Talk:Robert F. Kennedy Jr. 2024 presidential campaign

Aren't both Kennedy and Shanahan from California?

I thought the president and the veep had to be from different states. HandsomeFella (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the rule is that when the Electoral College meets, they must issue certificates for a presidential candidate, and a vice-presidential candidate not from the same state as the presidential candidate. Since we have never had this happen, I don't know what they would do, but presumably they would be constitutionally barred from certifying both candidates as winners. There is no law that prevents them from appearing on state ballots as a ticket. BD2412 T 16:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

That seems like it could be potentially true in some cases but I don't think it would apply here. In 2022, California passed "faithless elector laws" in 2022, ensuring that the electors legally must vote in accordance with the popular vote. Therefore, if they won California, the electors would not be able to vote for Kennedy without voting for Shanahan, and the constitution would bar the votes from counting. It also looks to me as if California election law specifies that electors are named by the political party to vote for that party's nominees for President and Vice President, so there would be additional legal grounds to challenge an attempt to vote for Kennedy without voting for Shanahan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4808:2950:1100:4DA:FD5D:2815:7D6F (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If the situation arose where Kennedy and Shanahann won Massachusetts, the 11 electors could vote for either but not both, as states usually do. Zaathras (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

In May, the New York Post wrote some articles that RFK Jr is still technically registered as a New Yorker. Links and summaries below already. TLDR RFK Jr has a rental property in Downstate New York despite spending the vast majority of his time with his wife in Southern California. 2601:243:CF80:34B0:E882:C1A5:6C64:5066 (talk) 22:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Technically, the law goes by where one is registered to vote at rather than one lives. RFK Jr is technically still registered to vote in New York. New York Post article proof Other day article, same source In cases of primary residence versus legal residence, the law cares about the later. It would only become a problem if RFK Jr changed his paperwork to registering to vote in California. Ever since 2008, he has absentee voted as a New York resident. Every single legal documentation RFK Jr has is New York based. It's complicated, but it boils down to the California residence belonging to his wife, Cheryl Hines. Articles cited as proof go more in depth. 2601:243:CF80:34B0:E882:C1A5:6C64:5066 (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

The Israel and Gaza section of this page

Hello.

I think that the relevant information from the following article should be added to the "Israel and Gaza" section of this page.

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/2024-candidate-kennedy-questions-gaza-ceasefire-biden-energy-subsidies-2024-03-20/

David A (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Added a sentence on his anti-ceasefire stance. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2024

Remove the word “false” in the last line of the democracy subsection of the political positions group, as this is opinion based and not fact based 65.111.113.187 (talk) 07:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Not done. The change is not supported by the sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:39, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

extra endorsements not mentioned in article

https://www.kennedy24.com/eric_clapton_performance_kennedy_campaign eric clapton

https://www.instagram.com/p/CtKQ-ZPBy26/ alicia silverstone

https://www.newsweek.com/rfk-jr-pussycat-doll-jessica-sutta-viral-photo-1903000 jessica sutta

https://www.newsweek.com/pierce-brosnan-robert-kennedy-jr-support-sparks-fury-fans-1829066 pierce brosnan

https://www.foxnews.com/media/rob-schneider-supports-rfk-jr-president-says-dems-party-forever-wars-censorship rob schneider

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/rfk-scores-endorsement-three-high-profile-athletes john stockton and kyle warner

https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2023/06/08/tech-execs-musk-and-dorsey-boost-robert-f-kennedy-jrs-presidential-campaign-despite-controversial-claims/ elon musk and jack dorsey 2601:80:4683:A0:7130:A1BF:8580:3C2A (talk) 04:36, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Kansas lawsuit

Why are you calling facts appearing in this case Conspiracy theories when stated by RFK jr? It literally isn’t misinformation 2600:8804:6706:5F00:85DF:86E4:C54E:3F0A (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Please be more specific about the sentences in this article you would like changed. I don't see anything about a Kansas lawsuit. The word "Kansas" does not appear, there is no description I see of any suit or legal complaint filed by RFK Jr or his campaign. -- M.boli (talk) 15:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

more political parties that endorsed kennedy

alliance party of south carolina, how he got SC ballot access:

https://sc.theallianceparty.com/candidate_page

Peoples party:

https://www.peoplesparty.org/2023-2024

https://www.peoplesparty.org/rfk-independent 2601:80:4683:A0:4716:12A1:C15D:4B72 (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Slant

can this page be redrafted to be neutral? I know that's difficult with political figures but I value wiki usually doing a good job. Am having to look elsewhere for info on rfk jr because authors are loading every segment with reasons to discredit him. 216.212.231.61 (talk) 11:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Excessively cruel and opinionated opener

I don't even know that much about this guy, but isn't it a bit muchc to say he's "known for" spreading anti-vax rumors and conspiracy theories in theo pening paragraph? 2603:300C:1305:F800:4406:7AD9:9BAE:5541 (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

It's what he's known for and that's what the reliable sources say. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it really what he's known for? And even if it is, does this information really belogn in the introductary paragraph about an article that isn't even about him as a person, but about his campaign?

This is supposed to be a non-biased article educating readers about an ongoing presidental campaign. Keyword - unbiased. If a reader who didn't know about this campaign read this article, what exactly are they supposed to take from 'antivax/conspiracy theorist'? It makes him sound like Alex Jones.

If he is talking about these issues and viewpoints as a part of his campagin, I understand it being mentioned later, but I see it has no business in the opening statement of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_2008_presidential_campaign

Nothing in the opening paragraph or two talks about what Obama's radical views were. 2603:300C:1305:F800:F545:F5:DC8D:EA38 (talk) 20:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

to further elaborate on what i meant - this article is about the campaign itself. does rfk bring up anti-vax and "conspiary theories" as a part of his campaign itself? because i genuinely don't know - and the intro to this article isn't written in a way that tells me. it says HE believes in those things, but it does not make any mention as to if they are a part of his campaign.

the article needs attention as this comes off as excessively slanted. if he is 'known for these views', great - that belongs on either the page about him or later in this article IF AND ONLY IF those views are a part of his campaign itself. 2603:300C:1305:F800:F545:F5:DC8D:EA38 (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would prefer for other reasons not to use "known for". Readers know that the first few lines, and the lead in general, include a high-level summary of the topic. For biographies, that's "what they're known for". I'd rather we just say "An environmental lawyer, writer, and member of the Kennedy family, he advocates anti-vaccine misinformation and public health conspiracy theories." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I again insist that this is extremely biased and not fair to the introduction of an article about a campaign. To repeat myself again on two major points

-comparatively, another page about a campaign (Obamas) does not discuss his specific advocacies and political opinions, controversial or not, in the opening paragraph

-i don't think this information is relevant for a page about the campaign, but if it is, not in the opener - the opener to a page about the campaign itself should discuss a brief history of said compaign, not the political ideologies of the person in question. the article itself can discuss those things, but only if the person in question includes these talking points in their political campaign - nobody has answered me if this is the case yet

i continue to not know a damn thing about RFK. its not like i support the guy or anything. i just know that opening an informational page about a person running a political campaign currently and one of the first things i read being "blahlbalbhal and he supports anti-vaccine misinformation and conspiracy theories" puts a very icky taste in my mouth - it screams of an agenda and using wikipedia to push a platform that you personally believe in

i know this is probably a losing battle for me. i don't know the very specific jargon to say or what things to link to like WP:NPOV or whatever but i highly resent people who think this is a decent way to write an article on a living public figure and people like you are the reason ive finally decided to start learning how to be a wikipedia editor. 2603:300C:1305:F800:4406:7AD9:9BAE:5541 (talk) 13:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

A large part of RJK Jr.'s occupation is anti-vax conspiracy theorist. That is his job as head of Children's Health Defense, it is the subject of is most recent five books, his movies. When he announced for president much of the news reporting ID-ed Jr as an anti-vax conspiracy theorist in their lede paragraphs. Regarding your point of comparison: Obama campaign page IDs him by his notable occupation, a Senator. This page about RFK Jr. campaign follows the same pattern.

I tend to agree with @Firefangledfeathers that it might be better to remove is known for and simply, accurately, list these among the things he does. -- M.boli (talk) 13:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This webpage is supposed to be an unbiased article that allows the reader to form their own opinions on the subject. The opening paragraph is very clearly written with a negative connotation and at the very least needs to be rewritten.

This is compounded by the fact that many readers will read the word “Anti-vaccine”, form a negative opinion, and click away from the page due to this being the literal first thing they read.

Please fix this page. 2601:245:0:371:A59C:E5F0:647B:74BC (talk) 03:25, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The notion that an piece of text like this article can somehow manage to magically prevent people from forming opinions is pretty crazy. And there is nothing wrong with using words with negative connotations as long as they are true (or rather: well-sourced). --Hob Gadling (talk) 04:42, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

It doesn’t prevent people from forming opinions. This article provides negative information about RFK from the get go which makes it biased. As a result, people make biased judgements based off of the first paragraph.

I agree the information should be given to the reader, but instead of putting it in the first sentence of the page, give it a section in the middle like everything else.

Finally, after learning more about RFK, because I knew nothing when I came to this page, I can confirm this has nothing to do with his campaign and a stance on vaccinations are not a part of his campaign plan. So why would it be brought up in the introduction this page?

If it was written that Joe Biden was the lowest scoring president in terms of approval ratings after 3 years of service in his introductory paragraph, it would be true, but still frame him in a negative light(bias). It also wouldn’t be relevant to what the article is about. The same principle applies here. 2601:245:0:371:A59C:E5F0:647B:74BC (talk) 05:10, 29 June 2024 (UTC)