Wikipedia

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 4

< Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries
Latest comment: 10 months ago by Staraction in topic Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024/ Asa Hutchinson
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

Clarifying what constitutes a "major/significant office"

Latest comment: 1 year ago15 comments12 people in discussion
Consensus for No Change or Option B. Consensus remains significant office is limited to: Presidents, Vice Presidents, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, and Governors. There was some discussion of Option D, but no support for Option A or C. Some editors suggested adding State Secretaries of State, Mayors of some cities, and Speakers of the U.S House (who don't have to be members of the US House, technically), but there was no consensus for any of these suggestions. Two editors mentioned the FiveThirtyEight major candidate criteria, but there was no broader discussion of it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:17, 16 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.

The edit adding Corey Stapleton to the list of major candidates has become controversial due to an ambiguous qualification for what constitutes a "significant elected office."

Two main sides have emerged:

- Stapleton does meet the significant office requirement due to his experience as Montana's Secretary of State.

- Stapleton does not meet the significant office requirement as that is reserved only for Presidents, Vice Presidents, Governors, U.S. Senators, and U.S. Representatives.

While I personally agree with the former, I think it's important that we all reach a consensus as a community in order to outline something concrete that future edits can be based upon.

Here's my argument for the former:

If we are to truly to abide by Wikipedia's purpose, benefitting readers by acting as a widely accessible and free encyclopedia; a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge, we must not let our personal biases get in the way of giving readers a complete perspective, especially on a topic that's political.

Through this, we must take into account the current landscape of elections in the U.S. Now more than ever, state-wide offices are of elevated relevance; especially Secretaries of State. In just the 2022 midterm elections, Secretary of State candidates raised a record $56.2 million. This shows how significant the office has become in the mainstream. Due to their duty of certifying and overseeing elections, many Secretaries of State have been thrust into the national spotlight, showing just how important their jobs are. If is likely that most Secretaries of State are more well known now than say maybe even a Lieutenant Governor. This isn't all though.

The rules outline "significant elected officials." The keyword here is elected. Secretary level officials of states are more often than not elected by the people, putting them on par with governors. In the case of Secretary of State, 35 states have them as elected officials. Offices such as Secretary of State or Attorney General appear on the SAME ballot as a potential governor, warranting their inclusion in our definition for a major office. The same amount of people in a certain state vote in the governor's race and Secretary of State race, proving the significance of the latter. If we include governors we must also include their adjacent elected offices. Corey Stapleton specifically was elected by the people of Montana on the same ballot as former governor Steve Bullock, which not only proves the significance of Stapleton's office beyond media elevation, but also that adjacent offices circumvent governors in the sense that they are not always affiliated with the same party. This further proves the office's independence and the need for it to be included as "major."

I do agree however, that state senators and state representatives should not be included, as those offices are not relevant enough at a national level and if allowed would cause too many minor candidates to be included. Additionally, mayors lacking one of the two other qualifications should also not be included for similar reasons.

With all of this I propose the following options:

- Option A | "significant elected official" should include Presidents, Vice Presidents, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, Governors, and Governor-adjacent officeholders such as Secretaries of State.

- Option B | "significant elected official" should include Presidents, Vice Presidents, U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives, and Governors.

- Option C | "significant elected official" should include Presidents, Vice Presidents, U.S. Senators, State Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Representatives, Governors, and Governor-adjacent officeholders such as Secretaries of State.

- Option D | "significant elected official" should include Presidents, Vice Presidents, U.S. Senators, State Senators, U.S. Representatives, State Representatives, Mayors, Governors, and Governor-adjacent officeholders such as Secretaries of State.

Feel free to propose an "Option E" if necessary. Thank you. Pierson Strandquist (talk) 09:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

OPPOSE any change of the current criteria, which is OPTION B. If anything, the criteria should probably be tightened by removing U.S. Representatives, but now is not the time for that discussion. You have made very good argument as to why a state Secretaries of State should be more prominent and Americans should pay more attention to them, but we are bound to treat as "major candidates" only those people who the reliable sources treat as major candidates. We may want Stapleton to be treated as a major candidate, but he is not, and the purpose of the "significant elected officeholder" criterium is not to circumvent the primary criterium of "significant media attention," but rather as a shortcut to it. The "significant elected officeholder criterium exist as a shortcut, because the reliable source, pretty much without exception, treat current and former presidents, VPs, governors, senators and U.S. Representatives as serious candidates. That way, we don't have to come to the talk page and reach a consensus on every single candidate. In contrast, there is no comprable precedent of the reliable sources automatically treating secretaries of state as major presidential candidates, and Stapleton himself is proof-positive of this. He has never been included in a poll, and he is rarely mentioned in the media, and if so, only in passing. We have come to a consensus on several occasions now that Stapleton is not a major candidates, and nothing has changed that would lead us to a different result today. Vrivasfl (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change to the current criteria. Elsewhere on this page, there was discussion of trying to restrict the "5-poll" criterion because it designates Perry Johnson as a major candidate when he is generally not considered one. While I disagree with that change, at least I agree that excluding Johnson would bring Wikipedia's criteria closer to how the candidates are evaluated in the media. But changing our criteria to include Corey Stapleton would make Wikipedia's criteria farther from how the candidates are evaluated in the media. Stapleton is not commonly considered a major candidate, so why would we want to manipulate our criteria just to consider him a major candidate? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:46, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose any change to the current criteria, i.e. Option B, per arguments of Vrivasfl and Metropolitan90 above. The key statement here is from Vrivasfl: "the purpose of the 'significant elected officeholder' criterium is not to circumvent the primary criterium of 'significant media attention,' but rather as a shortcut to it." A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks for all of the clarification. Could it maybe make sense to outline that in the actual article?
    "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 (President, Vice President, Governor, U.S. Senator, U.S. Representative); have been included in at least five national polls." Pierson Strandquist (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
    Yes, that does makes sense and would be a good idea. IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Option D - Not much harm in adding more people to the list. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Option B, but I think it would be good to add something for mayors of sufficiently large cities, such as Bill de Blasio in 2020 or Francis Suarez in 2024, who have been treated by RS as major due to the significance of their position. For whatever it's worth, FiveThirtyEight's new definition of a major public office is "president, vice president, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, governor, mayor of a city of at least 300,000 people, or member of a presidential Cabinet" (https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-a-serious-candidate-for-the-republican-nomination-and-whos-just-dreaming/). Jacoby531 (talk) 20:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I would not include large city mayors automatically, but would base their inclusion on press coverage. BD2412 T 22:49, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Option B + (the 528 criteria): that's a pretty solid source. Ann Teak (talk) 00:18, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
just put stapleton on PLEASE YangGang2024 (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Nope 2607:FB91:1389:A51:19CB:F425:DB0F:1C0E (talk) 19:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Option B is the obvious choice, anything below that is insignificant, especially on a national scale. Scu ba (talk) 20:55, 9 July 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.

FEC filings for Quarter 2, 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

They can be accessed here: https://www.fec.gov/fec-electronic-filing-report-retrieval/ by selecting Committee Type "Presidential" and Date Filed July 15 and going back. How should the existing table be updated ? If the numbers are updated in the current table, the Q2 numbers will be added and you won't see how much someone raised in Q2 alone. For Q2 numbers to see, an additional second table could be created. What do you think ? Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

This has been adequately solved by user EditDude. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
  Resolved
TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Brian Kemp

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments5 people in discussion

I note he has been moved to the declined section. Unfortunately the source isn't available to view in European countries because of GDPR rules. Is it an explicit decline from him? A sum up of what is said would be much appreciated. There is again a fresh source which suggests the door is not closed yet. Here Twentytwenty4 (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion in May/June leaned toward keeping him in declined. But if you have some new sources things could have changed since then. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
“Current consensus is to prefer the candidate's own statements over the statements of advisors”. Okay, then why is Youngkin in the potential candidates section..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It's been a few months, but I think the discussion on Youngkin leaned toward Youngkin had ruled out a bid this year, but was teasing he might announce something after the 2023 Virginia elections. Personally, I think he's more likely to run in the 2024 United States Senate election in Virginia than for president, but there is still a decent amount of sourcing on a potential presidential bid. However, you may be right and if we're favoring candidate statements over advisors, maybe we should move Youngkin back to declined. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
There are new sources since May/June suggesting his stance has changed, and he has left the door open. But the current source, in which he was recently moved to declined, is only dated from a few days ago. If that is indeed a fresh decline to run it would override his other interviews in the last month, but I can't open the current source because that news site says it's not available to European readers.
I do think Kemp is in a similar position to Youngkin, lots of speculation about a late run, his advisors say it's possible, Kemp himself left open the possibility recently 'always doors opening and closing' Twentytwenty4 (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Just seen the quote in the article history
Brian Kemp has declined to get in the race based on new reference. - "There’s a lot of good people running for president right now on the Republican side, and I think having me or anybody else get in the race right now really undermines our ability to be able to win and beat Joe Biden, which we absolutely must do.
That's fair enough. I have no problem with him being in declined section now. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 12:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
He should be moved to the "declined section", yes. He basically said the same things as Noem and she has been moved there.Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Kemp has been moved to declined, problem solved. I previously had been in favor of moving him to potential, but he has now officially closed the door. Mister Conservative (talk) 17:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Liz Cheney is definetely a potential candidate, has publicly expressed interest!

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments4 people in discussion

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-haley-desantis-everyone-running-rumored-sitting-out-gop-2024-presidential-primary Mister Conservative (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

There isn't any mention in that article that says she's running. Maybe as an independent candidate in the general election, but this doesn't belong here then. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The last time this came up there was sourcing that said she'd declined to run as a Republican. Unless we have newer sourcing that specifically says she's interested in running as a Republican, we should probably leave her in declined. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The site I just gave DOES include Cheney as a potential REPUBLICAN. Where is the surce in which Cheney declined to run as a Republican? She is clearly still considering a run. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:45, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Nah, the last time she said anything was 3 weeks ago at an Aspen summit: Lester Holt asked Cheney whether she plans to run for president in 2024. She replied that she didn't have anything to announce today, adding that she was more focused on "stopping Donald Trump, whatever that takes" and "helping to elect other good candidates down ballot." Then, asked whether she would consider running as a Republican or a third-party candidate, Cheney replied that she would not do “anything that would help Donald Trump. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/live-blog/aspen-ideas-festival-live-updates-rcna91327/rcrd14852?canonicalCard=true This means she hasn't said anything about her own plans to run specifically in the Republican primary. Sorry, but she's not running unless she says so. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 10:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
If anything, she can be listed under "Potential candidates", but not "Publicly expressed interest" because none of her comments specifically say she's interested in running in the Republican primary. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 10:28, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that potential candidates would be a good place to put her. Is there any problem with this? Mister Conservative (talk) 18:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
She doesn't go in the Potential candidates section, since she has ruled out running as a Republican, per the Fox News article: "Cheney said last year that she would not be a Republican on the ballot if she ran for the White House in the future." [1] She only expressed in running as a third party candidate. See this Talk page section discussing it: [2]. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Larry Elder picture

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Currently, this picture is used: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larry_Elder_(28090531260)_(cropped).jpg I changed it yesterday to this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Larry_Elder_at_Camp_Pendleton_in_2013_(1).jpg ... but it was reverted. The picture that is currently used is from 2016, but his mouth is wide open because he's speaking and he looks sideways. My alternative picture might be from 2013, but at least it is a smiling picture and not sideways-looking. What do you think ? Picture A (status-quo) or picture B ? Thanks. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 05:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Should the "major" candidate table be narrowed down after the 1st and 2nd debates ?

Latest comment: 1 year ago12 comments7 people in discussion
WP:SNOW close as consensus in opposition to the proposal to remove candidates who don't qualify for the debate from the major candidates table.TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:11, 6 August 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.

It seems that only 8 of the 13 "major" candidates will make the first debate. 7 are qualified so far and Pence will likely make it too over the next 10 days, because he has over 30.000 donors already. It is likely that these 8 candidates will also be at the 2nd debate in September, even though the polling & donor thresholds will be raised. Should the remaining 5 candidates (Elder, Hurd, Hutchinson, Johnson and Suarez) be moved to the minor candidates list, if they fail to qualify for the 1st and 2nd debates ? Glasperlenspieler (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we could give the 5 lagging candidates a "grace period": if they don't qualify for the 2nd debate on September 27, move them to the "minor candidates" together with Stapleton, Laffey, Castro. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I disagree completely. Participating in a debate is a must for candidates but if you fall short, it doesn't mean you are not a major candidate. I mean Hutchinson was governor of Arkansas, that is definetely worthy of being a major candidate, the same with Burgum, these two candidates will probably not qualify for the second debate as the requirement is at least 3 percent. Mister Conservative (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
But failing to appear at debates shows a lack of progress. If you don't qualify repeatedly for debates, by meeting certain criteria, you are not progressing in your campaign and fall back. You are not a "major" candidate anymore and the article should reflect this new status in the primary campaign by removing candidates who fell behind. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Showing lack of progress does not imply that they are not major candidates. Mister Conservative (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Of course it does: lack of progress means no debates, no money, no attention. Political death in the primaries. They are no major candidates anymore in such a case, just in name only. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd say no and this post misses the point of the major candidate section. It's a section for candidates that were considered major at some point in the primary, not for major candidates right now in this moment. We don't go back and remove mentions of candidates after the fact just because they did poorly. It's an encyclopedic list of who ran not an up to date power ranking of the candidates. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose Just because they didn't meet the debate requirements doesn't mean they weren't major candidates. All of the major candidates listed right now have been described as major candidates in the media and polls. Doing this would create an ugly mish-mash of 'what does it mean to be a major candidate' and it might confuse readers as to why a few months ago Francis Suarez/Asa Hutchinson/Will Hurd were considered and major candidates and they're not listed anymore. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:10, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the reasoning of TulsaPoliticsFan and TDKR Chicago. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Tulsa and TDKR. For comparison, in the 2020 Democratic primaries, Deval Patrick (a former governor), Joe Sestak (a former member of Congress), and Seth Moulton (a current member of Congress) didn't qualify for any debates before dropping out, yet that doesn't disqualify them from being considered major candidates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose to my knowledge, no other primaries page narrows down their candidate list, only noting when a candidate drops out. Scu ba (talk) 04:49, 6 August 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.

Hirsh Vardham Singh becomes 3rd Asian-American to run for president with the Republicans...

Latest comment: 1 year ago11 comments7 people in discussion

Why was Singh removed from the minor candidates section??? The are numerous articles talking about the launch of his presidential bid. Mister Conservative (talk) 20:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Can you show the Articles? 2603:6080:CF00:5A2D:D83D:193F:5E55:EC40 (talk) 12:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
According to edit history, it was removed because Singh does not have a Wiki article and is thus not deemed notable enough. If you read the article before you added it, you would notice that Harsh Singh (politician) links to a politician in India who is not running for president at all. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 13:00, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Besides a CBS affilate, the only other sources I've seen talking about singh are media companies from India. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I also haven't found any articles from him anywhere from before his announcement, so he likely isn't notable enough to get a Wikipedia article and thus not notable enough to be included in the minor candidates list. Scu ba (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
The "CBS affiliate" appears to be yet another Indian media company, not a U.S. news source. Most of the articles on its site appear to be about India, with lots of headline references to rupees and crore. [3] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
We got an article from The Hill now. HurricaneKappa (talk) 19:45, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
You're right, I misread them and its actually a CNBC affiliate, specifically the CNBC affiliate... for india.. CNBC TV18 Scu ba (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
This is the same problem as Binkley. There just isn't consensus to list candidates without Wikipedia pages right now. I don't think this is a good thing, but it's where the consensus is at right now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:10, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This is totally not happening but what if Binkley were to win the Republican nomination? It still would not mean he has a Wikipedia article as an article must be aproved, they are checked in a random order and it takes up to 4 years. So I don't believe a Wikipedia article is necesary to be included in a Wikipedia article. Mister Conservative (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
If Binkley were to make any significant progress in the polls, there would be more coverage of him in independent reliable sources that would justify an article about him. (Articles such as this one from NBC News, for example.) And at that point, any experienced Wikipedia editor could bypass the Wikipedia:Articles for creation review process and promote Draft:Ryan Binkley directly to the mainspace. I expect that if Binkley ever won a primary, much less the Republican nomination, the article about him would have been promoted to the mainspace long before that primary win would happen. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
I would hope that the Republican Nominee would have 2 or more major news outlets cover his biography and campaign... but as it stands now Binkley doesn't meet Wikipedia's guidelines for a page due to lack of significant media coverage. Scu ba (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

When can we remove potential candidates?

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments4 people in discussion

With the exception of maybe Youngkin, no one that isn’t already declared is going to run. The first debate is in just over a week, do we really have to wait for Greg Abbott to put out a statement saying he isn’t running? Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Removing potential candidates once deadlines to get on the ballot for primaries pass would be my instinct, but other editors may have other ideas. Also, while we're brainstorming when to remove things: at some point we should probably narrow the declined section to the most notable declined candidates instead of having a declined list of about two dozen people. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 14:37, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, candidates can still jump into the race until late November (!), without missing any important contests. Until late November, just 3 filing deadlines are coming up in Nevada, Alabama and Arkansas. Nevada won't see many Republicans filing, because Republicans are likely going to boycott the primary in favour of a caucus that's held later. And missing the filing deadline in Alabama and Arkansas are theoretically possible for a late entry, because they have only a handful delegates. Any candidates who get in late must do so by early December though, because more than 10 important filing deadlines are in December: California, Texas, Ohio etc. - and you won't miss those. We could also remove candidates like Rogers or Bolton before December, because they are not going to run. I am not even sure about Youngkin, but we could let him in until after the November Virginia elections. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I feel good with removing Rogers and Abbott, I think we should wait with both Bolton and Youngkin. I think Perry should be in there at least until the emd of August if there isn't another article by then Im okay with removing him.
Abbott has practically said he isn't going to run. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Candidate colors/gradients

Latest comment: 1 year ago47 comments19 people in discussion

NOTE: as of June 2023 this user has abandoned efforts to update this section due to the conduct of other Wikipedia editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McMullin (talk • contribs) 17:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted the colors of each candidate in the infobox to what I orignally put for them, the actual colors themselves I am not fussy about but I would suggest we use the best posible shadings to avoid shades colling similar from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals so in the future when county maps of the primary are done it's easy to create shadings for how much each candidate won each county by. Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

to add to this also, I've saved the red color shadings for the potential that DeSantis does run for the nomination, if he does not we can swap somebody else in for that color at a later date Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:31, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to update some of the colors using the hue subpage on Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors/proposals/2023a all and have a list of hues below, I welcome all feedback on these so we can have a proper forward thinking agreement on which hues to use for candidates, the proposal I have put below draws inspiration from the 2016 GOP primary colors used

I've had a few questions about shading so I've updated my above text, originally when I first created these I thought using the 70-80% shade for everyone would be best as it'd be uniform but as we've gotten more candidates I realized that using different shadings is the best approach to this since it avoids candidate colours looking similar Matthew McMullin (talk) 03:42, 19 june 2023 (UTC)

Update: I've added potential colors for Chris Sununu & Tim Scott, should they eventually decline a run I'll remove them

Update 2: added Chris Christie colors should he run

Update 3: changed Chris Sununu to purple on request, also removed (should he run) from Tim Scott

Update 4: updated DeSantis name

Update 5: swapped Elder & scott colors, added Burgum

Update 6: removed Sununu

Update 7: added pence

Update 8: added Francis Suarez (should he run)


Matthew McMullin (talk) 14:09, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User:72.183.119.220 I hope this is helpful to you, I've made Trumps color a very close match to his 2016/2020 color as you requested Matthew McMullin (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest maybe changing Sununu's color to something more distinct, as the current color is very close to Haley's. Maybe a violet/purple? QuailWatts (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
A lavender color would work very well, it fits the state flower of New Hampshire, the purple lilac. HurricaneKappa (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
will do, give me a couple minutes to find a decent color pallete Matthew McMullin (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
I like the purple you've chosen for Sununu! HurricaneKappa (talk) 00:32, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Wait what was Sununu’s original color? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:24C8:2F05:A6D6:C1D7 (talk) 01:24, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Great color you using for Doug 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
What about Mike Rogers? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Mike Rodgers would be a major candidate, he was only in congress and that was 10 years ago Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Also what about Francis X. Suarez? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
atm Suarez isn't a major candidate imo, unless he either gets a big media coverage session or a decent polling number Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I tried to use the lime color you wanted to use but that didn’t work so I tried to do a revision and it is still messed up WONKAKlD (talk) 20:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest using a pink magneta color for Mike Rogers WONKAKlD (talk) 17:39, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
mike rogers is not a major candidate so he will not be receiving a color Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Currently all candidates are different shades that vastly rade on shade, with ome having a 40-50 shade while others use the 70–80% shade, I feel this leads to the candidate's page feeling like a disorganized mess, with very few colors complimenting/balancing the others out. Thus, I'd like to open a discussion to change all candidates colors (barring trump) to a uniform shading. 2603:8080:4D01:6516:1941:3E6F:67D3:3754 (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
the reason the candidate shades are different is to avoid colours clashing with each other so each candidates colour is easily recognizable Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I think all candidate colors should be same shade I suggest using 70-80 WONKAKlD (talk) 12:15, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Can you please change Doug’s color it is too similar to Haley’s and Ron’s maybe make it a toothpaste color like what they were originally using for Pence WONKAKlD (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

How about Pence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2806:103E:D:9361:AD05:2DC3:674A:9099 (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Just bumping this to stop the archive bot. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:43, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Just bumping this again to stop the archive bot. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I plan to add a color for Pence once we get an expected formal launch time frame, currently he's still pending a decision but if he does in fact run I'll most likely use a lime green for him Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:15, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
What about Burgum? HurricaneKappa (talk) 00:00, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
personally I don't plan on adding a color palate for Burgum as I myself don't consider him to be a "major candidate". his potential best primary performance would be in North Dakota itself but ND doesn't have a GOP primary until June so I imagine he'll have dropped out by that stage. if he manages to get himself up to polling 5-10 in Iowa I might make one for him Matthew McMullin (talk) 11:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Could be just my eyes but I see Trump/Scott and DeSantis/Haley/Ramaswamy as closely matching colors. Given these are currently the top polling candidates, perhaps switching some to the more distinct purple & green would be a good idea, if the polling doesn't change of course. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Tim Scott has a genuine chance of winning some counties in South Carolina because he's their senator, which will make a county-vote-margin map really questionable if Trump and Scott are both winning in counties next to each other and they're both colored blue. My suggestion is that Tim Scott be colored a bright (as opposed to Trump's dark blue) turquoise or a bright orange. Trajan1 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I could swap scott and elders colors, would that be suitable for you? Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I think Tim Scott is gonna withdraw before the primaries WONKAKlD (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Burgum would qualify as a major candidate under the "current or previous holder of significant elected office" criterion, if he runs. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't really think the governor of North Dakota is a significant elected office, rarely is north dakota or bergum himself mentioned in mainstream news networks and the state of north dakota itself and the events which happen in it is rarely discussed nationally/internationally. if Bergum had a national noteworthy story which propelled him to the national stage such as what Chris Christie had in 2012 or Ron DeSantis currently Matthew McMullin (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Burgum is a governor, ergo he qualifies. It's pretty cut and dry. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
this doesn't hold up when we look at past primaries, in 2016 people such as Jim Gilmore, Chris Christie, George Pataki, Bobby Jindal, Scott Walker and Rick Perry all ran as governors but they were not given a specific color shading Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I mean, giving Burgum a pre-emptive color is no big deal. The universe will not come crashing down because we gave the Governor of North Dakota a specific color shade. He is self-funded which gives him at least the plausibility of getting through 2023 and holding on until Iowa and New Hampshire. Trajan1 (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Will Hurd announced his presidential bid on June22nd. What color do you plan to add? Mister Conservative (talk) 14:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Pence declared yesterdasy. I assume thatmeans we can add him. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 20:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I've now added him Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not here to say who is "major" among the major candidates and who isn't, but right now we have 10 (current or expected) candidates assigned colors, with eight gradients for each candidate's color. That means 80 potential shades so far. When we actually have to start filling in the counties and states next year, we may want to revisit these colors and gradients to ensure that the maps are comprehensible. Let's be open to changing the color decisions in the future. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I fully agree with Metropolitan90's suggestion to be open to changing the color decisions for the candidates in the future. With 10 major candidates already assigned colors and gradients, possibly revisiting these choices when filling in counties and states next year will ensure that the maps remain comprehensible. Expoe34 (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
of course, when all is said and done and the primaries are over looking back at the color pallette is needed, I myself doubt that even half the people listed will actually win a county so we'll have plenty of options Matthew McMullin (talk) 14:13, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Starting to realize that Ramaswamy and Suarez's colors kinda look the same, thinking about a green like what's used by the University of Miami, like what I suggested when Sununu was a potential candidate relating to him being governor of NH and NH's state flower. HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson color

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Should we look for a different color for Perry Johnson since grey is associated with unknown/independent/others/tied in election articles? Grey is also used in polling/election results where the results are unknown/tied (I think)/others as well. We could use the colors proposed for Mike Rogers/John Bolton (should either run) in the discussion above or we can reserve them for Youngkin should he run. Just a thought. I don't have any color replacement ideas too, maybe a light purple or salmon color like Michael Bennet's color in the 2020 Dem primary page? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Option 4, I think the current color is fine and don't need to be changed Punker85 (talk) 21:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Perry perhaps should be a whiter shade of pale. Ann Teak (talk) 23:17, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
No, the current color distant enough from the grey used for independent/unknown/other candidates results Punker85 (talk) 19:03, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Option 4 is fine, though the colors you've proposed bear a striking resemblance to the existing candidate shading line. Furthermore, the Bolton color appears outdated, predating the color adjustments made by Wikipedia users to achieve a more cohesive appearance. In light of this, I recommend considering an indigo hue. For reference:
     Johnson Expoe34 (talk) 21:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with how it is, there aren't independent candidates in this election so he can use grey. Scu ba (talk) 21:58, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Potential Perry Johnson colors
Hex code Color
#e68ce6       Option 1
#DA3877       Option 2
#FF5E5E       Option 3
#616161       Option 4

Should Ryan binkley be in other declared candidates list

Latest comment: 1 year ago32 comments16 people in discussion
Closing old discussion; Binkley was added to major candidates after being included in 5 polls. See the later discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:02, 23 August 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.

Ryan binkley is notable he gained media attention in Texas for his campaign also he polled at 1 percent in that 1 poll 64.255.149.196 (talk) 06:17, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

He has only been covered by a handful of major national reliable sources and only registered in two national polls, so no, at least not yet. 80.41.164.73 (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry I thought you meant the major candidates list. Yes he should be in the other declared list. It's absurd that he isn't listed there, he is doing better than all those combined. 80.41.164.73 (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
He doesn't even have a Wikipedia article, so he doesn't belong in that section. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Has there been discussion and agreement on this previously?
I note it's not a bar on the independents and third party candidates article. In fact it is the norm for candidates not to have a Wikipedia article on there.
Fivethirtyeight do their own candidate rankings and Binkley is ranked at the same level as Johnson (3 out of 9 criteria met) and they're both ahead of Larry Elder (2/9). 2.103.97.60 (talk) 18:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I think, at some point, a candidate without a Wikipedia article could be notable enough to be listed. However, I'm not sure this is the consensus view. Linking sources discussing Binkley's candidacy would be a better starting point for discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:26, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
yes please add him YangGang2024 (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
If he has at least 1 percent in a poll and has had substantial media coverage I think minor candidates is the least we can do. He definetely should go in minor. Mister Conservative (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
If he is notable as a presidential candidate, then a Wikipedia article should be written about him. There is already a draft started at Draft:Ryan Binkley. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
He is certainly at least a minor candidate. He polled at 1% nationally in the July 20 HarrisX Poll. None of the other minor candidates have polled above 0% nationally to my knowledge. He also was invited to the Lincoln Day Dinner [4], generally considered the biggest Iowa cattle call of the cycle. None of the other minor candidates and even one major candidate (Christie) were not invited. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Metropolitan90 The problem with this argument is that if he is ONLY notable as a presidential candidate, his article will be AFDed (like it was earlier this year). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 13:07, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure this counts as media attention but:
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2023/07/28/iowa-gop-lincoln-dinner-draws-2024-contenders-to-des-moines-friday/70457582007/
He is one of the candidates speaking at this which is invite only I believe and features every single other candidate we have on the major list except Christie (who is not campaigning in IA) and none of the minor candidates
I have also seen an NBC News article recently about him and he and Perry Johnson had both been added to Axios' list of presidential candidates as long shots.
I will say I don't totally see what makes Johnson a major candidate and him not mentioned at all, outside of one having a Wiki page and the other doesn't 104.173.208.16 (talk) 00:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/who-ryan-binkley-republican-presidential-candidate-iowa-rcna96945
https://www.axios.com/2023/05/24/us-president-elections-2024-candidates
Here are the other sources I mentioned 104.173.208.16 (talk) 01:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
if he had an article he could be included as a minor candidate. but no he is not a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 04:51, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
We set a minimum of being included in five national polls as a criterion for a major candidate. Johnson has at least 12 national polls so far. Surprisingly, Binkley already has 3, so maybe he will make it to 5. But this mostly suggests to me that we had set that criterion too low. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Ryan Binkley deserves a Wikipedia article, and is a MAJOR candidate. He has already been included in 3 national polls in which he has gained one percent and has also been subject to varous articles.. Mister Conservative (talk) 20:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
There is not consensus that he deserves an article (see the deletion discussion from May) and he fails to meet the objective criteria (polling or officeholding) for major candidates. You can argue he has substantial media coverage, but I doubt there is consensus he has it. Probably not a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion, I meant a Wikipedia article, not a news article. Scu ba (talk) 04:50, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
So, it's completely possible this doesn't happen, but what if he were to meet the donor requirement? I've been tracking this from candidates and as of today he's at around 30k. Now, frankly he has no chance of making the stage because 4 qualifiers in a week is near impossible. But I was wondering what we'd do if he ended up meeting one requirement (Especially because there are other "major" candidates who may not meet either.) Dantedino88 (talk) 23:25, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
He has reached 4 polls now, at 5, he should be included in major candidates, wikipedia article or no wikipedia article! Mister Conservative (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
If he reaches 40,000 donors he should be included in the debate article, and perhaps in the official 2024 primary page, but we should agree. Mister Conservative (talk) 00:33, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2023-08-10/who-qualified-for-the-first-gop-debate Another article about Binkley... it also includes Steve Laffey. Binkley has now reached the 5 articles needed. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Just a reminder: We have never reached a consensus that five articles = major. Five polls, yes, but not five articles. --Vrivasfl (talk) 01:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
FTR, the Trafalgar poll that just came out listed him, so I do believe he now has five polls. Dantedino88 (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
He needs to be included in major candidates now, he has also reached 38,000 donors so i believe he will qualify for the debate were it not for the polling requirements... Mister Conservative (talk) 21:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

He meets the major candidate criteria now but he is not by any definition a major candidate. We should change the rules to 5 polls AND substantial media coverage, that should keep him off the major candidate list indefinitely as it is subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.97.60 (talk) 23:30, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

See, I don't disagree with this but is substantial media coverage well-defined? Like are Elder and Johnson receiving "substantial" coverage? IMO, if Binkley meets the donor or polling threshold, he should count. If he doesn't, I think it's fair to keep him off for the sake of consistency. Dantedino88 (talk) 01:23, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Elder and Johnson are major candidates, we have had those discussions. Also, Binkley has now met one of the requirements to be a MAJOR, not minor candidate. Mister Conservative (talk) 17:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the definition on this page that he meet "one or more" of the criteria, Binkley is a major candidate. He "[has] been included in at least five national polls", according to Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:483:900:7470:CD6E:1CA3:F523:8C0F (talk) 16:26, 20 August 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.

RfC: polling criteria

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A new rfc has been started on whether the polling criteria should continue to determine whether or not we consider a candidate to be “major”. Please go here to discuss. Prcc27 (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Francis Suarez's table

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Expoe34's edit at 21:34, 29 August 2023 has screwed up Francis Suarez's table, because the birth date ended up as a second item in the name column and everything else got misalligned as a result. It is a quick fix, but the site is semi-protected until 2025, so I am creating a formal request. 212.79.110.147 (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It has been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Hutchinson/Scott Color swap proposal

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments4 people in discussion
Not done. Problem was a non-issue. Scu ba (talk) 15:17, 30 August 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.

Currently, Tim Scott is represented by the color teal, while Hutchinson's representation is in purple. However, according to polling and fundraising data, Tim Scott emerges as a significantly stronger contender in the primaries when compared to Hutchinson. Scott has garnered twice as many qualifying polls (14 as opposed to Hutchinson's 7), positioning him as a substantial challenger. Notably, Hutchinson falls short of meeting the polling criteria necessary to participate in the debates.

Given these circumstances, I recommend a switch in colors. Tim Scott, who appears to have a higher likelihood of securing a victory in a county, should be associated with the more dominant and distinct color of purple. This adjustment prevents any confusion for colorblind readers who might struggle with the current teal color representing Scott; Meanwhile, the teal hue might symbolize Hutchinson, acknowledging his role as the governor of Arkansas – a state recognized for its rivers and clear skies that collectively evoke the shade of teal.

Proposed Color Swap
Hex code Color
#13bbb3       Asa Hutchinson
#A621A6       Tim Scott

Expoe34 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds like you're looking for a problem that doesn't exist. the colors are fine as they are. Scu ba (talk) 22:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Haha, I was thinking exactly that when writing this post Scu ba! However, it's been on my mind, so I might as well see where my peers stand on this debate. Expoe34 (talk) 22:24, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Understandable, just feel like we know what the consensus is going to be already. Scu ba (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I don’t think we have to 2603:6080:2100:D12B:A17B:3796:69F7:773B (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Why would we have to do that? 2603:6080:2100:D12B:64ED:1426:778:C962 (talk) 11:30, 24 August 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.

Change criteria to be a "major candidate"

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This is starting to get ridiculous, how is someone, who has polled at less that 1 percent, zero percent in the few polls hes been in, considered a major candidate? We need to look into making the criteria much more strict, like, must poll an average of above two or three percent and be in a majority of polls released? Or we could just use the corresponding parties criteria for the first debate as a starting point, because this needs some work LordEnma8 (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing RFC here about it:
[5] David O. Johnson (talk) 16:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Because for some reason, the consensus from past primaries was that to be a major candidate, one needs 5 major news sources to report on their campaign or "be present" in five or more polls. Unfortunately this allows candidates like Johnson and Binkley to be major candidates because although they're polling at 0.02 or in some cases an outright 0, their names are still on the poll, and that counts. There is an open RFC to change this. Scu ba (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Trump potrait

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
WP:SNOW. Per WP:NPOV, WP:MUG, and the copyright status of the mugshot, it is not likely to be used here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:58, 10 September 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.

There's a lot of glare and blurred lighting in the image.

Should we use the recent mugshot instead? Afterall these are professional identification images not stills from videos, or images with distracting light in the background. 2.103.97.60 (talk) 23:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The mugshot's low quality contradicts Wikipedia's standard policy for images to accurately represent individuals. Unfortunately, the mugshot fails to do so as it portrays Trump in an unflattering manner. 2603:8080:4D00:4514:A530:5DC5:F956:E588 (talk) 06:13, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose: per WP:NPOV. Prcc27 (talk) 20:22, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:NPOV and WP:MUG. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per all above. Besides, given that Trump is a former U.S. government official, there should be plenty of public domain images of him we can use if the current portrait is considered unsuitable. (See Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:56, 3 September 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.

"Trump desantis" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Trump desantis has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 7 § Trump desantis until a consensus is reached. Qwerfjkltalk 15:13, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Change "major candidate" criteria for primary election candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Discussion earlier in the talk page has dealt with this subject. I am now formally proposing that we make such a change.

I am making a proposal over at Talk:2024 United States presidential election to change it. Chime in there please.

SecretName101 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The current criteria is far too inclusive, in no way are Corey Stapleton or Ryan Binkley "major" candidates. If anything, the criteria of who qualifies for the debates is good enough, or a bit more extensively, an average of 1% or higher between the poll aggregators. Colin.1678 (talk) 20:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
please add this to the RFC Polling criteria for “major candidate” status section: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_electio]] 2603:8080:4D00:4514:CC6A:CF07:C0B4:9669 (talk) 03:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's remove all 3 "potential candidates" or "candidates who expressed interest" by mid-December

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Bolton, Perry and Youngkin are still listed as potential candidates, but in fact the race is now set and in full swing.

I think these 3 candidates should be removed by mid-December, when the California and Texas and several other big state candidate filing deadlines have passed. No candidate can jump in after that and still win a majority of delegates. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 16:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's do that. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 19:46, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I think they should be removed when the filing deadline of all states and territories are passed Punker85 (talk) 01:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
All states are territories? That won't be until well into 2024, the last democrat in 2020 announced at the end of November. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Punker85. A candidate could theoretically enter late (even if it is not a smart move). We should wait until all filing deadlines pass. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I think it's reasonable to remove Bolton & Perry in November, would coincide with 6 months since they last expressed interest which is the current policy TheFellaVB (talk) 06:24, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

Will Hurd withdraws

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Edit made. Hurd removed from list. Scu ba (talk) 01:55, 10 October 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.

Will Hurd has withdrawed from the race. He should be moved from the "Declared Candidates" category to the "Withdrew before the primaries" category. 173.187.151.50 (talk) 23:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit has been made. Scu ba (talk) 01:54, 10 October 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.

Background section

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Doing a quick read over of the article and when I got to the background section I noticed that most if not all of the information in that section is either in the preamble or in the timeline. Personally I feel that if we removed that entire section that we would be losing nothing of value and will greatly shrink the size of this article, which is getting a little bloated. However, before I do something so bold as to delete an entire section, we should get some sort of consensus on the issue. Scu ba (talk) 02:08, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection to its removal. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Hirsh Singh

Latest comment: 1 year ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hello, I believe Hirsh Singh should be added to this article as a minor candidate.  Casper king (talk) 21:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

If you have a reliable source, I will not oppose it Punker85 (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Well then, I will add him back. Casper king (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
We've had the discussion about Singh before, again, if he doesn't have a Wikipedia article, he isn't going to be included in the minor candidates section. I am going to remove his addition. Scu ba (talk) 03:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello @Scu ba why is it not OK to remove Hirsh Singh for not having an article meanwhile Ryan Binkley who does not have an article is and is considered a major Canidate has not been removed? Casper king (talk) 01:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
If I had my way, we would remove Binkley too. Binkley is included, because the requirements to be a notable candidate is to have significant media presence and a presence in a set number of polls. Somehow, Binkley reached these requirements, see the above discussion about changing these requirements. The requirements to appear in the minor candidates section is "everyone else with a Wikipedia page" ie, people running that don't meet the major candidate criteria, but have a Wikipedia page.
Singh has no poll presence, no media coverage, and no Wikipedia article.
Scu ba (talk) 01:50, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Scu ba Although I believe Singh should have an article and be included in this article, I thank you for explaining your repeated removal of Singh and I will rest my case.  Casper king (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Make an article for Singh, that gets approved, and I will be more than happy to include him in minor candidates. Scu ba (talk) 14:32, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Corey Stapleton now deserving of major candidate status?

Latest comment: 1 year ago13 comments7 people in discussion

I know he meets the 5 poll criteria, however, rarely any sites mention him when talking about the top contenders, and I doubt he was even on the RNC's debate radar; he's rarely raised any money or press coverage for someone who's supposed to be a major candidate. Expoe34 (talk) 04:19, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

As a discussion above is exploring, the standard is bad and should be changed. Was stupid not to give any weight as to performance/support in polls. I feel mere inclusion doesn’t indicate one is a major contender. Someone who polls 5-times at 0% cannot be major.
if you haven’t already, contribute to the discussion further up about whether this needs to be changed SecretName101 (talk) 04:31, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Expoe34 I just decided to make a formal proposal to change the qualifying standard for major party candidate. It is going to be on Talk:2024 United States presidential election. Feel free to chime in. SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
@Expoe34@SecretName101 Don't want to be a nudge, but can someone share the polls and media that Stapleton is purportedly included in? I can't find them. Scu ba (talk) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
If it can’t be verified, I say remove him. But of course let’s wait for a response in the meantime. Prcc27 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I count 5 national polls for Stapleton on FiveThirtyEight's list of polls section. - https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/
It's the same pollster though. I don't think he qualifies to a major candidate based on very little media coverage and hasn't held significant major office based on the criteria. Alexjjj (talk) 23:33, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
He's polled at 0%, no votes, in all of these, no way they count towards his criteria. Scu ba (talk) 01:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I really don't think he should be included, I feel the same way about Binkley. The fact both of them are both excluded from the vast majority of polls & when they are included they're at 0% shows that they aren't serious candidates. In 2020 for the democratic nomination nearly all the candidates who were listed as "major" appeared on polls prior to them losing relevance & when they did appear they were able to get more than 0%. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree fully, neither Stapleton, Binkley, Johnson, nor Laffey should be anywhere other than the "minor candidates" section. Scu ba (talk) 03:05, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think their is a case for Johnson and Binkley since they did reach the donor threshold and were included in more polls than Stapleton, who didn't even disclose a donor amount and has only been included by one pollster. Alexjjj (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
@Scu ba Unfortunately, 0% polls DO COUNT under current criteria. Hence my call in an RFC at Talk:2024 United States presidential election for a change. Please share your thoughts there, everyone SecretName101 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Blaring oversight from whoever made that criteria. I've already commented on that RfC. Scu ba (talk) 13:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Personally, and this is coming from someone who advocated for Johnson and Binkley to be added as major candidates, this one felt like a stretch. The reason I argued for these two is simply that by all means they were running serious campaigns, meeting qualifications set by the RNC to be major candidates (Donor threshold), and were featured in lists of major candidates by several news sources including Axis and the NYT. None of that applies to Stapleton. I do think there needs to be a convo on our standards, and I've written on the RfC against changing it, but I can see where the issues are starting to lie now. That said, I do continue to think Binkley and Johnson should stay on, while Stapleton should come off. All three are in similar positions, but I think the fact that the first two met several pieces of GOP qualification standards for debate, as well as their increased media coverage and participation in high profile campaign events should merit their inclusion. Dantedino88 (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Is Ryan Binkley a major candidate now?

Latest comment: 1 year ago52 comments14 people in discussion

Binkley recently met the polling criteria for major candidate which is being included in at least 5 national polls (Big Village; June 9-14; 0.4%, Harvard-Harris; July 19-20; 1%, Big Village; July 24-26; 0.1%, Cygnal; August 1-3; 0.2% and Trafalgar Group; August 14-16; 0.2%). So, should Binkley be added in the declared major candidates section or should we wait until his page submission is accepted? Punker85 (talk) 16:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

We should add him to major candidates, Wikipedia article or no Wikipedia article Mister Conservative (talk) 18:04, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm of the stance that we should apply the criteria as we set it, so if he's in five independent polls then we should probably list him. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:08, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to adding him to the major candidate list, especially now that he's getting some more coverage, appearently he's nearing the 40,000 donor threshold for the debates too (according to a tweet cited in the debates article). However, I would wait until he has an article. Maybe in the meantime we can look for an image of his campaign logo (free use of course) and think about what color he would be. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Him getting a Wiki article as anything but certain, he needs to be added to MAJOR candidates. However I second the idea that we find an iage and a color for him. Mister Conservative (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
He has had an article and it was AFDed in May. The consensus in May was he wasn't notable enough for an article. What happens if his draft article gets published, we add him to this article, and then his article is AFDed again? Would we just remove him? We shouldn't focus on WP:OTHERSTUFF, like whether or not he has an article, and instead focus on building consensus for this article. It's totally possible for someone to be notable as a presidential candidate and not meet general notability guidelines. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean if he can be listed as a candidate without having an article, that's probably easiest, no? He definitely needs to be listed in some capacity, I would lean towards a major candidate. But can we add him without an article and not have him removed? Dantedino88 (talk) 07:28, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
For the color, I propose
  Punker85 (talk) 19:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I accidentally clicked the Reply button, so, what as gonna say, I propose this color for Binkley:
  #DA3877 Punker85 (talk) 19:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I think this color is good, although it is a bit similar to DeSantis' I believe? Dantedino88 (talk) 21:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean in terms of gradience at least. But it should probably work! Dantedino88 (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The DeSantis' gradience used in the top of the talk doesn't match with his color used in the page Punker85 (talk) 23:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Gotcha, I think that's good then. It does look a tad like Burgum's color but I think the shading is clearly different enough. Dantedino88 (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
For me, it look more like Burgum's color Punker85 (talk) 23:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, it's too similar to Burgum's. How about this one ->      ? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:45, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer this one:
  #EF2D43 Punker85 (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
I am willing to move Draft:Ryan Binkley to the mainspace if nobody here objects to my doing so. That way, there will at least be a proper Wikipedia article about him. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:54, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I think everyone here is in support of that, the discussion was really just about the article being AFDed or removed again. Dantedino88 (talk) 05:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm also in support of moving the draft Ryan Binkley article to mainspace. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I also support moving the draft article into the mainspace.Sal2100 (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
If the guy doesn't have enough Media presence to even have an article on Wikipedia, he should not be included in the major candidates list Scu ba (talk) 00:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Guess it doesn't matter too much now that we're all in agreement but just saw that Binkley has crossed the 40k donor threshold as well. Dantedino88 (talk) 22:20, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
He still doesn't have the media coverage to count. Scu ba (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
From what I know, you only need one requirement to become a major candidate and Binkley got one of them which is being included in 5 national polls Punker85 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Obviously that system doesn't work if someone without a Wikipedia article can be considered a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Opinion: We need to rework the criteria, by no metrics should Ryan Binkley, a candidate with no prior experience, recognition, or coverage, be featured alongside prominent names such as Tim Scott, Ron DeSantis, Nikki Haley, Mike Pence, Vivek Ramaswamy as a major candidate. To further get this point across, Ryan Binkley doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, which further exemplifies how minor of a candidate he truly is. I propose at least 8 national polls, and that candidates without the requirements of public office, must have at least polled at 1% in a national poll Expoe34 (talk) 18:32, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Trump showed that public office isn't a bar to entry. You also list Vivek Ramaswamy who hasn't held public office. I'd say individuals having a net worth around or above $100M (like Binkley, Trump, Ramaswamy) have a better record of becoming president than someone that has held public office. 2.103.97.60 (talk) 00:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Trump was polling at healthy numbers since the start of the 2016 campaign. Binkley hasn't reached the 1% mark yet and is nowhere close to making that mark. In no world is Binkley a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 15:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Agree Having Binkley listed as a major candidate shows that the existing consensus for a major candidate is flawed. Scu ba (talk) 15:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Question: were any of the five polls we are using sponsored/commissioned by either his campaign or an entity affiliated with/supporting it? Because, if so, any such polls should probably not be counted towards the five polls. SecretName101 (talk) 03:46, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I really think the "five polls" standard should not be our standard at this point in the race. Perhaps it made sense when polls were infrequent. But at a point where there is frequent polling, inclusion in five polls (particularly when many polls have private sponsors) seems questionable, and too easy for interest groups and candidates to manipulate in order to elevate someone to being considered a major candidate on a well-trafficked website. SecretName101 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Declared major candidates for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries
Name Born Experience Home state Campaign
Announcement date 		Ref.
 
Ryan Binkley 		November 19, 1967
(age 57)
Columbus, Georgia 		CEO of the Generational Equity Group (2006–present)
Co-founder and lead pastor of Create Church
 
Texas
Campaign
April 1, 2023
FEC filing[1] 		[2]

References

  1. ^ "Form 1 for Binkley For President 2024". docquery.fec.gov. Retrieved August 21, 2023.
  2. ^ "Ryan Binkley, Texas CEO and pastor, announces 2024 Republican presidential run". The Hill. Retrieved August 21, 2023.

Linking to a simple wikipedia article in the absence of a real one is a pretty cheap way of making him seem more important and relevant than he actually is. He does not deserve major candidate status. UhJennyP (talk) 21:44, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We could link it Ryan Binkley instead if you want it to be less sneaky and more clearly an interlanguage link. But interlanguage links are generally good; granted, I've never seen a simple wikipedia one used. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If we were writing about a French politician and wanted to use an interlanguage link to French Wikipedia, that would make sense. But in this case, I don't think it makes sense to link to the Simple English Wikipedia. I would much rather move Draft:Ryan Binkley to the mainspace. It doesn't make sense to classify Binkley as a major candidate and not have a biography of him in mainspace. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks like there is a Ryan Binkley [bg] Bulgarian article now. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
glancing at its references it doesn't have enough notable media articles to meet WP:BIO guidelines and should probably be AfDed or expanded, but I'm not sure if the standards are the same for non-english Wikipedia. Scu ba (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of whether we need to re-adjust our "major candidate" criteria and how

I really think the "five polls" standard should not be our standard at this point in the race. Perhaps it made sense when polls were infrequent. But at a point where there is frequent polling, inclusion in five polls (particularly when many polls have private sponsors) seems questionable, and too easy for interest groups and candidates to manipulate in order to elevate someone to being considered a major candidate on a well-trafficked website. So what do we do instead? SecretName101 (talk) 20:49, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Perhaps we change it from "current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has been included in at least five national polls" to "current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has obtained at least 1% support in ten national polls, or has qualified to participate in a party-sponsored debate."
Or is even that too low? SecretName101 (talk) 20:52, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Perry Johnson too might fall one-poll short of the moment of what I just proposed, while Elder would meet it. SecretName101 (talk) 20:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I just made a formal proposal on the main 2024 election talk page. Please chime in there everyone. SecretName101 (talk) 04:48, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Talk:2024 United States presidential election Politicdude (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Perfect. That is EXACTLY where I would draw the line of minor and major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 01:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Corey Stapleton Drops Out

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I'm not sure if we ever developed a final consensus on whether Stapleton was a major candidate or a minor candidate, but he did drop out and should be moved from "Declared" to "Withdrew before primaries," as whatever status was ultimately decided for him. https://www.newswire.com/news/u-s-presidential-candidate-corey-stapleton-bows-out-of-race-22148886 Dantedino88 (talk) 20:39, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It looks like it was decided that he was a major candidate (since he met the five poll requirement) [6]. I'd wait for confirmation from other sources of his withdrawal (i.e. third party), personally, before removing him. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I really haven't seen anything covering him in the media outside of the stuff he's posted to his own social media, which this article was, so I'm expecting it's the best we'll get. Dantedino88 (talk) 18:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Stapleton raised $7,000, the media isn't going to comment on him. It is ludicrous that he is even in the major candidate section. Scu ba (talk) 23:19, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I removed him as a candidate, debatably insignificant, and it's unlikely his withdrawal will be notable enough to warrant major news sites covering him, thus in the meantime, I added him to the section with a source of course. I'll leave it up to my fellow editors to argue whether he belongs in the major or other candidates sections. Expoe34 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Stapleton was the first to announce, previously elected to a statewide office, and did eventually get some polling so I'd be fine with leaving him in the withdrawn candidate box. Although, due to the quality of the sourcing, I see an argument to list him in the bulleted list with Steve Laffey instead. I don't think it makes a huge difference, but some editors are pretty passionate about WP:UNDUE and which section a candidate gets listed in. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
We had this exact conversation at the very start of the election. Being the first to announce doesn't mean anything, Joe Schmo could've announced the morning after the 2020 election and it wouldn't have made them notable. Also, Montana Secretary of State, we concluded, is not an office that counts to the criteria of being a major candidate. the SOLE reason he made the list is because he was listed on five polls, each of which where he got 0%, no votes. Scu ba (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
This might be the wrong thread to bring this up, and if so let me know and I'll delete/move this post, but has anyone suggested something like 5 polls with 1% support? I agree that the current rule of just being listed in five polls is too lax, but I haven't seen much traction as of late for the ten polls with 1%. I'm not sure if things are limited to just national polls or include state polls, which might make the difference for guys like Johnson/Binkley. I don't know if Stapleton would hold up in any case though. Dantedino88 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
There's been an ongoing RFC here:
[7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Delegate Count tabulated Incorrectly

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There is an error in the primary schedule count in the "Primaries and caucus calendar" section.

There should be 2,467 delegates but if you add the totals it only comes up to 2,458, 9 short.

I believe the error is that the delegates from American Samoa were not counted in the Super Tuesday total, meaning super Tuesday should be 874, and not the 865 it is now. 97.116.92.110 (talk) 04:25, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi,
The error has been fixed. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson Statement

Latest comment: 1 year ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Perry Johnson recently released a statement announcing he's suspending his campaign. The statement is ambiguous saying he "has suspended his campaign rather than withdrawing." Despite this, I think he should be moved to the withdrawn candidates as he is no longer actively running for president. Epicradman123 (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Suarez also just "suspended" his campaign. No candidate ever in the history of American politics has ever unsuspended their campaign. Scu ba (talk) 20:35, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Ross Perot did, but point taken. Epicradman123 (talk) 20:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Perot said he withdrew, out 100%, and then came back in.
Johnson is "suspending" his campaign, not ending it, but again, no candidate ever in the history of American politics has ever unsuspended their campaign.
Scu ba (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
It should not matter whether or not he will unsuspend his campaign in the future per WP:CRYSTAL. All we can do is update the article based on our current information. Prcc27 (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Johnson has now officially endorsed Trump: https://news.yahoo.com/trump-touts-endorsement-former-rival-124114777.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.29.101 (talk) 17:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The endorsement is mentioned in the article in the table of withdrawn candidates. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:15, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Subject

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the campaign finance section, in the candidate column, Trump's reference/link is the same as Scott's. 2603:6011:9600:52C0:98D1:5D1F:AD4C:152F (talk) 06:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Larry Hogan

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

last month Hogan told CBS that he "not closed the door" to seeking the GOP presidential nomination in 2024, it was removed because he said if he did run, he would concurrently run with No Labels, and would continue his campaign with no labels if Trump wins the nomination. Besides my personal belief that that isn't criteria for his removal, another CBS Article talking about Hogan running for the GOP nomination came out on October 10th. We should add him back to the prospective candidates section. Scu ba (talk) 23:24, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I agree. He should be re-added to the potential candidates list. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:50, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Seeing as how you where the only person to respond to this I am going to add Hogan back. I will revert any removal of Hogan until a different consensus is reached in this talk section. Scu ba (talk) 16:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Candidates' colors in the overview chart

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The colors use in the overview chart of the candidates are the same as use the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries one but different from past Republican primaries pages. Is it intentional or it isn't suppose to be that way? Punker85 (talk) 00:18, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The timelines in the last two Republican primary articles (2016 and 2020) use red colors for active and withdrawn candidates. I changed them here to match. They can be adjusted further if needed. For instance, the 2016 article uses different shades for those who withdrew before and after the primaries began. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hirsh Singh

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hirsh Singh has dropped out of the election. Can add him to the list of candidates who have dropped out of the election? Casper king (talk) 17:36, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

No, and for the same reason he was not listed as a candidate in the "Other declared candidates" section, based on the archived talk page discussions here and here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, but when I finish the article and if it gets approved could I add him to the other candidate show dropped out before the primary section even though he was not able to be added to the article when he was actually running?  Casper king (talk) 02:01, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Sure if he has an article he should be added to the minor candidates section. Scu ba (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

why was it deleted? It appears to fall under the category which states it's too simple to be copyrightable 2603:8080:4D00:4514:F0B3:496E:1364:C76F (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Agree, not sure what happened, I added it back. Scu ba (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Removing Youngkin from the potential candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Speculation that Youngkin will run for president has been wholly contingent on a good republican showing in the Virginia house and senate elections, a showing that did not materialize. As such, just hours after polls closed, a Bloomberg article speculating about Youngkin and 2024 have been made, admittedly behind a paywall that I can't read.

[8]

However, an article from the local fox affiliate:

[9]

Included a quote from Youngkin which all but confirmed that he has no intention on running for President, Instead focusing on the 2024 elections in Virginia. Although he hasn't plainly said "no, I'm not planning on running for president" this is about as definitive as we are going to get. As such, I propose removing Youngkin from the potential candidates list, however, would like to get a bit of a consensus before doing so.

Scu ba (talk) 06:41, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
got around the Bloomberg paywall, the article doesn't have any stance from Youngkin himself, but Youngkin's supporters, namely from his SuperPAC Spirit of Virginia who initially broached the 2024 idea, have abandoned Youngkin as a 2024 candidate, and are instead looking forward to the possibility of a 2028 run. Scu ba (talk) 15:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
NBC came out with a more definitive article. I added it to the page [10] Kevingates4462 (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Scu ba (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Iowa Governor endorsed Ron Desantis

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

List of Ron DeSantis 2024 presidential campaign primary endorsements - Wikipedia

So the map below is outdated a bit I guess

2024 United States presidential election Republican primary gubernatorial endorsements - 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia 2603:6011:9600:52C0:343C:AC35:4C0E:DF2A (talk) 03:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I would like to add her endorsement in the map but I can't because the file doesn't allow me to overwrite it Punker85 (talk) 22:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Declared major candidates pictures size

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is there any reasons on why the size of the pictures of the declared major candidates have been modified to match the pictures of the withdraw major candidates? Punker85 (talk) 01:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is Rick Perry?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For a substantial amount of time, Former Governor of Texas Rick Perry was one of the three candidates in the Publicly Expressed Interest section, along with John Bolton and Larry Hogan. However, I noticed Rick Perry had been removed and I wanted to know why. Dolce the Smorse (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

He hasn't expressed interest in running for the past six months. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
He mentioned thinking about running one or twice in April and hasn't said a word about it since. The policy is six months and since it's been six months he was removed, same will apply to Bolton at the end of the month. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Burgum dropped out

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Needs edit, source [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.227.51 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/north-dakota-gov-doug-burgum-drops-2024-presidential/story?id=105358098&cid=social_twitter_abcn

Ryan Binkley

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments6 people in discussion
Closure of an RFC on Talk:2024 United States presidential election supersedes discussion. Consensus to not list Binkley as a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:02, 11 November 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.

Who's Ryan Binkley, and has he received enough "substantial major media coverage" to qualify for the Major Candidates Table? The Des Moines Register and other sources mostly ask the self-same question I posed earlier, so I'm of the opinion that he should be removed from the table until and unless such coverage emerges. Thoughts? — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 02:23, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Danbloch, please see this discussion from last August: [11], where it was determined that Binkley was a major candidate as he met the five poll threshold. An RFC was started to revisit the criteria (I believe as a result of Binkley being listed), though I'm not sure where it is in the process. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks David. You're right. Dan Bloch (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The RfC has been open since August and shows no sign of either reaching a consensus or being closed. Scu ba (talk) 23:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Checking the RFC from that archive, is there no support for simply adding to the major candidate criteria that you must also be independently notable enough for a Wikipedia article? Binkley's AFD demonstrated he's not notable enough for an article on his own. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:43, 7 November 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.

Ryan Binkley and Corey Stapleton should be in the minor candidates section.

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Closure of an RFC on Talk:2024 United States presidential election supersedes discussion. Consensus to not list Binkley or Stapleton as a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:02, 11 November 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.

It's absurd people like Stapleton, a canidate with a non-existent presence in polling and in media coverage is considered a "major" canidate on the same level as Mike Pence or Will Hurd.

Similarly, i think it's absurd that Binkley who's not even notable enough for a wikipedia page, nor notable enough for major news coverage gets to be featurd alongside Trump and DeSantis. 2603:8080:4D00:4514:ACF4:FE7B:9A93:18C0 (talk) 05:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Fully agree, however, the preexisting qualifications for being a major candidate are: Having a prior notable office or have significant media coverage (5 articles) or be present in polls (10 entries)
Stapleton met the last requirement, despite polling at 0%, and Binkley met the last two, despite not having any articles about him alone, or about him before the election, meaning he isn't notable enough to have a standalone Wikipedia page.
There is an open RfC to change the requirements, but no conclusion has been reached since it was opened back in August.
Scu ba (talk) 23:23, 7 November 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.

Minor candidates

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

As we’re almost at the actual voting, I figured it might be-a good idea to list all those on the ballot, as a few of them may very well do better than a number of major ones. I got them from the Green Papers, other articles here, and a couple of official websites. Please put it in the main article

  • Scott Alan Ayers
  • Robert S Carney Jr.
  • John Anthony Castro (SC, NH & NV)
  • Heath V. Fulkerson
  • Peter Jedick
  • Donald Kjornes (NH & NV)
  • Mary Maxwell
  • Glenn J. McPeters
  • Scott Peterson Merrell
  • Darius L. Mitchell
  • Hirsh V. Singh (NH & NV)
  • Samuel Howard Sloan
  • David Stuckenberg (AL,SC,NH & NV)
  • Rachel Swift

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.21.22 (talk)

  • The only person on that list that should be included in the minor candidate section is Castro. The ONLY requirement to be listed on the minor candidates section is having a Wikipedia article. Scu ba (talk) 22:31, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

We had a ballot access table up in 2020, with a mention to all those that were on the ballot. So there probably will be something up in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Rollan Roberts

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Enlighten me as to why Rollan Roberts II was considered non-notable and removed from the other declared candidates section? He is the son of a state senator (Rollan Roberts and he's actually raised more contributions that Asa Hutchinson. Fryedk (talk) 19:45, 20 November 2023 (UTC)


Here are a few news sources about his campaign:

  • Roberts isn't considered notable enough for this article because there isn't a Wikipedia article about him yet. Note that two of the sources you cited are about him declaring his candidacy, and the other two are about him being slow to respond when his wife fainted during his announcement -- all four of those sources are from January 2023, and I can't find any more recent significant media coverage. In regard to Roberts being the son of a state senator, notability is not inherited. Finally, in regard to Roberts raising more money than Asa Hutchinson, through Sept. 30, 2023, Roberts reported receipts of $1,280,956 -- of which $1,276,000 consisted of loans to his own campaign (and only $4,956 consisted of contributions from other people). His total receipts were greater than Hutchinson's, but Hutchinson has raised more than 200 times as much from other people as Roberts has. Thus, Roberts' total receipts are greater, but his fundraising certainly doesn't indicate broad-based support outside his own home. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Binkley

Latest comment: 1 year ago16 comments7 people in discussion

Dunno about Stapleton, but Binkley made it on every ballot so far. He may do better than some of the other “majors,” as may some of the minor candidates listed a few sections down. Please put him back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.21.22 (talk)

When was this rule decided? I think it's a major disservice to exclude him from the article. He's gotten much more media coverage than Castro or Jackson. He has been covered by NBC [12], ABC [13], and NYT[14]
Also, the consensus reached in Talk:2024 United States presidential election was just to downgrade him from a major candidate to a minor candidate, not to exclude him altogether Kevingates4462 (talk) 07:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Okay, if you think he has enough coverage, make him an article, if that article doesn't get RfD, for a third time, we can include him in the minor candidates. Scu ba (talk) 15:57, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Also don't particularly want to burst your bubble, but only one of those sources is usable as a notable article on Binkley, the NBC article. the ABC link is to a video of Binkley speaking, and the NYT article is a profile on all candidates, not Binkley alone. Scu ba (talk) 17:29, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Terrisa Bukonivac was included on the Democrat side as a minor candidate for quite some time before she got an article-why is Binkley any different? Cas2024 (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Because that was an oversight by the editors of the Democratic page, Terrisa Bukovinac should not have been included prior to the creation of her page. Scu ba (talk) 17:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
It is shocking the way they have got rid of Binkley. The discussion wasn't even on this talk page, the criteria for inclusion in major candidates hasn't changed, and the user that closed the RFC was actively involved in the dispute, having removed Binkley from the polling page multiple times after he was added to Major candidates on here.2.103.97.60 (talk) 16:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem will simply go away if Binkley had a Wikipedia page. Binkley is not a major candidate by any stretch of the imagination, which is supported by the fact the man is not notable enough on his own merits to have a stand alone Wikipedia page. Scu ba (talk) 17:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Yang's Wikipedia page was created the same year he announced his Presidential campaign. So was Fred Karger's. It's not that rare to come from relative obscurity and have an impact on the election. He is a major candidate by the criteria we set out and the criteria that is still in place. I suspect that RFC closure will be challenged as the closer clearly had previous involvement in an edit war and a bias against keeping Binkley as a major candidate. 2% in an Iowa poll, 50,000 national donors, a professional campaign set-up and fundraising of several $M clearly shows a major candidate. 2.103.97.60 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Again, make a Binkley page and this entire problem goes away. Scu ba (talk) 19:30, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
@Scu ba, the RFC says Consensus to remove Ryan Binkley and Corey Stapleton as major candidates, and therefore to consider them as minor candidates. I think the specific RFC with consensus to consider Binkley a minor candidate overrides our local consensus to not include someone as a minor candidate without a wikipedia page. We shouldn't have to do another RFC and Binkley should be the only candidate without a wikipedia to be listed in the minor candidate list. Normally we don't list a candidate without a wikipedia page, but getting consensus in an RFC that you're a minor candidate is the exception. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
I've re-added Binkley to the Other declared candidates section. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:22, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Understood, I must've misinterpreted the RfC consensus. Scu ba (talk) 14:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Wanted to ask, and please feel free to point me in a different direction if this has been answered, but was a consensus ever reached on what the new rules to qualify as a major candidate are? I know we agreed Binkley and Stapleton should be placed in minor, but based on the old standards Binkley would definitely be a major candidate and Stapleton might. So I was just wondering if new qualifications have been officially declared or if this was just a consensus for this specific case (Which is obviously complicated by Binkley's lack of an article) 2603:8000:A642:5100:256A:333C:42FF:1EA5 (talk) 05:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
All we have is consensus to change Stapleton and Binkley to minor candidates. I think we apply the local consensus until its superseded by an RFC (Request for Comment). We do know we have consensus to change the criteria (There is also consensus to change inclusion criteria for major candidates, though no consensus for how inclusion criteria should be changed. Another Request for Consensus should be commenced to determine inclusion criteria for major candidates, especially regarding opinion polling results.), but we don't have any new criteria right now. Until we get a new criteria from a new RFC I'm not sure what else we could use as a standard other than the old standard. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Why is Ryan Binkley on Simple Wikipedia, but not regular Wikipedia? See [15]
I mean, why does he have a Bulgarian Wikipedia page? The answer is each language Wikipedia handles deletion separately. English Wikipedia has deleted his article twice ([16] [17]), while the Simple and Bulgarian language ones were never deleted. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Where is Rick Perry?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

For a substantial amount of time, Former Governor of Texas Rick Perry was one of the three candidates in the Publicly Expressed Interest section, along with John Bolton and Larry Hogan. However, I noticed Rick Perry had been removed and I wanted to know why. Dolce the Smorse (talk) 00:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

He hasn't expressed interest in running for the past six months. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
He mentioned thinking about running one or twice in April and hasn't said a word about it since. The policy is six months and since it's been six months he was removed, same will apply to Bolton at the end of the month. TheFellaVB (talk) 01:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Burgum dropped out

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Needs edit, source [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.111.227.51 (talk) 16:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/north-dakota-gov-doug-burgum-drops-2024-presidential/story?id=105358098&cid=social_twitter_abcn

Govenor's map needs to be fixed.

Latest comment: 11 months ago6 comments5 people in discussion

tate reeves, kim reynolds, and sarah huckabee sanders endorsement needs to be added to the map. CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 20:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I know but I can't update the file since overwriting on it is not allowed for normal users Punker85 (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I put in a request to allow updating a few hours ago. Longestview (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
It is done. Put any updates needed to the map on the talk page. Longestview (talk) 03:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I'll provide some explanation, since these types of requests may happen more frequently now (and I need to remember what the problem was). I also tried to update this map (and another for the Senate election article) but found I was unable to do so. I have made many such edits to maps in the past and was unsure why I couldn't now. If my understanding is correct, in the last few months, a policy change at Commons means that only the initial uploader or users with autopatrol rights can overwrite images (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/10#File_overwriting_is_now_limited_to_users_with_autopatrol_rights). This change was implemented globally due to repeated violations of the overwrite guidelines (which allow updating maps to reflect new data, by the way). To get autopatrol rights at Commons, an editor generally needs 500 good edits and to be active in the last 30 days. The options for this issue now seem to be 1) ask the initial uploader to make the change, 2) request autopatrol rights, 3) request an overwrite exception for the image, or 4) upload a new image, as was done here. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:07, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
as well as Burgum withdrawing 2603:6011:9600:52C0:F920:6291:A6FF:F5C9 (talk) 22:23, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Opinion polling graph

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is anyone else bothered by the fact that a chart gets a very prominent place on this page (it is a relatively large graphic and constitutes the only content in the "opinion polling" section) despite not citing a single source? Clicking to the "more details" page simply indicates that it is the "own work" of user BSMIsEditing, with absolutely no indication of where any of the data comes from. I am very tempted to remove it entirely unless someone can indicate why its data should be considered trustworthy. 2603:7000:3400:69F6:1CDD:DA8A:8FF4:324D (talk) 21:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I am bothered by it, but my assumption was that the reason we have the image there is because it is a stopgap solution while the Graph extension is fixed. More information on it is here: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Graph/Plans and here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T334940 (you can find these links on the old 2020 page graphs). It does seem like the Graph extension solution stuff is taking a while to be fixed so perhaps we should be looking for a more robust interim solution, but I wasn't entirely sure what was going on as I paused editing about 2 weeks before the Graph extension vulnerability was found in April of this year and have only been paying attention to articles in this space again for ~2 weeks so I at first didn't even know what going on and then just figured this was settled ground. Przemysl15 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Ballot Access Table Proposal

Latest comment: 11 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The current format of the ballot access table, with the primaries at the columns, is bound to get pretty unseemly once the ballot slates for all 50+ contests are published. With this in mind, I redesigned it in imitation of the table for the 2020 Democratic primary page, which has a column dedicated to each candidate whose campaign continued past the beginning of the primary season. This will be much more manageable given that there will only be six candidates at most as opposed to dozens upon dozens of contests. It also features the names of every candidate on the ballot rather than needlessly only highlighting those also-rans who happened to have enough money to get on two or more ballots. Let me know if I should implement this into the primary articles,or if it should be tweaked first!

Extended content
Ballot access in the 2024 Republican presidential nominating contests
Contest Date Christie DeSantis Haley Hutchinson Ramaswamy Trump Others Ref
NH
primary 		Jan 23              [A]
NV
primary 		Feb 6              [B]
NV
caucus 		Feb 8              [C]
SC
primary 		Feb 24              [D]
ID
caucus 		Mar 2              [E]
DC
primary 		Mar 3              [F]
AL
primary 		Mar 5              [G]
AR
primary 		             [H]
GA
primary 		             [I]
HI
caucus 		             [H]
FL
primary 		             [C]
ME
primary 		             [C]
Total possible delegates 424 / 463 463 / 463 437 / 463 247 / 463 463 / 463 463 / 463
  1. ^ Scott Alan Ayers, Ryan Binkley, Doug Burgum, Robert S. Carney Jr., John Anthony Castro, Peter Jedick, Perry Johnson, Donald Kjornes, Mary Maxwell, Glenn J. McPeters, Scott Peterson Merrell, Darius L. Mitchell, Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Hirsh V. Singh, Samuel Howard Sloan, David Stuckenberg, Rachel Swift
  2. ^ John Anthony Castro, Heath V. Fulkerson, Mike Pence, Tim Scott, Hirsh V. Singh
  3. ^ a b c Ryan Binkley, Doug Burgum
  4. ^ Ryan Binkley, John Anthony Castro, David Stuckenburg. Doug Burgum and Tim Scott also filed for inclusion, but withdrew their candidacies before the slate was finalized.
  5. ^ Ryan Binkley
  6. ^ Ryan Binkley, David Stuckenberg
  7. ^ Ryan Binkley, Doug Burgum, Tim Scott, David Stuckenberg
  8. ^ a b Ryan Binkley, Doug Burgum, David Stuckenberg
  9. ^ Ryan Binkley, Doug Burgum, Perry Johnson, Tim Scott, David Stuckenberg

- EditDude (talk) 04:06, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

I think this is fine. Probably don't need to specify which particular states are caucuses or primaries except for Nevada and Michigan. Longestview (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
I like this transposed format better. I wonder if the {{Yes C}} and {{No X}} templates could be used instead of {{Ya}} and {{Na}}, although I don't think the other version goes against accessibility guidelines. See the 2020 Republican table for how it looks with those templates. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Texas ballot access

Latest comment: 11 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Both Ramaswamy and Hutchinson are on the ballot, if you click on the link to the Texas Secretary of State candidate database next to the table ... they filed on Dec. 11th. Please change the table. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

It's been fixed.
The comment should have been left on the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates article. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:44, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Christie is Out

Latest comment: 10 months ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Somebody please remove Christie from canidates. He has dropped out: https://news.yahoo.com/chris-christie-drops-2024-gop-215308540.html 2600:1008:A113:5300:997B:A107:A66D:D4D4 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Why is it saying I can't edit the page? 2600:1008:A113:5300:997B:A107:A66D:D4D4 (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
It's currently protected. You may request an edit, but I can go ahead and change it once I verify your source. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
A source has said that Christie will drop out, but it's better to wait until Christie announces it before making any changes. https://apnews.com/article/christie-presidential-race-5e974cfa407d39af878f066a71af35ad Wikihelper910 (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the changes have already been made (a bit prematurely, I think). We should update the ref once it's officially announced. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
It's officially official: Christie is out. [18]. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. Philipnelson99 (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2024/ Asa Hutchinson

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Asa Hutchinson Just Dropped out [1] Re Di New Hampshire (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/16/politics/asa-hutchinson-suspends-campaign/index.html. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  Already done thank you! Staraction (talk | contribs) 19:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump Picture

Latest comment: 11 months ago7 comments2 people in discussion
  •  
    Current photo of Trump being used on the page

In my opinion Trump's photo looks off and unnatural, I feel like there are better photos of Trump from this year we can use such as the examples I provided of potential alternatives, If anyone knows of any better alternatives feel free to include them as well.

TheFellaVB (talk) 02:26, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the current photo look a bit off but the 2nd and 3rd alternative you proposed are over a year old and, on the 1st one, he is leaning to the left which doesn't look great for a portrait. So, I propose my own alternative
  •  
    Alternative 4

Punker85 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Personally I think photos from 2022 would be fine, although I can understand the sentiment of wanting one from 2023. I think your alternative is a good candidate, although some may take issue to the way it's lit. TheFellaVB (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the brightness of my proposition could be increase Punker85 (talk) 17:34, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Done Punker85 (talk) 21:27, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
There could also be potential alternatives, 6 & 7 have the issue of him facing a bit to the side but I don't think that's too big of a problem as Vivek & Hutchison's images are similar.
  •  
    Alternative 5
  •  
    Alternative 6
  •  
    Alternative 7

TheFellaVB (talk) 21:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

From what I know, people in pictures in infobox aren't supposed to face other people so the 6th and 7th alternatives aren't really recommended. The 5th one is mid because of the way he is smiling but it is my second preference choice from the current photo and all of the alternatives Punker85 (talk) 17:50, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

U.S. territories ballot access

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The table on ballot access for each candidate should include primaries and caucuses in the U.S. territories as well (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). I'm not sure how to edit the table myself. FireflyNV (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

States and territories are only added when the state GOP or secretary of state announces who is on the ballot. I'm not too sure on how the "territorial conventions" work, though. Longestview (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump Colorado ballot access status change

Latest comment: 10 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Due to recent developments in legal cases, I believe it's pertinent to change Donald Trump's primary ballot access status for the state of Colorado.

Trump has formally appealed the Colorado decision to SCOTUS on January 3rd.

Per the Colorado ruling, Paragraph 7:

"Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court. "

As review has been sought before the deadline, the stay will remain and Trump's name will appear on the ballot.

While it may be inaccurate to say Trump is definitively on the primary ballot in Colorado, stating that he is not is also misleading. Therefore I believe that Trump (and in turn, Ramaswamy) should be at least marked in a yellow color to most accurately signify this status. 97.116.41.53 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'll go ahead and change Ramaswamy and Trump to the green checkmark for the Colorado listing in the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates#Ballot access. (I'll also revise the wording in the footnote regarding Trump). If anything changes in the future, we can update it at that point. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_4&oldid=1204289878"