Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Biden and Trump pictures

I think we should make a decision on what pictures we use in the infobox. Using previous rematches as a precedent, there was no change in the pictures used in 1952 & 1956, both images were changed from 1896 & 1900, & only Cleveland's picture was updated from 1888 to 1892. This gives us options of what we think is best for this page. Seeing as Trump's official portrait has already been used twice I think it's best we use an updated photo as it's been 7 years since his portrait was taken. As for Biden I think we should do what we did for Trump and use his official portrait.

However whichever candidate wins we would obviously update their picture to whatever their official portrait is. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Technically, there is no WP on election pictures, this is basically just an unspoken rule. Lukt64 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. He’s not changed physically that much but it’s an obvious need for trump. A 7 year old portrait is odd, especially for someone who is known by nearly if not all people in the USA, and well known around the world. Biden too, a talk page was created below this giving good pictures for Biden. Option 5 personally is best in my opinion. May be 2 yrs old, but it’s still the most official and presidential. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I'd go with the 7-year-old official portrait for Trump. He tends not to photograph well due to his haphazardly applied-bronzer and high maintenance comb-over. The infobox photo need only look representative, and the official is close enough to his current appearance. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I disagree, considering that the age and cognitive functions of both candidates are a concern among voters, the images should be relatively recent to represent that concern. 7 years is too long ago and Trump's apparently lost a significant amount of weight recently.[1][2] I think there's also an argument to be made against using his official portrait as he will not be the incumbent at the time of the election. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

You want pictures of them drooling? C'mon. We don't push agendas and we don't intentionally post pictures that make the candidates look bad when there are acceptable alternatives. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't suggest any of that, I'm saying with how often age-related concerns are covered in news sources it's important that in the image of Trump, for instance, he's closer to 80 (he'll be 78 in June) than he is to 70 (when he was inaugurated). This photo is only from last year. Even if they were drooling all the time or you think Trump's fake tan is "haphazardly applied", the fact is we're not their propaganda arm and the onus is not on us to represent them any better than they represent themselves. GhulamIslam (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to have a picture of candidate Trump (recent) and the official portrait of President Biden, in 2020 it should have been the reverse, and that article should be edited. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 10:52, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Every U.S. election always uses official portrait and office images, for example, in 1992 and 1996, Bill Clinton's official portrait was used for 2 times although two times were sequence 4 years ago, so why? just using official portrait even through it doesn't reflect current face. Also in Wikipedia most of editors agree that using official presidential portrait is better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

@OCNative, could you please participate in the discussion here instead of making edits on your own accord? If you think the 7 year old photo of Trump should be used then please give your case as to why. Way I see it we've never used the same photo three times in a row for Presidential elections. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

to be fair there hasn’t been a 3 time major candidate for presidency, but u are right. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

There's been multiple, Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson, & Clay. In all cases the same picture isn't used throughout all their candidacies TheFellaVB (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I did not know there was a discussion going on here. However, it seems moot since there's no picture now at all. OCNative (talk) 22:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I think Trump photo should be a recent one, like this one, rather than his official presidential portrait since it would be more closer to his current appearance and he isn't the incumbent president Punker85 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree for reasons already stated. GhulamIslam (talk) 01:02, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I like that choice. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree for those reasons. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree for reasons you stated. It doesn't seem like there's any disagreement, when should we make the change? TheFellaVB (talk) 01:40, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

I think the change should be made 7 days after the last person made an opinion in the section, which currently mean it would be made on March 21, to see if any other people want to contribute to the question

I also think that Trump picture should be changed accordingly in the Republican ticket table Punker85 (talk) 03:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

The pictures are perfect right now, Candidate Trump vs President Biden, it should be the reverse in 2020. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 17:24, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

How are they perfect now? The Trump picture is 7 years old TheFellaVB (talk) 05:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This comment was made BEFORE the edit, they're terrible now. I stated Candidate Trump (2024) vs President Biden (2021) which was what it was for a small time, and I also believe it should be the reverse in 2020.

68.189.2.14 (talk) 07:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Consequentially everyone here seems to agree it should be Candidate Trump (the 2024 photo) vs President Biden (the 2021 photo), I don't know why it got reverted.

~~ ::::: 68.189.2.14 (talk) 07:56, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump has lost a significant amount of weight and is no longer the incumbent president. This photo is neither reflective of his appearance nor appropriate within the context. I believe we should revert back to the suggested change being made. PizzaSliced (talk) 07:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

So far it's been 6 days since anyone has said anything, can we make the change now? TheFellaVB (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I see 6 users wanting the change, 1 leaning for it, 1 against the change and 1 leaning against it. I think we can call that a consensus for changing Trump picture, so, yes, I think the change can be made. Here are the pictures for the infobox and for the Republican ticket table since it make sense that they both have the same picture of Trump Punker85 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr

Now that he has a running mate and appears to be a legitimate candidate as an independent, I think RFK Jr should be added to the infobox at the top of the page alongside Biden and Trump. Just as Ross Perot was in the article about the 1992 election. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

There are a number of open discussions on this page regarding the criteria for adding a candidate to the infobox. Please weigh in there. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

He does not have an Incumbent, he also doesn't even have a single state listing him as a Candidate on the Ballot. Qutlooker (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy is already on the ballot in multiple states and will appear in even more now that he has a Vice Presidential candidate. You're wrong. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Picking a running mate does not automatically get you on more ballots. Just ask Ted Cruz. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I know, I'm not stupid. But he does already have enough signatures in some states where all he needed was the VP choice. Again, I know it's a process. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

If there are states where all he needed to do was pick a VP to finalize his status on the ballot, that is something that I did not know. We would all benefit from a deeper state-by-state analysis of his ballot status. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I appreciate the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, he has only officially qualified for the ballot in Utah.. Prcc27 (talk) 20:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand it's a process, and Kennedy might not be officially on a state's ballot yet but he's already met the threshold. Thanks for the feedback. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Just because you have a VP doesn't mean you'll appear on the Ballot more, just look at Storm in '48 Qutlooker (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Going off of this, is there a way to mention Nicole Shanahan in Kennedy's campaignbox here? Can we possibly format his/Cornel West the way Biden and Trump are formatted in their party's section? I'm sure within a few months West will announce his running mate as well. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

I added a "running mate" column to that section. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Make'em into boxes like the Democratic & Republican (presumptive) tickets? Yeah, that would be cool. We must remember though, the Libertarian & Green tickets would be listed ahead of any independent tickets. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

He's now established his own political party called We The People (as a way to get easier ballot access in more states). Does this move the needle at all? Vjmlhds (talk) 22:53, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Does this actually get him on any ballots? – Muboshgu (talk) 23:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It makes it easier as being in a party requires fewer signatures Vjmlhds (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert F Kennedy Jr Infobox

Robert Kennedy Jr should be allowed in the infobox now that he's officially announced his running mate. He's polling in around 12% of the popular vote and is officially on the ballot in two states Hawaii and Utah, and awaiting certification in six other states, five which are toss up states,Arizona,Georgia,Michigan,Nevada,New Hampshire, and South Carolina. I could possibly understand waiting for him to be on the ballot in all 50 states before allowing him on the infobox but I still believe he should be allowed in the infobox now since he's shown he's a serious candidate with significant support among the voters. TheMilitaryHistorian1939 (talk) 03:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

There are several open discussions on this topic already. Please review the talk page before starting a new topic. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

We're currently discussing this. This belongs here.

Thanks! :) KlayCax (talk) 20:16, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@TheMilitaryHistorian1939:. KlayCax (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nominee box

What is the criteria for having a nominee box? Traditionally it had been ballot access, but RFKJR and Cornell West both do not have sufficient ballot access, yet both have a nominee box. Is the criteria “significant media coverage” and/or ballot access? If we do not come up with requirements, we could end up with several third party nominee boxes in the article. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Don't know. But when the time comes, the Libertarian & Green tickets will be listed before the two independent tickets. GoodDay (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 I'm gonna be quite honest

Since Wikipedia's founding, there have been 5 US Presidential Elections and 2 in the modern divisive age of 2016 onward. Why are we now bringing up ballot access as a requirement when this was probably brought up on those prior articles during those elections which as far as we know, hasn't become precedent. Buildershed (talk) 18:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure it was the consensus in past articles..? If you had ballot access to 270+ EVs you would be included, if not, you would still be included, but just not in a nominee style box. Unless I’m remembering the consensus wrong.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Adjustment of RFK Jr Campaign section infobox

Could the infobox for the RFK Jr Campaign section be adjusted to be the same as the "ticket" infoboxes above for consistency. Buildershed (talk) 14:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose if/until he gets enough ballot access and/or qualifies for the main infobox. The regular table seems WP:DUE for candidates that lack ballot access. Not sure what to do about the Green and Libertarian nominees. Would we wait until those parties get enough ballot access before adding them, or would they automatically get nominee style tables since they had sufficient ballot access in 2020? Prcc27 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Support He is a Major Candidate. And There are many reasons why. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Neutral - I think his & West's already have been. Looking over the other Year US presidential election pages? We've got quite a few minor tickets shown in the same box form as the major tickets. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Pretty sure all of those tickets had sufficient ballot access; RFKJR and Cornell West do not. Prcc27 (talk) 19:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy ballot access

Lukt64, Kennedy is certified for the ballot in Utah and Hawaii. See: [3]. Six states are still pending certification. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, its more than one. Lukt64 (talk) 03:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

10 (certified) + 61 (awaiting certification) + 66 (automatic write-in) = 137. Halfway there? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:54, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Muboshgu In a hypothetical and unlikely scenario, if RFK Jr. got all those 137 EVs, he would easily make it extremely difficult for Joe Biden or Donald Trump to reach 270, easily leading to a contingent election. Buildershed (talk) 05:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

That is true, but I was being awful generous in adding them all up as though he can win them. What's the most a write-in campaign has gotten in a statewide popular vote? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Both Thurmond and Biden have achieved 63% of the vote with write-in campaigns. Collorizador (talk) 17:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Strom in 1954 is interesting. Biden in this year's NH primary is a situation without comparison due to the background factors that led to an incumbent president not being on the primary ballot.

What's the most a write-in campaign has gotten in a state in a presidential general election? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Might not be the most ever (I don't know), but Sanders cleared 5% in Vermont in 2016 without a campaign even (qualifying for infobox). Collorizador (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No it’s not. In Hawaii his party qualified, but that party still needs to nominate him, if they have not already. Prcc27 (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

He just got access in North Carolina Lukt64 (talk) 03:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

His campaign says he has; that's not the same thing.

Per this Guardian article, only Utah has confirmed his ballot access.

[4] David O. Johnson (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 April 2024

Is it possible to consider sorting "Forecasts" by date? The current editing method seems to have no rules. Cbls1911 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree this would be more useful and can't see any problem with it. Sabato just needs to be moved 2 columns to the right, but moving columns in a large table like this is a non-trivial task. I should have time to do this later today if nobody objects. Jamedeus (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done Wasn't as hard as expected, since columns can be moved at the click of a button in Visual Editor (sort of like in Word and Excel). The result looks fine, but ping me if it messed things up. Liu1126 (talk) 17:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I didn't realize the visual editor could do this, maybe I need to venture out of source. Jamedeus (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you all for replying so quickly. Cbls1911 (talk) 18:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Clean out the primary cruft please

With official presumptive nominees for both major parties, minimal WP:SUMMARY coverage should be included for each major party primary. Look at 2020 United States presidential election; it doesn't need to be identical but I don't see why we would want much more space dedicated to candidates that are no longer in contention. Please undo this reversion of my removal of charts and pictures of candidates that are no longer in contention. -- Jfhutson (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted it. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I've long thought the DeSantis bit is too lengthy for someone who was fading away by mid-2023. Would it be appropriate to pare it now?GreatCaesarsGhost 18:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should cover the primary challengers in one paragraph, and then maybe a paragraph on the official process ahead. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 April 2024

The summary says that he was divorced ("div.") from Mary Richardson on 2010. That's inaccurate, as the text of the entry correctly reveals. He filed for divorce in 2010 and in 2012, before the divorce was finalized, she died by suicide. The summary should be corrected so that it does not list a 2010 divorce. Rather, I suggest, it should say: "(deceased 2012)". xtremErisa (talk) 14:21, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you are referring to the infobox on Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in which case this is done. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:22, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

 Already done per above statement. Antrotherkus 20:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Issues section: Donald Trump’s legal issues

The former president and presumptive nominee’s legal issues have been a major focus of both party’s campaigns so far and should be added to the campaign issues section, especially since the redirect page listed at the top of the section includes a similar overview of Trump’s indictments. This article is incomplete without it. Utopiayouser (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel as though this deserves a response. Utopiayouser (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

How is Trump’s legal issues a campaign issue? It is a personal issue for Mr. Trump, not a policy issue. Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It's certainly relevant to the topic of this page, deserving of a SUMMARYSTYLE paragraph. Not sure where it goes though. -- JFHutson (talk) 16:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion it should go in the campaign issues section for a few reasons. First, the main page article for the campaign issues contains it, and it’s good to be consistent across pages. Second, it’s an issue that both sides are campaigning on. Finally, I think it should be included because it will have some effect on a statistically significant number of voters. I’m open to putting it elsewhere but it should be on this page somewhere and it isn’t Utopiayouser (talk) 03:26, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I think "Democracy" covers Trump's alleged election-related crimes. I don't believe I've seen evidence of the NY fraud case or the FL file-retention case being election issues. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

They are "election issues" in the sense that RSes expect the fact that they are going on will impact the election. Lots of discussion out there on whether the timing of those judicial processes will impact public opinion, and hence the election result. -- JFHutson (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Would probably fit better in the background section, or some other section, if included. Campaign issues should only be policy issues. Prcc27 (talk) 19:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 April 2024

Update Trump picture per previous discussion here Punker85 (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done —Sirdog (talk) 08:07, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of RFK Jr. from the infobox of states he has ballot access in

@Esterau16: there's an overwhelming consensus from the RFC that candidates who are polling:

• Above 5-10%
• Have ballot access

Should be listed in the infobox. Why did you just mass delete? Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you citing an open RfC on this page to assert a consensus on other pages?

An open RfC that you introduced with The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 11:12 pm, 13 March 2024, Wednesday (15 days ago) (UTC−7)? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Appearing in a state infobox is a less stringent criteria for inclusion than that of appearing in the national one.

I can't imagine that any editor would think it merits inclusion in the national without also stating the same for the state level. KlayCax (talk) 17:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

He's not on the national infobox. And where is the citation that RFK has ballot access in these states you've added him to? I only see Utah [5]. You've also noted on your edit summaries that the "write-in" access was approved by the RFC, when the consensus was clearly for ballot access (only 2 editors supported write-in access). GreatCaesarsGhost 17:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's based off of ABC News/FiveThirtyEight, his campaign website, and every state he has write-in ballot access. While not a reliable source in of itself: Wikipedia lists the current situation + other sources here as well.

For purposes of consensus:

• 1.) I included current RFC responses (As there's not an American "national election": there's 51 state elections. Meaning that what applies to the state also applies to the "national" but not vice versa, by definition.)
• 2.) Prcc27 and multiple other editors comments (I'm aware you were a notable dissent in terms of ballot access. Yet there was a clear majority, with editors such as Prcc27 saying that write-in access counted as well.)

RFK isn't presently in the infobox. But there's a clear consensus that candidates merit infobox inclusion (including RFC) in elections where they have:

• 1.) Ballot access
• 2.) 5%+ of the votes (Per the overwhelming majority of #1a, #1b, #1c, and #6 responses favoring infobox inclusion under these circumstances.)

Both clearly apply in the states where has ballot access. KlayCax (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We won't know if RFK Jr gets 5% of the vote in any state until November 5 at the earliest. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

No, but we do have polling in the majority of states in question, where Kennedy meets the requirements listed in the RFC. (Meets #1b and #6 by securing ballot access.) KlayCax (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

He does not have ballot access. Neither of the links you have provided indicate that RFK has ballot access. The Wikipedia article you link has no citation saying this either. And for good reason: he only has access in Utah. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:13, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight confirms him as presently having ballot access in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, and Nevada. (CTRL + F and go to "Of outsider campaigns, Libertarians lead in ballot access so far" to see it.) No registration for write-in access is required in Oregon, Wyoming, Iowa, Alabama, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Vermont, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island.

He's qualified in New Hampshire and other states as well. KlayCax (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

538 says "a party/candidate has or appears in line to have ballot access". The Axios headline literally says "RFK Jr. campaign says he's qualified for New Hampshire ballot." I don't believe you are operationg in good faith here. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Do we have evidence to conclude that the statement is misleading? I can really only see a case for withholding it from Hawaii and Nevada. KlayCax (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

e.g. I can't imagine that a campaign would intentionally stop asking for signatures without ensuring that they have the numbers.

We generally go off of campaign self-reports of ballot access in Wikipedia articles. Perhaps they're lying, but it would hurt them to do so if anything. KlayCax (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts. We do not rely on the claims of a primary source for controversial claims, especially when those claims are favorable to the speaker (and when the source in question is infamous for promoting disinformation). GreatCaesarsGhost 18:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be idiotic if they stopped canvassing for ballots if the campaign is lying. It goes against their self-interests in this case.

Trump is also a pathological liar (in my mind) and we've generally taken his campaign's statements as reliable in the narrow regards of ballot access. KlayCax (talk) 19:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

You don't object to Utah being added, however, correct? @GreatCaesarsGhost:.

I don't have a strong opinion either way on whether we wait for official confirmation. KlayCax (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Polling doesn't mean that much, especially this early. "Poll Shows Dukakis Leads Bush", NYT, May 17, 1988, for one. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it does. As for the accuracy of polling itself: it's been consistently solid. Sure, I wouldn't be surprised if Kennedy Jr. drops, but that would be WP: CRYSTAL in of itself. KlayCax (talk) 18:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It's CRYSTAL to assume it would hold. I expect that the Pew graph you showed is comparing late October polls to November results, not March polls. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We're not assuming. The infobox inclusion is based on present numbers. KlayCax (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I meant "hold" as far as November results go. Today's poll results don't predict November's results, which would be the only reason to pay attention to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

How late would it apply for you? If Kennedy's polling 15% in June: should we still wait? KlayCax (talk) 19:55, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Nationwide or state? What meaning is there to a 15% nationwide poll result in any month when he's not going to appear on most ballots? I've been clear in these discussions that he shouldn't go in the infobox without results. 538 had a good analysis about how polling this early is not predictive of results, I can't find it right now. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Found it – Muboshgu (talk) 20:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Either/or. KlayCax (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

It may not mean much for the election, but it does mean something for the criteria of inclusion. PeacockShah (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't know that about Trump or Biden either, technically, and he's polling as if he will. PeacockShah (talk) 20:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Kennedy is only on the ballot officially in Utah, see [6]. Since there is no Utah presidential polling featuring Kennedy he shouldn't appear in that infobox. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:22, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

There isn't generally polling at all outside of the swing states. Many states in 2020 had essentially no polling conducted. KlayCax (talk) 18:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

If this is just a dispute about Kennedy's ballot access in Nevada: then we can leave it out for now and wait for the dust to settle. KlayCax (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

• Question: even if we all agreed that the 5-10% rule applies to polling and not just final vote share, would it then be dictated by national polling or state polling for state infoboxes? Hypothetically, let's say Kennedy's support is strong in national polls. Meanwhile, he appears on the Hawaii ballot, but only polls at 2% in that state. What would be the protocol then? --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:27, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  As the "national" presidential election is essentially independent state elections: I would lean towards state.

  I would also say that Kennedy Jr. shouldn't be included in the infobox if he's ruled ineligible for a state's electoral votes. (As in California, presently, due to both him and his VP being from the state.)

  At least until the hypothetical scenario in which he gets 5%+ in the state. (With a note then stating that he can't get electors if it occurs.) KlayCax (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  One of them could simply move out of California. That’s what Dick Cheney did when he ran with Bush (also a Texan), and moved out of Texas. Prcc27 (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  According to Snopes, the idea that two candidates on the same ticket cannot be from the same state is incorrect and actually only applies to electors. [7] David O. Johnson (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Snopes article is about the United States Constitution prohibiting it. California has statewide rules that prohibit it. Two different things. KlayCax (talk) 00:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  According to which source..? Prcc27 (talk) 01:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  The Atlantic mentions it here:

  Like Kennedy, Shanahan lives in California.... Her current partner is a cryptocurrency maven. Shanahan’s status as a California resident will likely be a setback for their campaign. The state’s election law mandates that California electors “shall vote by ballot for a person for President and a person for Vice President of the United States, one of whom, at least, is not an inhabitant of this state.” In simpler terms, this means that the Kennedy-Shanahan ticket will be ineligible to compete for their home state’s 54 electoral votes come November, even if it is on the ballot..

  KlayCax (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  @Prcc27:, unless Kennedy or Shanahan moves out of state, he can't get electoral votes from California. KlayCax (talk) 02:29, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  That does not disqualify them from *running* together. It just means in the unlikely event that they win California, their electors would only be able to vote for one or the other; not both. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

  I suspect he or his running mate would just move out of state, @Prcc27:. Like you mentioned. But we'd probably have to have a note. KlayCax (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• In addition to name on the ballot, I would advocate for either 5% in the state poll or presence in the national infobox. GreatCaesarsGhost 11:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: the RFC you speak of, hasn't been closed yet. Until then, we won't know what its consensus will be. Anyway, shouldn't there be a better place than here, to discuss inclusion criteria in state infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I didn't want to make one for each individual page, @GoodDay:, and it definitely ties into the ongoing RfC.

It's clear that Kennedy Jr. would at least qualify for Utah's infobox no matter the outcome of it. (As he has both ballot access + 10%+ support) KlayCax (talk) 20:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

He should clearly be included based on the archived discussion here. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 14:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In that discussion I said he needs to be polling at 5% or 10% consistently in a state to be included. Where are the polls which show he is polling that high in Utah, for example? Prcc27 (talk) 15:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Creation of separate article for primaries

I noticed that a user recently removed the primary candidates from the Democratic and Republican sections because they deemed them no longer relevant to the overall topic. While I don't necessarily agree with this, I can see why it was done, and is also why I'm proposing something similar to a 2024 counterpart of the article "2020 United States presidential primary elections," where all of the summarized info about the primary campaigns are included to take some weight off of the monstrous main article. I know it might be too early to for a split like this, but seeing as the primaries are virtually over and the exclusion of primary candidates is unlike the other U.S. presidential election articles before 2020, I just wanted to put this out there as an option. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If we used "2020 United States presidential primaries and caucuses" & "2024 United States presidential primaries and caucuses", as page names? A split would be acceptable. GoodDay (talk) 15:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

From what I see, the 2020 United States presidential primary elections article seems to be a summary of all of the primaries that link into. I don't think it would be useful to create an article similar to this one who would essentially be a summary of the articles on the different primaries who add pretty much nothing compared to the main article and the articles on the different primaries Punker85 (talk) 22:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Potential Rewording of Section "Democracy", under "Campaign Issues"

I believe it may be prudent to replace the phrase "by any means necessary" with "extra-electorally", as "by any means necessary" seems to be unencyclopaedic, vague, and perhaps somewhat foreboding?

CKpineapplelover (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree. Also, "Many Republicans are concerned with attempts to prevent former President Trump from holding public office by any means necessary" sounds like we are using Wikipedia's voice in referring to "attempts to prevent". I offer as a alternate: Many Republicans have expressed concern that the myriad legal proceedings against Trump are a pretext to illegally deprive him of access to the democratic process. GreatCaesarsGhost 20:16, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above re-wording proposals. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Polling chart vandalized

Hello. It seems the creator of that chart decided to vandalize it on commons, because why not. He explicitly commented "adding error"… Enough for a block? I mean his intentions are clear, people are going to think those black parts are normal. Encyclopédisme (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Seems like this was probably a mistake. The creator has been contributing to the project for several years in good faith. I'm not technically proficient as to ascertain what happened, but the file looks fine on Commons. Also, vandalism to what end? "adding error" in the edit summary could refer to margin of error. Did you try pinging him? GreatCaesarsGhost 20:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

He did that to other charts he made at one point or another. It’s probably supposed to be joke, or it’s something technical. Don’t know if he changed it. Look at the history, when he added those black stripes he clearly wrote "adding error"… That’s clear writing to me. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

He quickly changed it. It stays vandalism, and a bad joke. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Just checked the history again. Someone else changed it. Look up the history. Encyclopédisme (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

It is not vandalism, it is a problem that unvoluntary happens sometimes with polling charts Punker85 (talk) 21:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

He commented "adding error". I’m not backing down until I have an explanation from him, personally. Or might you potentially, in all good faith, be a sock puppet? What brings you to this talk page? Do you know how commons works? How and why does this problem occur, according to you? Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Cool it. Longestview (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

"Adding error" can easily be interpreted as fixing an error in addition (which is what I initially thought) or adding error bars, as mentioned above. (Update: It is adding error bars, as confirmed by a recent edit.) You are reminded to assume good faith, which doesn't include baseless accusations of sock puppetry. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Echoing the other repliers. You must stay civil in your comments. Anger is not the solution. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You want to tell me to stay civil? I am asking for a response thats all. I have time. Seriously though, it is weird. I am assuming good faith. I am. But I would like an explanation. And I hope you also want an explanation. It seems no error was fixed. "Adding error" is a weird way to summarize an edit which is - well - adding an error. Encyclopédisme (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

We're all telling you to stay civil. "Assuming Good Faith" means starting with the belief that the change was an accident. You started with an accusation of vandalism (that frankly makes no sense). Now you say you are just looking for a response, but you didn't even tag the user. I asked at their talk page, and got a response in under two hours. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:04, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I will have to shut it now, I guess. Good day. Encyclopédisme (talk) 12:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Polling aggregators

A few weeks ago, I removed RealClearPolitics from the 3-way race section of our polling aggregators, as it seemed quite clear they were no longer tracking that race actively. Now I'm seeing that "Race to the White House" has only added 5 polls of the race since Feb 1 (and 3 from the same pollster). by way of comparison, The Hill has 50 polls in the same time. ~ I understand the intent to here to list multiple aggregators as to reflect different opinions and weighting done by different sites. But I think if one site is only listing 10% of the available polls, they are failing to serve the purpose of an aggregator. For us to present their average alongside The Hill's gives it credence it does not seem to deserve. I'd like to suggest we remove RttWH now, with the understanding that we can add back any aggregators that appear to be taking the task seriously in the future. Thoughts? GreatCaesarsGhost 19:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

There may be very valid methodological reasons why a polling aggregator is excluding various polls from their aggregate, for example they may be excluding polls that don't meet a sample size threshold or polls that use only online responses. Simply handpicking which aggregators you personally think are more accurate than others is not a valid reason for including or excluding a particular website and violates Wiki:SYNTH.XavierGreen (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Well sure, "handpicking which aggregators you personally think are more accurate" would be invalid, but that's not what I'm suggesting. I'm saying it would be reasonable for us to evaluate collectively if there are valid methodological reasons for omitting 90% of polls or if the aggregator is just being lazy. I would note in this case that RttWH does have a listed methodology for weighting, and the pollsters it includes for the 3-way race are poorly rated by them. But there is no listed policy for excluding pollsters. Further, polls listed at The Hill and omitted from RttWH include many long-standing reputable pollsters (NYTimes/Siena, Rasmussen). Given all these facts, I can see no reasonable conclusion other than RttWH is not taking the task seriously. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

And your conclusion in itself violates Wiki:Synth.XavierGreen (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Please explain how assessing the quality of a source is in anyway related to synth. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I see the problem now. RttW is no longer maintaining their 3- and 4-way trackers. Instead, they are listing all 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5- way polls on a single chart they are calling "National + 3rd Party." The resulting average currently shows a 4-way output (incl West but omitting Stein), but I assume they will modify this based on the West's average being above as certain threshold. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

RFC: Should presumptive nominees be listed in the infobox? (Question 2)

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is overwhelmingly clear that major party candidates should be included in the infobox now, and inclusion for third party candidates is pending another RfC. (non-admin closure) Prcc27 (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

---

There has been a longstanding debate on this page about when candidates should be added into the infobox.

1. Wait until the major party conventions nominate their chosen candidates.
2. Wait until we see which candidates will ultimately qualify for the infobox, per the decided upon criteria of the above RFC.
3. Include major party candidates now; decision for third-party candidates should be decided upon criteria of the above RFC.

The results of this RFC should not be interpreted as WP: PRECEDENT outside of this article. KlayCax (talk) 06:36, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option #3 I'm okay with listing Biden and Trump now, that they are presumptive nominees (enough delegates to clinch the nomination). – Muboshgu (talk) 18:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option #3 As long as major party candidates have the majority of delegates, they should be included. Wikipedia1010121 (talk) 19:44, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option #3 for the reasons mentioned above. But keep the "presumptive" labels until after their respective conventions. --Woko Sapien (talk) 18:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option #3 seems obvious and is consistent with #6 in the first part of this RfC. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option #3:

  I support RFK in the infobox. Whether it's now or after the election, he almost certainly will be added at one point. IEditPolitics (talk) 15:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

  Kennedy could easily drop out of the race, between now & election day. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

  That is 100% certainly NOT going to happen Lukt64 (talk) 20:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  We have no idea what will or won't happen. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  He shouldn't be added before the election and should only be added after if he wins 5% of the popular vote or a state. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option #3 - We do mention them as "presumptive", so no problem. GoodDay (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option #3 sounds fair. _signed, SpringProof ^talk 05:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• @KlayCax when does the rfc close 170.10.51.116 (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

  RfCs are not normally time-limited. That said, Legobot will remove the {{rfc}} tag and delist the RfC thirty days after the first timestamp, that is to say at approximately 07:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC), unless the RfC is terminated early or extended. More information at WP:RFCEND. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• Option 3 because the coverage clearly treats it as decided, but note that this is dependent on coverage. --Aquillion (talk) 05:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
• Option 3 - It's pretty clearly the best and most obvious option for how to do this. Fieari (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2024 (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.

Wikipedia usually uses official portraits for infoboxes.

Why has Trump's 2017 presidential portrait been replaced with a non-official 2023 one in all infoboxes? WorldMappings (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Because it have been decided in this discussion that a more recent picture of Trump should be used instead of his presidential portrait Punker85 (talk) 22:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump's presidential portrait is 7 years old and does not reflect his current appearance. A more recent photo is necessary. AmericanBaath (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You had over 2 weeks if not a month to contribute to the discussion. TheFellaVB (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Lol I think so, well actually everyone's lines which said that because the official portrait doesn't reflect his current appearance. But they don't explain why Bill Clinton's official portrait appears twice in 1992 and 1996. Memevietnam98 (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It's a photo from 1993, one and three years from those respective elections. Clinton didn't look particularly different in those time periods. I'm not sure if anything about Trump has changed beside oranginess but the seven year span for his photo is over twice the largest one for Clinton's. AryKun (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Trump image

I suggest we use this one: File:Donald Trump (53299658788) (cropped).jpg It's front-facing and not at an angle that potentially obscures trump's face like the first image. Furthermore, it's more recent Expoe34 (talk) 03:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The photo looks very unnatural and off putting, I think there are far better alternatives than the one you suggested. TheFellaVB (talk) 05:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. That's not at all a representative photo of Trump. HiLo48 (talk) 06:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Donald Trump photo in infobox

How come Trumps official presidential portrait isn't being used for the infobox but it is for the Republican primaries section? Also, if Biden wins, should we replace his portrait in the infobox with a more up to date picture of him until his second portrait is released? CY223 (talk) 04:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be due to the consensus generated at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 7#Biden and Trump pictures, which found to change the image to what it is now and keep Biden's the same. Courtesy pings to participants: @TheFellaVB, @IEditPolitics, @GhulamIslam, @GreatCaesarsGhost:, @Wikipedia1010121, @Lostfan333, @Punker85, and @PizzaSliced. —Sirdog (talk) 04:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

And what are the chances that if Biden wins his portrait in the wikibox is replaced with a more up to date photo of him until his second portrait is released? CY223 (talk) 06:26, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It depends on a high quality image being available and proposed. This other discussion gives some insight to that question. Note that the two images gaining most support are the oldest. While the picture should be somewhat contemporaneous, the quality of the photo comes largely into play. The age in absolute terms is less concerning when the target is elderly, as the appearance changes less. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like it'd be unnecessary. It's only going to be a three month gap in-between the election and the second official portrait being released should he win. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

While the discussion was also about Biden picture, it was Trump picture that was mainly discussed in the page and, so, I think this discussion should prevail over the other one since it was specifically about Biden picture and it have a lot more responses than the other discussion Punker85 (talk) 15:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

It's really funny how people will be upset at a decision even though they had 2+ weeks to contribute to the conversation yet chose not to TheFellaVB (talk) 06:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

To the first question: I mentioned in the discussion about Trump picture that, if Trump picture should be changed in the infobox, his picture should be changed accordingly in the Republican ticket table, which my proposition for the picture was this. Since nobody opposed nor approved my suggestion, I guess that his picture in the Republican ticket table should be changed? 🤔 Punker85 (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I think the image in the ticket table should be changed accordingly and approve of your suggestion. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:27, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree the image in the ticket section should match the one in the main info box XboxGamer2002! (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of using his official portrait as long as it is a better quality photo and Trump has his gaze turned towards the lens. This portrait is more correct. Besides, Wikipedia must be neutral. It is not up to Internet users to choose one photo over another. I don't see why Biden would be entitled to his official portrait and not Trump since there is a consensus on Wikipedia to use the official portraits of American presidents in the Infobox when possible. Sthubertliege (talk) 06:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not aware of a WP on election pictures. Actually, in all cases of 3-time major presidential candidates (Nixon, FDR, Cleveland, Bryan, Jackson, Jefferson & Clay) the same picture isn't used throughout all their candidacies. GhulamIslam (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Every U.S. elections always using official portrait but not in presidential primaries so then. Memevietnam98 (talk) 10:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

• Use Trump's portrait. We've essentially used official portraits for nearly every election article. Plus, Trump's 2017 portrait doesn't show a drastically different Trump/no change in appearance. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:52, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'd argue it's quite a difference -- People's appearance can change a lot in 7 years, for example, Trump's noticeable weight loss. Portraits used should be an accurate portrayal of that person's appearance in that specific time frame, which, in my view, supersedes how "official" a portrait is. Biden, on the other hand, remains much more similar. Longestview (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I like this photo better. It’s relatively recent, and seems more presidential. Prcc27 (talk) 05:20, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

My preference is for his official presidential portrait (2017). But if it is decided to choose a more recent picture, I agree this one is better than photo currently used. Sthubertliege (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a short majority is in favor using Trump official presidential portrait. 2A02:2788:72A:37D:18D7:7A33:6228:6B6C (talk) 05:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it does not look like there is consensus, especially not as much of a consensus as the previous discussion on the matter. Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2024

...the first being Grover Cleveland. → ...the first being Grover Cleveland in 1885. For clarity, and since the year was included in "This will mark the first presidential rematch since 1956." Bigfatman8766 (talk) 01:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done ZionniThePeruser (talk) 20:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Mystery maps

Current popular vote results of the 2024 Democratic presidential primaries

Current results of the 2024 Republican presidential primaries

Are these maps supposed to convey some kind of information? If so, it isn't working. Nosferattus (talk) 22:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Why yes, it is supposed to communicate information: which candidates won which states' popular votes in the primaries. I can see how a lack of a legend makes it hard to determine. I have added legends to the maps. Longestview (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It Feels like the RFK section should come sooner, directly after the republican section finishes.

Also I feel like his picture should be at the top along with Biden and Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.205.250.115 (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

It is unquestionable that RFK is performing better than any third party candidate in recent history. Whether that raises to a level where he gets special treatment on the page like a Perot or Anderson is not a simple question because we have election results for those two but not RFK. The consensus is fairly clear that he doesn't get in the infobox at this moment, and I think it reasonably follows that special placement on the page be treated the same. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

SCOTUS portraits?

Should Supreme Court Justices portraits be included in the abortion section? I think it is bizarre to have SCOTUS justice portraits in an article about the presidential election. Not to mention, 3 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe were arbitrarily chosen to be included over the other two. I feel like a pic of an abortion protest in front of the SCOTUS building or a map of abortion legality by state would be a better image to have in that section. Portraits should only be for presidential candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that they should be removed. I understand what point the portraits are trying to make with the caption but there is no need to have their pictures. Everything about how Dobbs/abortion is an important issue can be conveyed in prose in that section. Yeoutie (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The reason only the portraits of Amy Coney Barret, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh were chosen instead of all the justices who voted to overturn it was because those three justices who overturned Roe were also appointed by Donald Trump, who is now running for reelection and has taken credit for overturning it. I previously had a map of abortion legality in the states for the section but decided to replace it with an image of the justices as the map was very big and sort of "bled" into the other sections and was visually unappealing. I didn't want to include another protest picture as we have one for the LGBT section. Hope this explains my decision making process. BootsED (talk) 01:36, 1 May 2024 (UTC)