perry potential candidates and listed them alongside Kristi Noem, Mike Rogers and Glenn Youngkin who are listed in this article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

Terminator expressed interest

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments8 people in discussion
Closing discussion on Arnold Schwarzenegger because he is ineligible to run for the office. Please keep discussion to candidates eligible to run discussed in reliable sources.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

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.

Lots of news about Arnie saying he would run if he could. Should we add him with a note saying he is currently ineligible? 2A00:23EE:1230:9808:CAC4:77E5:8FC9:2D9E (talk) 12:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

that would be based and I would vote for him but I don’t think he is JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 12:08, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No serious news media is reporting this. And it is meaningless, because he's born in Austria and cannot run for President (you have to be born on US soil or like military bases or overseas territories like Puerto Rico) for that. As an Austrian myself, I would find absurd to add him, knowing these facts. Therefore: Do not add. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Non eligible candidates have run in the past, so we could add him. However, he is saying he would run only if he wasn’t born outside of the U.S., so he does not seem to seriously be considering a run. Prcc27 (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
you don’t have to be born in U.S Cruz was born in Canada JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 19:33, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Because he had a citizen parent. Veganoregano (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Not serious news. Besides, why would we have him in a page about primaries when he won't be able to run in any primaries? The debate rules of the RNC also specify you have to be constitutionally eligible to participate. Veganoregano (talk) 21:59, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/californnia-governor-arnold-schwarzenegger-president-b2360233.html WONKAKlD (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe I know what the original poster is referring to. He said in an interview that he would run if he could; this acknowledgement that he cannot is a good indication that he is not going to. I believe this is the interview where he was asked about running: [1] So it seems safe to say that he is not a potential candidate. (a shame, that'd be interesting to see)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 04:26, 22 June 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.

Mike

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The picture we're using is from like a decade ago, so can somebody get Mike Rogers a new picture? Not the Alabama Mike Rogers with the fakeass wig, the one from Michigan whose grown a sick flow

youtube.com/watch?v=BhsYZXA74og&ab_channel=WMUR-TV Veganoregano (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

copyright. its a thing. you can just upload copyrighted images willy-nilly across wikipedia. that results in lawsuits. Scu ba (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Isn’t the potential candidates gallery WP:UNDUE? Furthermore, it’s bizarre that the photos in this gallery are bigger than the declared candidates gallery. And contrary to the claim made by the user that reverted me, we are the only 2024 primary page that has a photo gallery for potential candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

The reason why this is the only 2024 primary page with a potential photo gallery is probably because this is the only article that has potential candidates. I know that there's a talk page discussion going on at the Dems primary page to see if Nina Turner should be added and should she be added, she'll have her picture on there too. This is following the precedent of the 2016, 2020 primary articles which had a photo gallery for decision pending, announcement expected, potential candidates and publicly expressed interest. There's a good chance this section will be wiped out by August/September after the first debate as these candidates will either announce or decline to run. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
The third party page does not have a gallery for potential candidates. And this does not address my concerns that the photos are too big for the potential candidate section when compared to the other sections. Prcc27 (talk) 21:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
There is a substantial difference in the amount (and usually quality) of coverage and sources of potential third party candidates and major party candidates. The WP:UNDUE analysis isn't the same for the two because the sources are different. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Joe Manchin has gotten a lot of coverage as a potential third party candidate, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Here's one such article:
[2] David O. Johnson (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree, I raised having the section as an issue in "potential candidates" and one other person agreed to not having pictures Veganoregano (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
No. Keep the potential candidate gallery, just like this page has done for several years and just like every other presidential primary page has done in the past. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:52, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Also tagging DragonLegit04, who previously restored the gallery and might have some input. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Youngkin original research

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

Can we please remove the original research that keeps being re-added to the article? “If any candidates enter the race late in 2023, they may not qualify for early primaries. This could affect Virginia governor Glenn Youngkin…” The only two sources provided for this claim is a source from 2019 about Michael Bloomberg (obviously has nothing to do with the 2024 election), and a source about Youngkin which says absolutely nothing about candidates potentially missing filing deadlines. Unless someone wants to provide a reliable source to back up this claim, it should be removed. Prcc27 (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, Prcc27, what are you talking about ? There are 2 sources in this paragraph: on top from Ballotpedia, which lists all the current filing deadlines for the 2024 primaries and which clearly states that Nevada has the first filing deadline on October 16 already for its primary. Youngkin is Governor of Virginia, which will hold state legislature elections in early November. Youngkin said (and there's another source in the paragraph) that he will re-consider his campaign plans and might join the presidential field in case the November elections in Virginia are won by Republicans. These are 2 sources and these are facts, not original research. Youngkin would miss at least the Nevada primary deadline on October 16 if he waits until after the November elections in Virginia, which is what he said. Therefore: let the paragraph as it is right now. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 06:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
@Glasperlenspieler That is a pretty textbook description of WP:SYNTH, a type of WP:original research that combines two sources to reach a conclusion not reachable by either source independently. It violates policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:37, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Why is the conclusion not reachable ? The one is a fixed deadline (Oct. 16) by Nevada state law, the other is a fixed statement by Youngkin, also a fact. There is nothing "made-up" or involving my personal thoughts in it ... Glasperlenspieler (talk) 07:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
hmm. I appreciate you sharing this info but agree that you can't post it here, unfortunately. 2A00:23EE:1230:9808:CAC4:77E5:8FC9:2D9E (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
From WP:SYNTH (a mandatory policy page): Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source. If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research. We don't take two sources and put them together to reach a conclusion, it violates policy. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Because wikipedia rules are stupid Veganoregano (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
No. They are useful, and your comment is not helpful. Even if this wasn’t original research, I would still lean against including this, because it is clearly WP:UNDUE. Youngkin already declined a run, and only a couple sources claim that an adviser said he’s reconsidering. We do not need a whole paragraph on “will he/will he not run?” Prcc27 (talk) 22:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Rick Scott is not running

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments5 people in discussion

If anyone isn't caught up, a report came out from the NYT saying anonymous sources said Scott is considering an entry. In that report, Scott's senior advisor stated to the times: "It's flattering that some have mentioned the possibility of Senator Scott running for President, but as he's said many times, he's running for re-election to the Senate."

Public statements take precedence over reports. Especially when it's a more recent public statement in response to that report. Even if it may be true, that Scott is weighing an entry, anybody can be weighing anything. Anybody can want anything yet stay on the sidelines. Actions are what matter. I think this is clear enough. Veganoregano (talk) 18:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Why did you make a new section for this? the post directly above is about the same topic and this reads like a reply to that post. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Original research I think.The NYT article didn't suggest this would rule him out of running for president, and they published the story despite that comment. So right to initially add him to potential,with the NYT being a major reliable news source, but Scott quickly denied the story. 92.12.8.215 (talk) 12:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
I readded him to potential candidates, I think he is clearly still considering it. Mister Conservative (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Per the latest source, he explicitly says, "“What’s accurate is I’m running for the Senate, I’m not running for president,” Scott told reporters."
I have added him back to the Declined section. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the Potential candidates to include Senator Rick Scott on the list of potential candidates. Currently, while his picture is shown, his name is not in the above list. I would also include the New York Times article about Senator Scott as a source for this. JVLEndorsements (talk) 17:38, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Ted Cruz not a potential candidate

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments10 people in discussion

An article from Yahoo yesterday said that "Only one senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, has entered the 2024 GOP presidential field eight years after senators defined the non-Trump presidential field, with Ted Cruz of Texas, Marco Rubio of Florida, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina standing out as major candidates. None of them appears interested in giving it another go." Why is he being removed then re-added, then removed and then re-added again and again, it's getting annoying. Can we get a consensus to add him in the declined section until he explicitly says he might/will run. 2601:249:8E00:420:582C:9FCC:D7F6:5BBA (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  • It’s the other way around: the declined section is for those that explicitly decline to run. Prcc27 (talk) 23:11, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
    To be fair, Youngkin was in the declined section for a bit since he said "no" to a run but then switched gears on a potential run, hence his placement in the potential candidate section. I think this is what the editor means. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
There was already a discussion here that resulted in him being moved from declined to potential. We can discuss moving him again, but there is currently consensus to list him as a potential candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:20, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I would back the idea of putting Cruz in the decline section being how any media mentions of the 2024 election to Cruz is that he's not running or isn't interested in running. I think it makes more sense to put him in the declined section until we see reliable coverage saying he's at least considering a bid. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
We already had this discution, the media can speculate as much as they want on Cruz or Youngkin, or Abbott not running for president, but until we hear directly from them, they stay in potential. 2806:103E:D:C3F9:F1D0:FE27:7DCD:4A00 (talk) 22:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree completely, Cruz should be in potential candidates. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Some user keeps moving Cruz back to declined, we had agreed that until we heard directly from Cruz, potential was the place to put him. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 16:55, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
If he's running for re-election one can assume that he's not running for president unless he explicitly states otherwise. Epicradman123 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Need examples that prove that staement wrong? 2806:103E:D:4099:1026:9027:D90B:907C (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Guys. He’s running for senate and not running for president with any reasonable doubt. People don’t need to say “I name will not run for president in 2024” to get off the potential list. 70.252.19.143 (talk) 06:27, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
i AM IN COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT, cRUZ HAS SAID HE INTENDS TO RUN FOR A THIRD TERM BUT HAS NOT RULED OUT A PRESIDENTIAL RUN, HE HAS ALSO BEEN SUBJECT TO SPECULATION A LOT RECENTLY. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 15:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Let's settle this once and fr all. I feel like we come back to the same topic over and over. The media can speculate as much as they want. Until we hear directly from Cruz on whether this is a no or a yes, I feel it is best to keep him in potential unti either he declines a run, announces a run, or the sources that talk about him as a potential candidate are more than 6 months old in which case we can remove him altogether. Mister Conservative (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

And the primaries?

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

I find it strange that in a page titled 2024 Republican primaries we don’t have anything about primaries. Is it about waiting till there’s more information? I still think there should at least be a section dedicated to it. Veganoregano (talk) 07:02, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There was a Schedule section created months ago, but I'm pretty sure it was removed because it was premature at the time. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I added a new section at the bottom, by moving "other timing information" down. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 09:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
There should be a table like the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries#Primary and caucus calendar section of the 2020 article. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
True. But I think it's too early still: most states are still in the process of finalizing their dates and this will take another 6 months or longer. I added the first few contests and Super Tuesday as a starter. The table can be introduced in late 2023, or when more information comes available. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:49, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Nevada Primaries Page

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I saw that no page had been created for the Nevada Primaries. Should we make one, or is Nevada just too insignificant to get a page? If not, we should just unlink the Nevada Primaries as it is just visually wrong looking at. IEditPolitics (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

There will probably be a Nevada primary page eventually (See 2016 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses for an example). But it probably won't be created for little while so I think it'd be fine to remove the link and then re-add it when the article actually exists. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like there is a problem with 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses just ignoring the controversy on the primary v. caucus issue footnoted in this article. I don't think we need a separate article for the Nevada caucus and primary, but the controversy about the two should definitely be explained at the article that we have.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:30, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I added the footnote and source in the article, explaining that Republicans could have both a primary and a caucus later on in Nevada. Currently, Nevada plans a primary for both parties on 6 February 2024 - but Republicans somehow don't want that ... and instead sued the state to have a caucus instead. But as long as just 1 Republican candidate files for the primary until October 16 (filing deadline), there will be a primary anyway. Obviously, Republicans and their candidates could all boycott the primary and just compete in the later caucuses. The Republican Party could also mandate all their candidates not to file for the primary, or risk consequences. If none of their candidates files, no Republican primary will be held. So, we just have to wait and see what happens in Nevada until October 16: if Republican candidates file until then fo4 the primary, a separate article can be created. If nobody files, a primary is not held, and the caucus article is enough. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:44, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I am 99.9% sure that the Nevada Republican Primary will be organized and held, because there will be at least a few local unknown Republicans who will file to be on the ballot. Maybe the 13 main candidates will boycott the primary, because the Republican Party tells them to do so (as a pre-condition to participate in their caucuses without punishment). Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I think I understand. I tagged 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses as needing updating since there is not mention of this there. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Jeb Bush in Potential Candidates?

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments9 people in discussion

Should Jeb be in Potential I don’t think he declined yet and if he did we should put him in declined to be candidate’s WONKAKlD (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

No 70.252.19.143 (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
He put his support behind DeSantis [3]. Not seen anything to suggest he will jump in the race himself. 92.16.61.17 (talk) 18:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
He did not endorse DeSantis. Washington Examines reported he "was praising him, not endorsing him". IEditPolitics (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I never said he endorsed him but he effectively did, of course this would be toxic to DeSantis and used against him so neither person wants to make this official or promote it too much. 92.12.8.215 (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
No, unless sources speculate about his potential candidacy tbutnfor now, its a o. Expoe34 (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Updated Candidate colors/gradients

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments6 people in discussion

With the colors recently updated I took the liberty of redoing the colors to match the new hues, I'm unsure if we're still going with the original colors, so I'll post them on a separate thread:

I attempted to get the colors (60-70% for most canidates) as close to their Wikipedia colors as possible.

Expoe34 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

👍 JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Would I update the colors of "Canidate Colors/Gradients" or going foward, would this be the new page for the discussion/map of colors Expoe34 (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Are these real pallets or did you make them? JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 22:55, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Recolors of the original pallets to match the hues of the new colors Expoe34 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
My only objection to this is that Elder and Scott's colors are almost identical. I also wish there'd be another color option for Perry Johnson as grey colors are usually used to reference others/unknown/undecided on polling graphs. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
i like these! HurricaneKappa (talk) 21:53, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Should we change pence to lavender and change Scott to green? JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 22:26, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Instead of reinventing the wheel by creating new sets of gradients, I think it would be better to use Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals/2023a all, as in the original talk page thread on this topic. One of the qualities of the sets in that WikiProject is that each of colors in a set has the same hue, which is not the case with the proposed sets above. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:02, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that existed, I must've overlooked it, thank you Spiffy sperry Expoe34 (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Looks great! No objections from me. We can use whichever Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals/2023a all gradient most closely matches each proposal.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Let's use the word "contests"

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Given some of the 57 contests being primaries, some being caucuses, some being in states, some in territories, and one being in DC, when collectively describing these I think the word contest is the most concise. It's also what the RNC uses in its rulebook. That's all. Veganoregano (talk) 18:34, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

uh, this is the first article like this where I have been a (somewhat) active editor. But my gut feeling is that we should use the precedent set down in other, earlier Wikipedia articles. Scu ba (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Pence as Trump running mate

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A few times, Veganoregano has reverted sourced information indicating that Pence will not be Trumps running mate, claiming that it is "not true", despite the claim being explicitly stated in the Politico article:

https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/16/trump-rules-out-pence-as-vp-2024-00017783

The mentioned Washington Examiner article is even more direct:

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-says-pence-partnership-over-as-ex-president-eyes-2024-comeback-bid

I don't understand why sourced information (based on a plain reading of the text) is being reverted. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I am saying actually read the articles. Say Trump said "I don't think the people would accept him," not "Trump announced he ruled out Pence" Veganoregano (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Although every single pro trump pundit in the world hates pence with unbridled fury, trump himself is keeping the issue at a distance, only giving vague answers, and refusing to be clear on the issue. Is a Trump-Pence 3 likely? no. is it a statistical impossibility... no Scu ba (talk) 00:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Other declared candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Have any other non-Major candidates been in polls? JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

check the polls.Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ryan Binkley has been included in one national poll included on FiveThirtyEight's website. Alexjjj (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Great, 4 more polls showing 0% support and this Ryan fellow that nobody's ever heard of will be a major candidate Veganoregano (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe Binkley or Johnson should be considered a major candidate right now, just was mentioning who else was included in polls. Alexjjj (talk) 22:17, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

What is the guidelines for "Other declared candidates"? Ryan Binley Has his own segment in Politico list: https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/ Not arguing for him to be a major candidate but could he be in "other declared" or does that also have guidelines on who can appear? -2607:EA00:101:3C1E:641B:5A4B:1342:8F7C (talk) 00:48, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Template-style for Potential Candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Potential Candidates may not have as much weight, but considered we have Will Hurd in a Template, I think potential candidates could deserve a Template style. This could give undue weight, but more visually impressive and understandable. I'd be happy to create the template.


Thoughts? (I'd prefer a consensus) IEditPolitics (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

  • When you say "we have Will Hurd in a template", which template do you mean? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
    Will Hurd is in the candidates section. He's honestly in my opinion not very notable. There is virtually no chance he wins the election. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that there is virtually no chance that Will Hurd wins the election, but he is reasonably considered a major candidate since he has traditional political credentials, namely, having been a U.S. Representative. "Major candidate" is not the same thing as "candidate who is very likely to get the party nomination". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson's experience

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion

Can we get a consensus as to what should go under Perry Johnson's experience tab for the table? There's debate as to his failed Michigan gubernatorial campaign is worth mentioning while apparently having President of Perry Johnson International Holdings is also controversial. Can we get a consensus as to what should go under his experience tab so that it's not just blank?

  • Option A: President of Perry Johnson International Holdings (1994–present)
  • Option B: Candidate for Governor of Michigan (2022) or something like this
  • Option C: Businessman
  • Option D: President of Perry Johnson International Holdings (1994–present) & Candidate for Governor of Michigan (2022) (obviously this will be tweaked if added).

I'll start off by saying Option A since another user mentioned that since he wasn't a qualified candidate in the election it's not worth mentioning and I can get behind that. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:51, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Option A or D: I think I prefer A, but if there is a big push for D or B then I'd be okay with option D.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
He was never a candidate. He was disqualified from being a candidate for illegally gathering signatures in the petition to become a candidate. Listing him as a candidate would be a lie. Scu ba (talk) 00:17, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Depends on how your defining candidate. If a candidate is someone who declares their intent to run and tries to run, he is a person who declared their intent to run for office and tried, that is a candidate. If a candidate is someone who officially appeared on a ballot, he is not. I prefer the later, but I don't think the former is unreasonable. What do WP:RS say? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I define a candidate as someone, who, at some point, was legally in the process of running for the office. I'm not sure about you, but in the three states I've lived in, and in Michigan, in order to legally be a candidate, you have to get enough signatures to run. The ballot that Johnson illegally harvested signatures for, was to make him a candidate... for the republican primary. prior to that he wasn't a candidate, and after that, he still wasn't a candidate because he got caught cheating. Scu ba (talk) 00:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Interesting, my state does filing fees; you just have to pay money. The signature route in my state is an alternative that is rarely used since it's easier to pay. Interestingly, the Michigan statute at issue says In case it is determined that the nominating petitions of any candidate do not comply with the requirements of this act, or if for any other cause such candidate is not entitled to have his name printed upon the official primary ballots, it shall be the duty of the secretary of state or county or city clerk to immediately notify such candidate of such fact, together with a statement of the reasons why his name was not certified to the respective boards of election commissioners which seems to imply that candidates that are refused certification of their petitions are still candidates. He was a candidate, just "such candidate [that] is not entitled to have his name printed upon the official primary ballots" according to Michigan statute. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option C (same should apply for Donald Trump, et al. as well): occupation titles do not need to be overly descriptive. I am somewhat neutral about saying he was a candidate. But if we do say anything, we should say that he was disqualified. Prcc27 (talk) 02:18, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, it seems WP:OR to interpret state law. I lean against calling him a “candidate”. Prcc27 (talk) 23:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
In my defense, I did ask what reliable sources said first. Also, WP:OR does not apply here: This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards. We can't cite the statute as the reason we call him a candidate in the article, but it's allowed as part of discussion on whether or not the claim he was a candidate is true or not. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:57, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Option A or C. Since he didn't make it onto the 2022 ballot for governor, his experience as an attempted candidate in that election is not significant enough to include in the table. It is covered elsewhere in Wikipedia, such as in his own biography, Perry Johnson (businessman). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
A because he wasn't even a candidate in the primary Veganoregano (talk) 21:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Michigan primary - Feb. 27, 2024

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments2 people in discussion

I read more about this primary recently ... and it's complicated just like Nevada. So, Michigan Democrats (who control the Michigan House, Senate and Governor) passed the primary for both parties into law and it will be held on Feb. 27 for both parties. But the Republican Party does not allow Michigan to go before March 1. Right now, they would lose 90% of delegates as a punishment, because Michigan Democrats set the early date in defiance of Republican rules. Republicans might organize a caucus instead (later), or change their rules to allow the Feb. 27 primary to go forward ... Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I added an explanation of the complicated situation to the text. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The republican party also doesn't allow contests in January but that's happening
Unless there's credible word of a separate caucus keep it at Feb 27 with the specification that it'll be March 12th if the legislature fails to adjourn in time Veganoregano (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
There's no reason to believe the Michigan legislature won't adjourn in time. The caucus could be set up by Republicans later in March, but we don't know this until early 2024 or so. For now, the primary remains on course, but Republicans might boycott it - like in Nevada. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Revisiting the Perry Johnson Major Candidate Debate

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments10 people in discussion

Perry Johnson may have been covered by multiple big news sources, but as most say "Longshot campaign". He hasn't appeared in five different national outlets which should be the definitive norm. He doesn't even have a picture.


I propose that we reconsider his major candidacy and move him to minor candidates for now. From what I understand I believe we established s consensus he was major, but I simply just dont understand how he could.


Thoughts? (approve/oppose) IEditPolitics (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

  • Strong support. There seems to be some gamification going on to support the contention that the subject barely scrapes by some minimum requirements to be deemed a "major" candidate, but common sense dictates otherwise. If this is what our standards allows (and I don't think they do), then the standards need to be clarified to a more sensible position. BD2412 T 14:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think this is the wrong way to go about discussing this issue. We should be discussing if/how to change the criteria. If we keep the current criteria, but exclude Perry Johnson, it would be inconsistent. I oppose any effort to exclude Perry Johnson, without first establishing a new criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Agree with you and @BD2412
That being said, what criteria would you guys suggest, and maybe some disqualifying factors even if they meet the basic requirements.? IEditPolitics (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I think a "major" candidate should be one which gets 1% in at least 5 polls from different organizations. Perry would not meet this criteria, because he didn't even get 1% in 5 different polls, but some polls were from the same pollster. If this is the new criteria, he would not be a major candidate. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Changing the criteria specifically to remove one candidate that meets the criteria seems wrong to me. I'd be open to a discussion to change the criteria, but I think "let's make this candidate not meet our new criteria" is a bad starting point. Does Perry Johnson have a change of winning? no. Does every other major candidate have a chance of winning? no. I don't think there is any real harm in keeping him and we set the criteria months before and enforced it on every other candidate to help resolve disputes. Johnson gets more coverage than most of the other "minor" candidate listed and I don't think we're creating an WP:UNDUE problem by keeping him in the major list. I don't think its controversial to say he gets more coverage than John Anthony Castro, but less than say DeSantis. Does he get more or less coverage than say Will Hurd? Are there WP:UNDUE problems based on the relative coverage between him and other 'minor major' candidates? I actually don't think so, I think we're within the realm of reasonability here (which I would not say for Castro, Laffey, or Stapleton).
I'm also worried that if we change the criteria mid-cycle, then we're gonna be asked to do that again and again by editors on the talk page when they don't like the outcome of the criteria's application. We already have multiple talk posts a day asking us to change candidates, pointing to a stable consensus has helped keep this manageable.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:36, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
i didn't mean to change solely based to get Perry out. But some of the criteria simply is too easy for some to meet. For national polling our current criteria is 5 national polls. Nothing about a different company. A Perry Johnson backed polling place could do 5 of them against a weaker candidate like Castro, Laffey etc. We should make that official. Also, they should be polling at 1 percent. Experience should not decide this.
Here's the criteria I propose:
  2. Be represented in at least 5 national polls from different polling places, and poll at at least 1 percent.
Poll at 1 percent in 5 different polling companies (must be backed up and be a reputable polling place)
Have their campaign starting be recognized by at least 5 reputable news sources (AP, ABC, NBC etc)
Official campaign site IEditPolitics (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Just want to push back a little on this strawman A Perry Johnson backed polling place could do 5 of them against a weaker candidate like Castro, Laffey etc. That's not what happened. He appeared in 5 legit polls rated by FiveThirtyEight. You may be right that our criteria is susceptible to this type of gamification, but that did not happen here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Procedural Oppose While I do support changing the criteria, I have to agree with the criticisms above that doing it by reconsidering any individual candidate isn't the right way to go about it. I also think TulsaPoliticsFan makes a fair point that changing it mid-cycle might make it harder to keep a stable consensus. My suggestion is to have a single discussion about either one proposal (e.g. a change from "inclusion in 5 national polls" to something like "achieved at least 3% in 5 national polls" or some other suggestion) or a handful of proposals (i.e. a two-question proposal: "Should we change the criteria?" and "If so, what new criteria, if any, would you support? A, B, C, D, E," etc), but most importantly, make that discussion a proper RfC to invite more discussion from anyone who's signed up to receive notifications for politics-related RfCs. If we have a lengthy, high-participation RfC, this would give more weight to any consensus that may come from it and reduce the likelihood that we'll just find ourselves back in the same position.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:01, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    What do you think about my suggestion above? IEditPolitics (talk) 17:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that the RFC approach would be the best way to revise the criteria. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Strong support: Including Johnson, who is a minor candidate by ANY rational metric, gives WP:UNDUE weight to his barely existent candidacy. Corey Stapleton is also clearly a minor candidate (indeed, I think the rules for being "major" are WAY to soft, Elder, Hurd and, potentially, Rogers are absolutely minor candidates as well!), but he has held statewide elected office, whereas Johnson, for the lack of a better term, is a trivia candidate just out to get attention for himself and his business. Including him based on appearing in five random, far apart polls with quite literally zero support in most of them seems comically pedantic. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 17:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Adamant Support Johnson barely meets the requirement to be listed as a major candidate, being included in 5 polls... all at 0% or Nil. The only reason why I think he should be kept as it stands is because that is the consensus agreed upon criteria, but seeing as how the consensus is changing, yeah, without a doubt, Johnson isn't a major candidate. You'd be hard pressed to find a single person on the street that knows about him or his campaign. Scu ba (talk) 00:23, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose he meets the requirements. The requirements shouldn't be changed just because a handful of individuals want him removed. Johnson's campaign has gotten coverage by a large number of major media outlets. See here for an article from CNN yesterday that mentions him [4], here is an NBC article [5], a Yahoo Finance article [6], an ABC News article [7], and here is a Fox News article [8]. Major news outlets routinely treat him as a "major candidate" as we define it here, so he should be included.XavierGreen (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Major Candidacy Requirements

Latest comment: 1 year ago17 comments11 people in discussion

After reading the first reactions to my Perry Johnson talk topic, it seems most people agree on one thing: The criteria should be changed for major candidacy. I invite every single user to vote on this, in hopes that there will be a consensus.


Vote with support or opposition to each letter:

A:Candidate must poll at 1% in 5 different national polling places. (Must not be majorly biased.)

B: Must have a well built campaign (Official site, planning or has rallies for their candidacy.)

C. Have their candidacy announced by at least 4 different reputable national news sources. (AP, ABC, NBC etc)

D. Oppose all suggestions, keep the criteria.

E. Support all criteria proposed.


Anything else just put in plain sentences.


Thanks


(Support A, Oppose B, Support C etc)

IEditPolitics (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I assume this suggestion keeps intact the other two existing criteria, which are "current or former major elected office holder" and "substantial media attention". If so, my votes and explanations are as follows
A. OPPOSE But, but it is a weak opposition, because it is the best of bad option, and the one most likely to obtain consensus. I oppose because it's just moving the goalposts. This only came up because Johnson, a minor candidate by any reasonable definition, met the criterium. We realized the criterium was too low, so we wanted to increase it a little bit. That'll be fine until he or some other obviously minor candidate meets this relatively low threshold. This suggestion is a band-aid, which is better than nothing, but I think we can do better.
B. OPPOSE Far too subjective to be useful, and also too low of a threshold. Pretty much everyone we consider "minor" right now has some kind of campaign apparatus. They have websites and rallies. They give interviews to whoever will listen, and they are raising money. This is no criterium at all.
C. OPPOSE The is just a less useful and extremely watered down version of substantial media attention. It's worse, because it gives undue weight to a snapshot of the campaign rather than weighing the media attention over time. I could imagine some flashy, attention-grabbing stunt at the campaign announcement, or maybe the candidate trips into a vat of barbeque sauce after their speech. That would get a lot of press, but shouldn't dictate whether they are a major candidate.
D. SUPPORT Logically, since I opposed the above suggestions, but I am also not satisfied with the polling criterium. I have advocated before, and I advocate here again, that the best solution is just to get rid of the polling criterium. The second-best solution is to clarify that the five-polls threshold refers to five different polling outfits, and not just five different polls, but as I said above, that's just moving the goalposts. It's not a long-term solution.
E. OPPOSE Since I do not support all of the suggestions, this just naturally follows. Vrivasfl (talk) 18:14, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I support A but it should be made stronger. I think there should be only one criteria:
"Meet a % threshold greater than the margin of error in a single poll that meets the standards the RNC requires for debate participation."
Those standards are:
Surveyed at least 800 registered likely Republican voters through a mix of live calls, integrated voice response, online panels, and/or text message. Did not overly weight responses of any individual cohort beyond the margin of the error of the poll. Asked the question on presidential preference prior to any question which may allow potential bias. Not conducted by a polling company affiliated with a candidate or candidate committee. Veganoregano (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose: B, C, and E per @Vrivasfl's good points. Support: D, I think the current criteria works. Conditional Support: A if we define "must not be majorly bias." Does bias mean like the campaign commissioned the poll? What if a Republican state party commissions the poll? What if a PAC unaffiliated with a campaign commissions the poll? What if a PAC affiliated with a campaign commissions the poll? Which one of these is "Majorly" bias? Pollsters tend to have a bias, which is why they tend to be most useful in aggregate.
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Bias meaning it cannot be campaign endorsed or ran (the candidate isn't allowed to help pay the polling tools or conduct their own poll. YouGov and Harris are good options. IEditPolitics (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Then instead of "not majorly bias" can we update it to "excluding polls affiliated with or commissioned by a campaign" if that is what we mean. I think that is a good and reasonable criteria if we clarify it. If we update the proposal I'll strike the "conditional" off my support for A. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support D: For the time being. There was over 20 major candidates in the 2020 democratic primary so the current list isn't excessive. I would support a 'qualified for debate' criteria once we know which candidates have qualified, I guess that is the thinking with the 5 polls at 1%, but I don't think we need to implement that now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    To simply ignore new criteria due to the past and being less candidates is useless. That logic would mean that we could change any thing and make the article better. IEditPolitics (talk) 11:58, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    I proposed radical changes a few months ago, creating a 'significant candidates' section. This would have been where Perry Johnson,Larry Elder,Asa Hutchinson,Will Hurd etc.would have been placed. The prevailing feeling was it was fine as it was,and in the past we had many more candidates.
    This move for change is only because some editors have took a disliking to Perry Johnson. The difference between 0% and 1% is negligible in terms of winning, it's not going to make any difference. The other options aren't going to exclude any of the current candidates.BTW Perry Johnson does have 5 major articles now,it was stated in the other section he had 4,he has the politico one about the donors.
    I think we should wait and see who qualifies for the debates,there's going to be a lot of work and polls in July, if we change the criteria now we could just be removing some and readding them a week later. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
    Perry was the idea that sparked this, yes. But it is not about the liking, he just sparked the idea. He would be removed due to the criteria I made, not on purpose. Also, the major candidates aren't just possible winners. Significant candidates would never get consensus. The only think that makes sense is strengthening the poll needs. That's a consensus from this talk topic all but 1 or 2 have agreed on. IEditPolitics (talk) 13:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Support A, B, and C as alternatives, provided that B is based on reporting in reliable sources. I would also allow for presumed major candidate status for current or very recent holders of statewide or national political office. BD2412 T 21:50, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I support changing the criteria, but I do not like most of these suggestions. I'm not strongly opposed to Option A (Candidate qualifies as "major" if they poll at least 1% in at least 5 polls conducted by unique polling companies), but I'm also supportive of a new "Option F" which I'll suggest as "Candidate qualifies as 'major' if they poll at least 3% in any 5 national polls"), with both options being presumed to ignore polls perceived as "biased" (i.e. conducted on behalf of their own campaigns or otherwise not conducted by pollsters regarded as credible). I am also inclined to support Veganoregano's suggestions for how we can vet polls, though I worry that requiring such a long list of checkboxes for each poll to tick would cause us to have to discuss each and every poll ad nauseum. I oppose B and have mixed feelings on C. I would make this into a proper RfC, but the initial question is too long to do that.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
    How do we make something into an Rfc or whatever? I'm kinda new to Wikipedia. IEditPolitics (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • If we apply WP:DUE directly, “substantial media coverage” should be the only criteria that matters. I do understand why the “significant office held” criteria was added though. I think the polling criteria by itself is kind of useless. Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Support: A, B. Hesitant on just 4 sources for C. D and E rejected due to the way this is set up. Also significant prior office is still a valid measure of notability. Scu ba (talk) 00:20, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what option to vote for to accomplish this, but I am voting for no change to current criteria. I'm dissatisfied that Perry Johnson technically qualified as a major candidate by the 5-poll criterion when he is generally not considered a major candidate. But I'm very much against changing the criteria in mid-campaign to bring people up to major candidate status or push them out of major candidate status, which is what a change here would do. When November 2024 rolls around, we can re-evaluate the criteria that we will use for the 2028 articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:52, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, your proposed criteria are too subjective. The current critera insofar as the primaries are concerned works fine. The only reason OP is proposing a change is because he apparently does not like the fact that a particular candidate met the criteria. Crafting the critera to oppose a specific candidates inclusion is an explicitly POV approach that would violate wiki:NPOV rules.XavierGreen (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Mike Rogers said in March that he will make a decision in May or June. Nothing has happened and June is soon over. The user "Veganoregano" has recently removed him from "decision pending", but that was too soon. If Rogers doesn't say anything until Friday, he should be moved to the "potential candidates" section on Saturday. Agreed ? Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:18, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

That makes sense to me. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I do believe he will be launching a campaign, but I will be up on Friday and as soon as the clock striketh midnight in Michigan believe me I am erasing him Veganoregano (talk) 06:47, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
That makes sense but don't erase him entirely and instead add him to the potential candidates section. Here's a source from this week Watch 'Conversation with the Candidate' with Mike Rogers that clearly shows he's a potential candidate for the race. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I believe he's fitted more under expressed interest so I just did that Veganoregano (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Question: what makes John Anthony Castro even note able enough to appear on "other declared candidates" if Rollan Roberts II isn't?

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

answer YangGang2024 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Existence of a Wikipedia article (which presumably means they meet general notability guidelines and therefore have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.). Castro meets our general notability guidelines since he has an article, and Rollan Roberts II does not have an article and therefore may not meet notability guidelines. Generally, we presume someone is notable if they have a Wikipedia article because if they weren't the article would be deleted at Articles for Deletion.
I don't think not having an article precludes us from determining that Rollan Roberts II is a notable minor candidate, but we'd need more sourcing to establish Roberts is actually notable since we can't presume he meets WP:GNG like we can with Castro. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Why is Ryan Brinkley in their then if Rolland Roberts II is not 64.255.149.196 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Having a wiki article. Also having something other than self published sources talking about his campaign. Scu ba (talk) 00:26, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Johnson Portrait

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

I thought we had a portrait for Johnson a couple days ago- what happened and will we get a new one? Dswitz10734 (talk) 03:52, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

See the above discussions titled "Search for a Perry Johnson Potrait" (sic) and "Missing Perry Johnson picture". In short, the images proposed so far are not appropriately licensed for use in this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Maybe someone can reach out to his campaign by email and ask for a proper, free-to-use picture of him. If a picture gets uploaded from a media source (newspaper etc.) and copyright for it is not confirmed, it will be automatically deleted by Wikipedia. Therefore, someone must contact his campaign directly, they must provide a free-to-use picture and it must be uploaded correctly on Wikimedia Commons with the correct license. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I archived the older duplicate discussions, but they're archived here and here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson does NOT meet the requirements for "major" candidate

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Closing duplicative discussion; please contribute here. Current consensus is Johnson meets the polling requirements, but changing consensus is being discussed here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

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 have reviewed the polls on 538.com: Johnson has not received 1% in at least 5 polls. He has just been listed as a candidate in the poll questionnaires as a candidate to choose from, but in fact has only scored 1% in 3 polls. 5 polls are necessary to make him a "major" candidate. Johnson received 1% in a Big Village poll, 4% in a Iowa caucus poll from Victory Insights in a Trump-less field and 1% support in the same poll in a field with Trump. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-primary-r/2024/national/ Based on this, that he only received 1%+ in 3 polls, instead of the required 5, he must be removed from the table of major candidates. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 07:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

The criteria, as it is currently listed, reads
"The candidates in this section have declared their candidacies and meet one or more of the following criteria: campaign has received substantial major media coverage; current or previous holder of significant elected office; have been included in at least five national polls."
Nothing is mentioned about polling at more than zero percent, just that the candidate be included. David O. Johnson (talk) 10:31, 30 June 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.

Corey Stapleton meets requirements and qualifies as major candidate

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments7 people in discussion
Discussion of what "significant elected office" means was started here. Closing to help centralize discussion. Noting Stapleton does not meet objective polling criteria and there is not consensus he meets the subjective media coverage criteria.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:08, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

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 have readded Stapleton to major candidates as he now meets one of the requirements to qualify as a major candidate. Mister Conservative (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

@Mister Conservative Which requirement? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
He meets none of them, and the edit will be reverted. Vrivasfl (talk) 03:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Stapleton doesn't meet any requirements, a state office isn't considered significant enough Expoe34 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
As the person who made the original edit, for the future, where can I find the rules that define the requirements so I don't miss something again? Pierson Strandquist (talk) 07:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
The rules are announced candidate who meets one or more of the following - significant elected office, in 5 national polls, significant media attention Veganoregano (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Where is "significant elected office qualified?" Pierson Strandquist (talk) 07:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
These guys put "Will Hurd" on the major list just for being a former 3 term house rep with no committees, and now they're complaining about adding a former State Secretary of State and Senator which I would argue is more prominent than he ever was Veganoregano (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
See Will Hurd#Committee assignments. You can argue that being a state secretary of state is more prominent than a U.S. representative, but I doubt you will ever convince me as regards a presidential campaign. Notice that in past presidential campaigns, people whose political experience topped out as serving as members of the U.S. House of Representatives were considered major candidates and participated in debates with the eventual nominees, whereas people whose political experience topped out at being a state secretary of state didn't even run for president. Examples: Beto O'Rourke and John Delaney (both of whom served exactly 3 terms in the House), plus Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, and Eric Swalwell in 2020; Ron Paul and Newt Gingrich in 2012; Ron Paul, Tom Tancredo, Duncan Hunter, and Dennis Kucinich in 2008; Dick Gephardt and Dennis Kucinich in 2004; and so on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:35, 30 June 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.

Ron DeSantis as frontrunner

Latest comment: 1 year ago10 comments7 people in discussion

Hi,

Veganoregano has removed sourced language in the lede which describes DeSantis as a former frontrunner four different times in the past 24 hours:

[9] [10] [11] [12]

Considering that their latest edit summary about it reads, "I'm willing to do this all day", I think a discussion on the Talk page would be more beneficial than a slow moving edit war.

I see no issue with DeSantis being described as a "frontrunner" early on; the language as it previously existed; i.e. "and was considered by many to be the early frontrunner" is supported by the source. I even added a quote parameter to the ref, [13]. but it was removed nonetheless.

As Twentytwenty4 also re-added the "frontrunner" language, [14], I am pinging them so they can also respond.

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You should probably leave an edit war notice on their talk page. I don’t think DeSantis is a former frontrunner, unless we are excluding Trump (as the wording suggested). Prcc27 (talk) 01:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't make much sense to characterize a candidate as a frontrunner when the only polls that could be said that to show that are polls that exclude the actual undisputed frontrunner. BD2412 T 04:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
David, look at aggregate polls. It's obvious Desantis was never the frontrunner, it was Trump. I don't know where you get that from. There was doubt over if Trump could sustain his lead a few months ago, but he always was in the lead at least according to averages. You can put that. Polling is a case where you can't just take what some sources or singular polls said at the time. Veganoregano (talk) 04:42, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
DeSantis was in the lead in the head to head polling. At that stage we didn't know who or how many candidates would run so people had every right to consider head to head, which they did by making him the favorite. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
This feud between you and Vegan is annoying. It disrupts editing. I can't be sure which is the bigger problem but it's ridiculous how both of you make edits and the other reverses them. IEditPolitics (talk) 00:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

DeSantis was absolutely considered by many to be an early frontrunner. I can't believe this history has been forgotten so soon. Although he never overtook Trump in polling of the full field of candidates, he dominated him in the head to head polling between November 2022 and the first weeks of February 2023, with over 20%+ leads in some polls.

At this stage it was not known who and how many runners would enter the race or whether DeSantis would continue to gain support in relation to Trump. This was one of only a few bits in the lede that was actually sourced.

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/03/15/scott-walker-grades-ron-desantis-as-a-potential-gop-frontrunner-00087077

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/30/politics/desantis-gop-2024-frontrunner-treatment/index.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3803129-desantis-is-gops-early-front-runner-that-could-be-a-problem/

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/09/opinion/ron-desantis-midterms.html

https://www.axios.com/local/miami/2022/11/10/ron-desantis-midterm-election-2024

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2022-12-14/poll-desantis-decisively-leads-trump-in-hypothetical-gop-primary-matchup

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/desantis-overtakes-trump-2024-betting-markets-midterm-election-results-pour-in

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3727897-betting-markets-now-give-desantis-the-edge-to-win-white-house-in-2024/

https://www.cnbctv18.com/world/ron-desantis-the-sudden-republican-favourite-for-presidential-nomination-who-is-he-15134851.html

https://nypost.com/2023/02/07/wall-street-bullish-on-ron-desantiss-presidential-prospects-in-2024/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It appears to me at least that nearly all of the polls describing Ron DeSantis as the frontrunner were around the time immediately following his re-election as Governor. Former President Trump had pretty much gained a firm grip on the lead in the polls since almost the start of this year (compounded by more candidates entering, the bitter - and largely one-sided - Trump v. DeSantis feud and DeSantis waiting until May to officially enter the race) with DeSantis a very distant second. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Why does it even matter who was the frontrunner when? Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Prcc27 (talk) 00:11, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
For me it's about preserving history. 'DeSantis has been noted as the only non-Trump candidate polling in double digits' doesn't do it justice or tell the full story. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Why has Greg Abbott been deleted from Potential Candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Greg Abbott has been deleted and I'm not sure why. He hasn't declined to run so is there some other reason? Dolce the Smorse (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

I can readd him. Mister Conservative (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I can readd him but can someone please do the referencing. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Greg Abbott has been put back on the Potential Candidates list. So this issue has now been solved. Dolce the Smorse (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
One of the sources is a local news source. Not sure if that qualifies as reliable. If not, he should be removed, since the criteria is two reliable sources. Prcc27 (talk) 04:01, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The two sources there now are WP:RS. A major newspaper and a broadcast news station are generally okay sources for the potential candidates section. The six months are up in August on one of the sources though. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Finance

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

It looks like Quarter 2 fundraising reports are coming in, can somebody aggregate these and update that section?

politico.com/news/2023/07/05/trump-pulled-in-35-million-in-the-second-quarter-00104768 Veganoregano (talk) 00:34, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

These are just media reports so far, the actual filings with the FEC are only due by the 15th. Most campaigns only file their reports with the FEC at the latest minute. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 03:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I added a little bit of the media reports, but there isn't much so far, so I think we could just delete it. Politicdude (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I think posting the media reports is not needed, because they are often divergent from the actual FEC filings ... depending what goes to the campaign and what to a PAC. Just wait for the FEC filings on July 15 and post those official numbers then. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Add the minor candidates to the timeline?

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion

There are 3 different candidates running but are considered minor, even if they aren't "major" shouldn't they be added to the timeline? Stapelton for instance has been running longer than any other candidate on the major candidates list. At least adding them to the timeline should be something, right? Los Pobre (talk) 16:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

No. They are minor for a reason. They don't need to be mentioned in templates, as well as timelines. That's why they are minor. IEditPolitics (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree: only major candidates should be in the timeline. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 03:37, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with a mention in the body of the timeline section if sourced to a WP:RS, but not inclusion in the overview bar graph. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:13, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
If they have an article on Wikipedia I'd support their addition, otherwise, no. Scu ba (talk) 20:47, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We should not overhype the minor candidates by adding them to the timeline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:28, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_3&oldid=1166543485"