Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Poguetry (talk | contribs)
63 edits
Line 586: Line 586:
Many of the polls in the Democratic favorability section look like they sample the entire electorate and not strictly potential Democratic primary voters. [[User:Poguetry|Poguetry]] ([[User talk:Poguetry|talk]]) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Many of the polls in the Democratic favorability section look like they sample the entire electorate and not strictly potential Democratic primary voters. [[User:Poguetry|Poguetry]] ([[User talk:Poguetry|talk]]) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what suggests that. The favorability ratings for the Democrats in those polls are too high to represent a poll that includes Republicans. More importantly, though, I don't think that a favorability poll is particularly useful in this context; I have a favorable opinion of [[Betty White]], but that doesn't mean I want her to run for President. Since we have actual presidential preference polls, and more will appear, we don't need to include favorability polls too. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what suggests that. The favorability ratings for the Democrats in those polls are too high to represent a poll that includes Republicans. More importantly, though, I don't think that a favorability poll is particularly useful in this context; I have a favorable opinion of [[Betty White]], but that doesn't mean I want her to run for President. Since we have actual presidential preference polls, and more will appear, we don't need to include favorability polls too. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
**Well, for example, AOC's favorability number in the Harvard-Harris poll is from all voters according to the tabular data.[[User:Poguetry|Poguetry]] ([[User talk:Poguetry|talk]]) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


== Gillibrand in polling table/"Want to run" questions ==
== Gillibrand in polling table/"Want to run" questions ==

Revision as of 03:04, 12 December 2020

Donald Trump

If, somehow, Trump were to lose the 2020 election, would he not be a perfectly acceptable candidate for 2024? I was going to simply add him to the "potential candidates" section myself, but I felt the need to have permission first. If so, do I need a source? I'm 95% sure that he'd try to run if he lost next year. IceKey8297 is awesome.[citation needed] 16:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see where you're coming from, but I think we should hold back on including Trump as a potential candidate in 2024. While he would be eligible to run in 2024 if he lost (or didn't run at all) in 2020, including him strikes me as being a bit too eager to include things that might not even come to pass. Remember that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so speculating about the possibility of Trump winning or losing in 2020 might not be good to include. There's also the fact that there is no deadline, so even if Trump winning or losing in 2020 wasn't speculative, Wikipedia shouldn't be in any rush unless we have a compelling reason to. (When that is said, I personally think it unlikely that he will lose reelection in 2020 simply because incumbent US presidents rarely lose. According to List of Presidents who didn't win reelection, the last US president to lose reelection was Bush the Elder in 1992). To summarize, I would advise against including Trump unless and until he loses in 2020. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be completely honest with you, I came to this self-same conclusion just a few days ago. Thanks, though! IceKey8297 is awesome.[citation needed] 13:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then. And you're welcome. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He won't be able to if he's a convicted felon by then. Firejuggler86 (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, there is no legal requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that bars felons from running for president. Eugene V. Debs ran for president several times, including once from prison in 1920. Most states do take the right to vote away from felons, but as far as I can tell no state also takes away the right of candidacy. When that is said, though, Donald Trump is a piece of shit who has always been morally unfit to be president (or any kind of elected official for that matter). But Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing our opinions about things or people, so what you're saying is irrelevant unless you have a source that both a) speculates that Trump will be a convicted felon by Election Day 2024 and b) argues that the Constitution bars felons from running for office which c) would make Trump ineligible in 2024. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 15:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even though Trump lost in 2020, who told us that Trump doesn't want to run again in 2024? Of course he wants to run again for president in 2024. Can someone please put Trump in the list of republican primaries when the time comes? Billwang370 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
He's already in the "Other potential candidates" section; we can't assume Trump will run in 2024; that's original research. We go by what the reliable sources indicate. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristi Noem source

For the declined to run section, each listed individual needs a source of speculation and then a source for denial, and Kristi Noem only has a denial source, which is very VERY old. I can find newer sources, but strangely the speculation sources are from August, but the denial sources are from June and July. Additionally, I am having trouble finding good Kristi Noem interest sources. This AP source [1] for example, which is a denial source, is clearly indicating that there exists some interest in a 2024 bid for her, but the only interest I can find other than the current source we have from 2018 is this source from Spectator [2], which is not exactly the most reliable source, and this one from The Resurgent [3], which on top of not being a notable enough source to even be included on the list of perrenial sources for Reliable Sources, is in a list form, which is not acceptable here. My question then would be, can someone find a better source for Kristi Noem than I can, and additionally can we use denial sources that come from after interest sources? WittyRecluse (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, using The Spectator as a source is probably fine. I am unconvinced we even need both a speculation and denial source, as surely a denial source also functions as a speculation ref? Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was just working off of the old consensus on the 2016 page. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:43, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added a timeline

Between the time it goes on the mainspace and the time it is split off a year and a half from now, it should go here as it would be informative and proper.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a timeline of likely events would be helpful, but we need one or several sources that outlines that this is the general timeline events in an election cycle or this hinges on WP:Crystal and/or WP:SYNTH. I don't think a well sourced timeline has those issues but we can't just throw up a timeline based on the other pages. It is a fantastic idea though and I'm all for it. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Draft:Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election. --Numberguy6 (talk) 15:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I put the stuff deleted up there as you suggested. These are still drafts, remember, adding references can be one later. Arglebargle79 (talk) 14:16, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template edit war

There is currently an ongoing edit war on Template:2024 United States presidential election that I would like you to weigh in on, since it only involves me and one other editor. The edit war started because the other editor added candidates that didn't appear on this page (due to lack of sourcing) and removed Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, even though she has two sources on this page. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is another reason why the AfC should be passed. There needs to be more editor activity and input on these articles. --Numberguy6 (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or we could just leave it until after the 2020 election... and then we might have an idea of who might actual run. It is unusual to create articles for future elections when one is currently underway. This article is still far from being ready for prime-time.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk)
That is just not true, as you can see from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020, the 2020 article had already been created and was pretty much unanimously considered ready for article space by this point in time. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and that was unusual. It is extremely rare for articles about American, Australian, British, Canadian or Kiwi elections to be created before the previous election has occurred. It is not unusual to create an article for a future election, but it is unusual to create an article for a future election when the previous election has not yet occurred.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This election is far from usual. There is an entire section about Joe Biden being a transition candidate and Donald Trump wanting a third term. --Numberguy6 (talk) 20:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to what Numberguy6 said above, one of the reasons that that is the case is because the dates of those countries aside from America are not known before they are announced, as the Westminster system does not have ironclad election dates. I mean seriously, this article passes WP:GNG by a country mile even if we remove all the candidates, there is no reason to keep it in draft. Keeping a notable article in draftspace when there are no severe NPOV or Formatting issues is just lunacy. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we need to move to mainspace ASAP (which is long overdue at this point), but it also feels like that we have set the bar way too low for who is considered a "potential candidate". Having duchess Meghan on the list is bordering on lunacy, no matter how many sources people add to her. We should put much stricter limits on who we include on the candidates list here (and in the template), and only list people who follow some set of criteria. For example, we could limit it to people who either have expressed interest in running themselves (not third-party speculation that this-or-that person might run), or incumbent senators or governors or whatever who have sought the presidency before and who might seek it again in 2024. And no more "X said they might run in the future without talking 2024, so let's add X to this article", only candidates who specifically talked 2024. We should come down hard on any candidate listings that either has third-party speculation sources only or that isn't specifically about 2024. This should trim down the candidate list quite a bit, and set a clear line for who does and who doesn't belong in templates and such. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 11:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with some of those proposals, the bit about "Senators and Governors who have sought the presidency before" just seems like it would be WP:OR, and your proposal about "it must be about 2024 specifically" is actually supposed to already be in effect. The bit about Duchess Megan, I also think its dumb, but we must remember that Wikipedia repeats what the sources say, and if the sources say she might run for president we also say that. The bit about potential candidates would ideally be its own discussion, since there has been a previous consensus that potential candidates sections are fine. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, this is the consensus used in 2016 and 2020: "Consensus on the criteria for a potential candidate to be included in the article:
The "Publicly expressed interest" section requires only one source from the last six months where the individual is quoted as being interested in running in 2020. Social media posts do not count as public expressions of interest.
The "Potential candidates" section requires at least two sources speculating that an individual may run or where an individual talks about the 2020 election from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). The sources must not be a list of several potential candidates nor a persuasive article about why a candidate should run.
The "Declined candidates" section requires at least two sources from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). One source must be speculative in the same vein as the "Potential candidates" section, while the second must be a quoted denial from the individual in question."
Przemysl15 (talk) 02:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduling and the RFC

Around a year ago, I...well, it was notorious over the rules of who's going to be listed as a major candidate, and it was agreed that an RfC would take place sometime either late next month or December over the rules for 2024. So, I suggest that we put ALL the drafts on the mainspace on or around November 10th. By then we will know if there's going to be a president-elect or chaos and can act accordingly. The RfC can take place here on the talk page soon after. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be a good idea to list topics for the RFC, since I presume "what is a major candidate" will not be the only topic up for discussion. Also might be a good idea to find a list of users to ping but that's of lesser importance to me. Also I thought this was already resubmitted? Przemysl15 (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think only this main article should go to mainspace since there won't be additional information in the party primary articles beyond what's in the main yet. Or at the least, the candidate lists should obviously be transcluded from one page to the other so there aren't inconsistencies as people/sources are added/removed (and discussed) on one but not the other. Reywas92Talk 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Reywas92, the same thing was done this cycle, the Democratic primaries page was not created until March 2017, for example. With pinging, perhaps just leave notices at the talk page of the 2020 presidential election page as well as the pages for the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green primaries, and leave notices on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I wanted to discuss was a schedule for that sort of thing. When do the articles get on the mainspace and are there are drafts one can work on beforehand? there's a list of links to the various drafts on the top of this page, and maybe we can keep them there, removing them when they go "live."Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Joe Biden transition article

As you can see, I just put a link to a draft of the Biden Transition draft on top of this page.

Unless the Trafalgar Group is right and there's a clear and decisive Trump victory next week, there's going to be a Biden presidential transition, whether or not it's aborted. Technically, there already is one and we have a Romney presidential transition article on the mainspace. It will be an excellent place to put the shenanigans that might take place in the weeks following a week from Wednesday. Should Trump win decisively and Biden concede, then it would either disappear or turn into something like the Romney article, as it was notable during the campaign, generating several articles in the MSM.

Don't bitch about it being WP:Crystal, as it's still a draft..that being said, I need all the help I can get.Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Home state of Donald Trump and Mike Pence

These have been removed several times, even though it has been standard practice to list the home states regardless of the person's previous offices.--Numberguy6 (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the practice of 'not' showing home states, when it's the incumbent president & vice president. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I'm calling you a liar, GoodDay, but I would like to see a source on that. I'm at the same understanding as Numberguy6, that prior (or current) office is irrelevant to whether we list their home state. And unless there is a consensus for omitting the home state for the POTUS and VP, I can't think of a reason to exclude them. I don't mean to sound combatative, I'm genuinely interested in seeing a source on this. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 00:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that it's November, when should we move?

Draft moved to mainspace at 22:38, 8 November 2020 by‎ Anthony Appleyard (talk). Closure requested at WP:ANRFC (permalink) P.I. Ellsworth  ed. put'r there 01:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 are several different options:

  1. Past deadline - Last polls close. This would be in the Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone sections of Alaska, at 20:00 HST on November 3 (01:00 EST / 06:00 UTC on November 4).
  2. Current - Race called by major media outlet.
  3. Final mail-in ballots received. This would be in California on November 20.
  4. "Safe-harbor" deadline for resolving election disputes (December 8).
  5. Electoral College meets (December 14).
  6. Congress counts electoral votes (January 6).
  7. Inauguration Day (January 20 at 12:00 EST / 17:00 UTC).
  8. When a 2024 presidential campaign has begun
  9. As soon as possible

Closure

Please note closure has been requested at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Now that it's November, when should we move?. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1

Past deadline

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.


Tally:2

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.

Option 2

Tally:10

Option 3

Tally:-3

Option 4

Tally:-3

Option 5

Tally:-6

Option 6

Tally:-4

Option 7

Tally:-4

Option 8

Tally:-3

Option 9

Basically the same thing as Option 2 now

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.

Tally:3

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.

Discussion

I wanted to open up a discussion section so as to explain our support of various options. I think we should move it to main space right now because a page should not be moved based on relations to other pages. The initial reason it was put up for a move to mainspace back in May/August of 2020 was becuase A), the 2024 election has clearly received enough coverage as of this point to be a standalone article, B), the lists of candidates have now been purged of unreliable sources, and only candidates sourced to reliable ones remain, and C), As there is really no reason to keep this article as a draft, since all that is doing at this point is depriving it of editing attention and inhibiting it from being improved. The reason for denial were the following reasons:

* The discussion above #Proposal to move this article to mainspace has !votes in at 4 support, 4 oppose. Therefore I don't think there is consensus to move it yet * I don't believe that the sources speculating on which candidates might run are sufficiently reliable.

* A lot of them are comment pieces rather than news stories and the articles themselves acknowledge the speculative nature of the claims. One of them is even called "A way-too-early look at the 2024 presidential nominee field" * The content of some of them is so vague to almost mean nothing. For example the source for Elizabeth Warren is an article in the New York Post that says "The long and short of it is she has not ruled out a future that involves running for president, one Senate insider told The Post" - This is a commentator reporting that a third party (not even named) says that she hasn't ruled out running. I don't think this has enough substance to even bother reporting on.

* There are plenty of experienced editors contributing the discussion at the talk page, and I don't see why consensus can't occur here

Sourcing for candidates running has significantly improved in reliability so I feel the second point has been adequately improved. Poor sources like the ones mentioned here have long been purged. For the first and third point, obviously consensus has not been formed yet as this discussion is very new, but most qualms were about it being poorly sourced and too early, both concerns should have improved by now.

For these reasons, I support immediate move to main space.

However, I do admit there is not yet an incumbent and I can understand not wanting to move the article to mainspace until there is an incumbent. Therefor, if we do not want to move now, I support move to mainspace when we have an incumbent, which would be when a major news outlet calls the race, or failing that, when the Electoral College counts votes.

Lastly, I think it may be a good idea to ping users previously involved in this discussion but I tend to use pings very scarcely and will only do so if this discussion is not resolved soon or if prompted by other users. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that sourcing has been improved. We have waited more than enough, and we should move to mainspace immediately. Although editing activity on this draft has increased somewhat leading up to Election Day 2020, it is still being deprived of attention for very little discernable reason. I have already made my arguments elsewhere on this talk page that there is no merit to the "2024 is a non-immediate election / we don't know the 2024 incumbent" school of objections. No opinion on pinging. I say move the page, and move it now. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have notified the following WikiProjects of this discussion. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mark Cuban, Meghan Markle

Why are Mark Cuban and Meghan Markle listed under the Green Party? None of the sources for them mention anything about them being associated with the Green Party. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally removed the relevant section header in a previous edit; I've added it back. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but that still leaves open the question of whether they should be listed as potential independent/third party candidates. Nothing in the Meghan Markle cites suggested that she might run as a third-party candidate nor have I seen such a suggestion elsewhere. (Kanye West did run under a new party this year, and Mark Cuban suggested in the past that he might run as an independent, so I can understand listing them in this section, but not Meghan.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there should be a "Party unknown" section for dealing with situations like Markle? Chessrat (talk, contributions) 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to changing the heading to independent/third/unknown. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support indicating one way or the other that their party would be unknown. Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, probably not Republican. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 06:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between primary and main page.

I have noticed that Pritzker and Warren are listed on the Dem primary page but not this page. Surely the candidates should be the same across pages? Przemysl15 (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major"

In past election campaigns, there has been a lot of discussion as to which candidates should be considered major presidential candidates [Edited to add: in the Democratic and Republican primaries].

I would like to try to get a consensus now before candidates start declaring for 2024, so that we can establish criteria without editors trying to create criteria in order to have a particular candidate included or excluded. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on what you mean by "major". I would sort candidates into three tiers:
  • Tier 1 is any candidate that could plausibly win the election. That is to say, presumptively the Democrat and the Republican. If anyone else wants to break into this tier, they'd have to have national polling data showing them within something like ten points of whoever's leading, or equivalent state polling in several states.
  • Tier 2 is any candidate that gets on the ballot in every state (with some leeway for weirdness like the Alaska Greens nominating Jesse Ventura instead of Howie Hawkins). That is to say, probably the Libertarian and Green candidates, as well as any Ross Perot or John Anderson-like candidates that do pretty well but not well enough to plausibly win.
  • Tier 3 is any candidate that gets on the ballot in at least one state. Or in other words, candidates from even smaller parties than the Libertarian and Green parties, but not so small they can't swing getting on the ballot in even one state. I think if you can't get on the ballot in even one state you can't meaningfully be said to be running for president at all.
If you had to divide these into only "major" and "minor", Tier 1 is IMO definitely major and Tier 3 is IMO definitely minor, but I could go either way on Tier 2. Loki (talk) 06:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was thinking of how we determine which are the major candidates for the Democratic and Republican primaries (I've edited that above now). Generally speaking, I agree with your analysis as to the general election. The criteria I'm suggesting are for Democratic and Republican candidates. They aren't likely to be relevant to candidates of other parties.
Here are my proposed criteria:
  1. The candidate has been included as a choice in at least five independent, national polls for their party's nomination since the last presidential election; or
  2. The candidate holds, or has previously held, at least one of the following offices:
    1. President of the United States;
    2. Vice President of the United States;
    3. United States Senator;
    4. United States Representative;
    5. United States Cabinet member -- specifically, head of one of the United States federal executive departments;
    6. Governor of a state; or
    7. Mayor of one of the 10 most populous cities in the U.S.
Note that this would not give an automatic pass to state legislators, or to mayors of smaller cities. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to think our criteria through now, so that people further down the line won't support or oppose sets of criteria solely based on particular candidates they like or dislike. Those seem like reasonable criteria, and I would support those. How about 2020 candidates (that polled over a certain percentage), should we add that to the list of "offices"? - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
we should have a schedule of changing criteria. To wit:
    • Nov 2020-March 2022: Anyone notable who has been mentioned by two publications.
    • April 2022-March 2023; Held federal or statewide office within the past ten years or been in five reputable polls.
  • Those already judged a major candidate in May 2023, they remain. Anyone new must...
    • April-November 2023: Anyone invited to a Debate.
    • November 2023-the conventions 2024: On a primary ballot in a minimum of 12 states, or getting more than 10% in any primary.

I speak from experience. To wit: Marianne Williamson, Andrew Yang and Rocky de la Fuente.

Williamson is a moderate celebrity with a fanbase. No one considered her a serious candidate. However, that fanbase gave her quite a bit of money, and she was noticed, in the late spring of 2019, by some polling companies, who put her name on their list of candidates. As some of you may remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not she was a major candidate or not. She managed to get a slot, much to everyone's surprise. Thus she became a major candidate.
Yang is a problematic case. He was one of those nobodies from nowhere who, as a hobby, more than anything else, decided to run for president. As you remember, there was heated discussion as to whether he was a major candidate. He managed to get listed in 5 major polls barely in time to apply for the debates, although he had a rather good fundraising operation. He managed to get into the debates, but barely.
Then there's Rocky de la Fuente. He nearly got me kicked out of Wikipedia for championing his cause. Ol' Rocky was a hobbyist spending his grandkid's inheritance on some pointless runs for the White House. He didn't deserve any respect except for one thing: He figured out how to get on state ballots. He wound up being listed in 20 primaries by the end of 2019, and ended up getting over a hundred thousand votes. He didn't get listed in any polls until late November. But he got it eventually.
Finally there's those nobodies who only became notable because they managed to get over 20% in at least one primary running against Barack Obama in 2012. John Wolfe, jr and somebody sitting in jail at the time. Wolfe got 21% in Louisiana and 41% in Arkansas. This did not make headlines like Pat Buchanan getting a mere 35% in New Hampshire in 1992, mainly it was because the party had fixed the race in most places and it was too late.

In 2016, a number of non-notable candidates got on the ballot in 10 but less than 15 primaries. Rocky's son got on 12. Getting on 15 or more deserves the respect of a mention, plus when it comes to the charts on the results page, it looks far, far better. The more information the better.

To conclude: change the criteria on a planned schedule...and oh yeah...

Unless Trump is still president this February, in which case there may not BE a set of primaries in '24, there will be an incumbent (Biden) or a semi-incumbent (Harris) in the primaries. In 1996 and 2012, everybody either stood down voluntarily, or was arm-twisted into it, and Lyndon Larouche and the aforementioned nobodies in '12 were denied their rightfully allocated delegates. The DNC tried to put their thumb on the scales for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, and it came back to bite them both times. A fixed race is acceptable when there's an incumbent. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm content with whatever ya'll choose. More importantly it's good that we're deciding on an inclusion criteria now, rather then wait until 2023 or later. GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the criteria proposed by Metropolitan90, as this was the basic consensus achieved last year, and think an RfC for the Libertarian/Green parties, as well as a few other topics, would be a good idea as well. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree with the proposed rules, but I also disagree on some things, so I also think that these should also be included:

I agree with you here. This is largely the same set of criteria we used for the 2020 election, and I see little reason to change it. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 02:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not that hard to see who the media covers and who it doesn't. Look, I don't think there was a single edge case in this year's major party candidates: even Messam was in all the graphics they made of who all was running and had adequate coverage. It's a bit petuelent that we would have to spell out to our readers that members of Congress and statewide elected officials are likely to be major candidates. The article certainly doesn't have to have the full list enumerated and should just say "has held federal office or major state office". A note on polls: they need to come from multiple pollsters, not one firm using the same biweekly list. Reywas92Talk 07:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the contrary, there were edge cases in the 2020 primaries. Example: Wayne Messam, as far as I can tell, was never considered a major candidate by FiveThirtyEight.com. Richard Ojeda didn't qualify as a major candidate to FiveThirtyEight.com either. As shown here, Andrew Yang started out as a minor candidate seemingly comparable to Jeff Boss and Robby Wells, well before he gained recognition and was accepted as a major candidate; one anonymous editor commented, "I think we ought to make a certain level of notable endorsements grounds for makings someone a major candidate. Yang has four, so maybe five?" FiveThirtyEight also commented, "While many long shots would run for president, we would focus our coverage on candidates who had previously held elected office; others would have to earn enough media attention to prove they should be taken seriously. When businessman Andrew Yang, a political rookie, launched his presidential campaign with a New York Times profile in February 2018, he didn’t meet our standard for coverage. But Yang now looks likely to qualify for the Democratic primary debates this summer, so here is our belated [March 19, 2019] take on the strengths and weaknesses of his candidacy." When Brad Thor was ostensibly running for president, another editor commented, "I've also seen a proposal for adding the requirement to have the candidate receive some sort of news coverage for their campaign. That ... would include Brad Thor, who doesn't have a campaign website but definitely stirred up a lot of media attention and received the endorsement of a Never-Trumper." And as indicated here, when Rocky De La Fuente qualified as a major candidate by our criterion of being included in 5 polls, that was controversial too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And if we just follow cues of 538, WaPo, or NYT on who they consider major candidates then, we're golden. There is no need for us to ask arbitrary questions like "Is a city of 122,000 big enough for its mayor to be major?", "Is one term in the state senate enough to be major?", "Does a single pollster asking the same question a certain number of times make someone major?". Let's not play stupid games and instead say that if they consider them major, we can too. They will certainly be making pages like [4] and [5] when the first candidates announce. Yang did absolutely have considerable coverage in major sources throughout the first year of his (early) candidacy, and to compare him to Boss and Wells is insulting to our intelligence. That was such mistake to give a goddam conspiracy theorist a row in the table. Reywas92Talk 06:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support following WP:RS. That's a core Wikipedia approach. We should not be applying our own made-up criteria. Bondegezou (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Choice two wouldn't include someone like Trump from running (the first time; even though no-one took him seriously, he still made it). If, someone like him runs again (maybe Mark Cuban), then they wouldn't be included. I support choice 1. Thanks, Thanoscar21talkcontribs 22:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Future or present status for images

Should we continue to use present tense or go with 2024 tense, for office holder descriptions, under the images. I can't remember how it was done 4 years ago, at the Draft:2020 US presidential election article. In otherwords for this draft, should we be using President Donald Trump or Former President Donald Trump. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would say, keep it "President" until January 20, 2021, then change it to "former President". The article should describe people by their descriptions at the time we are reading it, not what their descriptions are going to be later on. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comments on a schedule for putting stuff up

Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election (now—it should go up with the mainpage)

2024 Republican Party presidential primaries (November 2022) Enough information will be known by then to split off.
2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries (November 2022)
2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries (July 2023)
2024 Green Party presidential primaries (July 2023)
2024 Republican National Convention (July 2022) Bids will have been solicited by then.
2024 Democratic National Convention (July 2022)
The results pages should be spun off around October of 2023.
The Candidates pages should be spun off around June of 2023.
The Timelines for the primaries should each be spun off in January of '22. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be a case by case issue for the future. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus to move the page now. Can an admin move it, please?

There's a consensus in the discussion above to move the page NOW (especially now that we know who won 2020). We'd typically have the next presidential election page up by now, but the title is locked. Can an administrator please move the page now? Paintspot Infez (talk) 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone please do this already! - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 21:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for requesting the move here, [6], Paintspot. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arglebargle79 (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute on whether Joe Biden should be the democratic nominee despite his age

I certainly doubt that Biden will ever become the democratic presidential nominee for 2024 because according to news sources, Biden chose to not run for second term, and that it's Kamala Harris that should be the main democratic nominee under the section public interests for the 2024 presidential election. Billwang370 (talk) 05:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sourcing for Biden states that Biden is at least willing to try and run for 2 terms, of course whether or not that actually happens is another story but there is speculation from reliable sources and that should be documented in this article. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His campaign advisor said that Biden is only planning to serve as a one-term president. Haris920 (talk) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait until/if Biden actually announces he won't be a candidate for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. Ok folks? GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mention of Trump's eligibility in the lead

"President-elect Joe Biden and outgoing President Donald Trump are both eligible to run for a second term." Is this necessary/appropriate? I mean, so is Jimmy Carter, but that'd be unnecessary to mention in the lead, now wouldn't it? SecretName101 (talk) 05:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There was some brief speculation over Carter, but he has stated he has absolutely no intention of running. There is already speculation over a Trump 2024 run such as here [7], and there are no indications from Trump that he will not run in 2024, given that he is still trying to win in 2020. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We should start "Wikipedians for Carter 2024". Hell, let's bring back Mondale while we're at it. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But I think with elections that we typically only mention the eligibility of the officeholder anticipated to be the incumbent at the time of the election, not previous officeholders. SecretName101 (talk) 08:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump publicly expressed interest

Are there any reliable sources that say that Trump has expressed interest in running for president for his (potential) second term..? If not, Trump must be removed from the publicly expressed interest section. I'm pretty sure Trump has only discussed running in 2024 with the implication that he would be seeking a third term, not a second one. Prcc27 (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map infobox

Should we add a map to the infobox? If so, we could either add the 2020 electoral map or we could add a blank 2012-2020 electoral map. If we choose the latter, we should make clear that for 2024, the map will be different due to the 2020 Census. Prcc27 (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Present tense, is annoying.

Kinda discouraging, that some seem intent on pushing present tense into this article, which deals with a future event. By 2024, Biden will be the president & Harris the vice president, so let's show them that way. If something occurs to change that? we can make the required updates. If yas aren't in agreement with me? then move this article back to Draft, until Biden's inauguration is held. GoodDay (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I already commented on this in answer to your similar question above (#Future or present status for images). I think that we should assume, when we write the article, that people are going to be reading it today. We shouldn't write this article from the perspective of four years from now. Thousands of Wikipedia editors may be reading this article between now and Jan. 20, 2021, and we shouldn't be telling them that Biden and Harris are already the president and VP; that's what the words "president-elect" and "vice president-elect" are there for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not 2024 (or January 2021) yet. Unless this article is intended for time travellers, we should write about things as they are now. That is how it is in every article. We'd be lying to people if we started calling Biden the "president" rather than "president-elect" pre-January 20. And please stop vilifying people for disagreeing with you. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 16:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ilhan Omar

There is a few news articles mentioning that Ilhan Omar , could run in 2024. Is she able to run as she was born in a foreign country and is not a natural born citizen of the United States? If she can run, it might be worth adding her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haris920 (talk • contribs) 15:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up for me Haris920 (talk) 10:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 11:06, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College_voted parameter

I replaced the "ongoing" parameter with the "college_voted" parameter, and explained in the edit summary, that this parameter will allow the infobox to display "projected electoral votes" instead of "electoral votes" on election day (per what we currently have on the 2020 presidential article). But a user reverted the edit and said to quit messing things up.. How is that messing things up, and can we please restore my edit..? Prcc27 (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would STOP forcing that into the infobox & get a consensus here first. GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is already consensus for it at the 2020 article, and you have literally not provided any reason why we should not continue to implement that consensus on this article. You are the one that needs consensus for the "ongoing" parameter. Prcc27 (talk) 00:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We didn't use the college parameter at 2020 United States presidential election, before the 2020 election was held. We used the ongoing parameter. You can change to the college parameter after the 2024 election is held. GoodDay (talk) 00:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We used "college_voted" several days before we added any projected electoral vote totals to the 2020 infobox. Can you please explain why you are trying so hard to push an outdated parameter on this article? The "college_voted" parameter is exactly the same as the "ongoing" parameter, except it actually gives us the ability to do more (i.e. display projected electoral vote totals). Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Know what? You go right ahead & mess it up in anyway you wish. Why? Because I'm tired of fighting with you and others, to maintain consistency & neatness on these articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have not explained how the college_voted parameter messes up the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 00:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because we've never used it before, when dealing with future elections. So please get a consensus for it, which you haven't gotten yet. We don't want to see Elected President at the bottom of the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We use "ongoing=yes" for future elections & have been for years. If you don't like it? Get a consensus for the change. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the template calls for the usage of "ongoing". GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay:Then why did you change it at the 2020 article..? The 2020 article isn't a future election! You are being disruptive. Prcc27 (talk) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Get a consensus, for the changes you want made in an article, both here & there. PS - It's you who's being disruptive because you're not listening to what others are pointing out to you. GoodDay (talk) 18:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've reached a compromise until January 20, 2021. I suggest that in the meantime, you start up an RFC for this article concerning whether or not we use "ongoing" or "college_voted", after January 20, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'll start an RfC, so that we could get consensus preemptively to use the "college_voted" parameter at the very least on election day. The "college_voted" parameter is mainly needed from election day until the electors vote (although there is nothing wrong with using it after the electors vote). In the meantime, we should at the very least add a hidden note that says we should switch to the "college_voted" parameter once we want the infobox to say "projected electoral vote". Prcc27 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why are you forcing the college_voted parameter into the article now? The template doesn't call for that. At least wait until November 5, 2024. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked you how the parameter was "messing things up" as you put it, and you refused to answer that simple question. If you would have told me that the college_voted parameter affected the "elected president" heading, I would have been more likely to yield on adding the parameter. Instead, you threw a big fit, and didn't explain how it "messed up" the infobox until several days later. Up until today, I thought that the only difference between the two parameters was the "Electoral college" heading. Prcc27 (talk) 07:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you using it 'now'? We don't need it until states are projected for any candidates & that won't be until November 5, 2024. Once Biden takes office, we show him here as the Incumbent President at the bottom of infobox, which is what the ongoing=yes parameter, will do. GoodDay (talk) 15:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of primary election polls on main page

In previous elections, primary election polls were only included on the primary election pages. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with removing it. Prcc27 (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not. The reason is this: it's too early for a primaries page and the polls exist. When they are put on the mainspace, THEN move them. We need the info available. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Biden

Can we please agree on what Biden's title will be in the infobox? I don't think we need to say "elect" twice by the way. I'd prefer if it said "president-elect" instead of just "elect". Prcc27 (talk) 22:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think "elect" is fine, "president-elect" is a bit too much mark-up and would look a fair bit worse. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone removed the word "elect" from the infobox. At the very least, that should be re-added. Prcc27 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it shouldn't is that Biden will either be president in 77 days or he will be in jail as the symbolic leader of the resistance. In '24, he will either be the incumbent or be the first 1-term president to decline to run in over 130 years. Either way he'll be president, not president-elect. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not the only possible outcomes. Biden could die before taking office, some of the electors pledged to him could vote for someone else (like Trump) which could deny him the presidency. I am not going to speculate that any of these scenarios will happen. But adding "elect" isn't speculation- it's the reality. The fact is, Biden is not the president, yet. I just feel like readers quickly glancing at the infobox might get the false impression that Biden has already taken office. Prcc27 (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The parameter issue is already being discussed at the College_voted parameter section. Please direct discussion with regards to which parameter we should use there. Prcc27 (talk) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.

If you're going to keep trying to push the college parameter into the infobox? Then I'd say we completely leave Biden 'out' of the infobox, until his 2021 inauguration. GoodDay (talk) 00:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't use the college parameter at the 2020 US prez election page, from November 2016 to November 2020. So, please wait until the 2024 election is held & then you can go with the college parameter. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mess it up anyway you want. I'm tired of trying to maintain consistency & neatness, on these articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.

2024 Party Articles

Should the party drafts be accepted into article space? At this point, we have an inconsistency, which is that I accepted the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries draft, but the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article, which had been in article space, has been cut down to a redirect. We should be consistent at least as to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (two of the oldest political parties in the world). I think that there is definitely enough information for separate articles on the two major parties, but I don't want to start a move war by re-accepting the Democratic Party article. If we have articles on the two major parties, then we might as well have articles on the Libertarian and Green Parties.

Paging User:Numberguy6, User:PutItOnAMap, User:Reywas92, User:Primus01, User:KylieTastic

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it looks like you linked to the 2020 primaries articles. Did you mean the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries and 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries? I tend to think there is enough information and sourcing to justify having both be standalone articles, although I don't think there is enough about the Libertarian and Green parties at this point.Jacoby531 (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should have 2024 D/R primary articles quite yet, but if they are in main, they must have the stupid hypothetical speculative conjectured candidate list transcluded to/from the main article so we aren't maintaining two different lists. The L/G parties certainly do not warrant separate articles yet. Reywas92Talk 00:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Reywas92, there is not enough information for seperate articles on the Democratic and Republican primaries yet. And if they are created, transclusion from here to there is a must. It is hard enough as is keeping cruft out of the potential candidates sections. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reywas92, do you mind if I revert your creation of a redirect for the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article? I agree that tranclusions should be used to reduce duplication. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please go ahead with whatever people decide! Reywas92Talk 01:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see the Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries still exists as well. What's the best way forward, since there are two versions of the 2024 Democratic primaries article? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Likely a revert of the redirect, and we can transpose more party-centered background in lieu of COVID and other general background. ([User talk:Primus01|]])
Primus01, after looking at the history of the reverted redirect (2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries) and the draft article (Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries), I think it's better to just leave the revert as it is. The current draft article is more developed. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. The AFD is a reasonable vehicle for the community to decide whether we want party articles at this time or whether they are WP:TOOSOON. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current one is not even over/finalised, isn't the next just speculation, WP:TOOSOON and WP:CRYSTALBALL at this point? However, I haven't actually looked at them and have no inclination to do so... KylieTastic (talk) 09:11, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to stop an edit war: LBJ '68

President Lyndon Johnson was running in 1968. He had an authorized campaign in New Hampshire [8][9], which he WON, and also in Wisconsin, which was only two days away when he withdrew in his famous speech. [10]. So yes, that counts. President Truman also had an active campaign in New Hampshire in 1952, and he lost that one outright.

As to presidents running for reelection, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama didn't officially announce until the week of their conventions. They were officially "exploring" through the entire primary season. incumbents can do that. Trump filed on his first day in office and didn't announce until well over a year later.

So please, keep it as Rutherford Hayes. (Grover Cleveland was in his second presidency, which is the same as a second term, so he doesn't count.)Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think Johnson should be mentioned as having failed to win re-nomination in 1968 and Calvin Coolidge in 1928 should be mentioned as the last eligible president to not seek re-election. Rogl94 (talk) 12:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of candidate lists

As far as I know, this is standard procedure for ongoing election articles, especially since they have exactly the same format. This has the benefit of us only having to edit one page instead of two. However, my edit adding transclusions was reverted. --Numberguy6 (talk) 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted that edit; thanks for adding the tranclusions; it should help since a lot of people would keep adding names to just one list and didn't update the other. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that both individual primary articles are up at AfD and are looking quite likely to be redirecting, I find transcluding as of right now to be irresponsible. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Turner

Can we get some sort of consensus about the inclusion of Nina Turner, because there seems to be a lot of reverting going on, and not much discussion? I don't think the TYT video justifies her inclusion. For one, this seems to go against the stated policy of "expressions of interest via social media do not count." For second, I don't think a Young Turks YouTube video counts as a reliable or notable source. Anyone could make a YouTube video and say they're running for president, that isn't notable. If it was truly a notable occurrence, better sources would have picked up on it. (i.e. If Amy Klobuchar went on some random YouTube channel and said she was probably running in 2024, you can bet your bottom dollar some other, better sources would have written about it.) If they have done this about Nina Turner, then all of these people who really love Nina Turner should bring out those sources. If they haven't, I feel she should be removed from the article. (But I want to check with other people before an edit war begins.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SouthwestChief90 (talk • contribs)

Not quite sure what you’re talking about, The Young Turks is clearly not "some random YouTube channel", its an actual legitimate organisation, and expressing interest in running for president while being interviewed on it is hardly an expression of interest via social media. An expression of interest via social media would be something like a tweet. Clearly, Nina Turner meets the criteria for inclusion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At this stage of the game, anyone notable who has made a noise on the subject is eligible. Jack Fellure was on the page for over a year. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the Young Turks' use of YouTube. Is this within of the main purview of the Young Turks' general affairs or is this outside of the primary scope of the Young Turks? If this is something that is coming down one of the main channels of the Young Turks I would be more inclined to support inclusion and vice versa. Przemysl15 (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TYT has a large YouTube following, and also a following on select TV channels. I think it would be alright to include Nina Turner. Prcc27 (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So... Don't we have consensus to add her? Prcc27 (talk) 06:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no solid reason to remove her. I call on my fellow editors to at least have a vote on her inclusion before she is removed again on the basis of criterion that is not applied to the other candidates as has been the case for the past several removals. NDACFan (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding the list of potential Democratic candidates

The list of potential Democratic candidates is woefully small in comparison to the Republicans. I found a list of potential Democratic candidates from Ballotpedia that has pretty good sources. We should draw a few candidates from the list and add them to this article. Here are the ones who aren’t on the current list. Thoughts?

The Image Editor (talk) 00:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't go through all the candidates, but some of the refs on the Ballotpedia don't meet the Wikipedia criteria; one criterion here is that a ref must be more recent than six months. At least these refs don't make the cut: [11], [12], [13]. The formatting in this talk page section is all messed up and I don't know how to fix it. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David O. Johnson: I've fixed the formatting for you. Just press the 'enter key' several times, using the "show preview" button to see if you've done it enough (I'm sure there's another, easier way to do it, and one that doesn't leave so much empty space in the editing window, but I'm unaware of exactly what that may be.). And @The Image Editor: I'm not sure the pictures are necessary here, a simple list of candidates would've sufficed. --Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean with all the white space. Thanks for the fix. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, you're welcome. --Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the photos and blank space. --Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 02:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these people should be added to the article without better sources. Ballotpedia is not a reliable source. Sundayclose (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Infobox

Very early before the election, the (TBD) Libertarian and (TBD) Green were added next to Trump and (TBD) Democrat, why aren't they included in this infobox? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion about that can be found here. --Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the only thing that should be in the infobox, is the map & nothing else. That's always been the practice until anybody won a party prez nomination. 02:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump 2024

What section should this go in? --Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 18:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would go in the potential candidates section. We could replace one of the sources we already have in the article with that one. Prcc27 (talk) 20:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carter

I doubt that Carter (who will be 100 years old) will even want to run in 2024; I vote that this article shouldn't promote him as a possible candidate. Any opinions here?? Georgia guy (talk) 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and if for some reason he is the first centenarian to run we can change the article then.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 23:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we should still mention him being technically able but obviously not willing to run when we mention Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama being ineligible to run again. Paintspot Infez (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No we don't need to mention Carter. That's useless trivia. There are thousands of politicians (or other people) who are very unlikely to run, but we don't mention them unless there is significant coverage of the possibility in reliable sources. There's an infinitesimal chance that the mayor of Podunk, Idaho might run, but unless it gets some real news coverage it doesn't belong in this article. The chances are virtually zero that Carter will run. He has even suggested that he is too old to run again. If by some bizarre change of circumstances he ends up expressing an interest, we can change the article. Sundayclose (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're not listing him as a "potential candidate" or anything. Instead we're basically just saying, "every former president except Carter and Trump can't run again, by the way. Carter can, but there's no way he will, so he's out of the picture." Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What it said before was something was this: "The Twenty-second Amendment states that an individual cannot be elected to the presidency more than twice (or once, if they served more than half of a presidential term that someone else was elected to). This prohibits former presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama from being elected president again.[1] One-term former president Jimmy Carter is eligible to run for a second term, but is unwilling to do so due to his age;[2] he would be 100 years old if still alive at the time of the 2024 election." Paintspot Infez (talk) 04:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, its worthless trivia for this article. If we're saying that he can run but he won't, we don't need to say anything at all. As I said above, there are thousands of people who could run but won't; we don't need to include them either. This article is about the 2024 election, not the intricacies of the U.S. Constitution. Neither the article nor the reader is deprived of anything worthwhile if there is no mention of Carter. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it would be Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. That article is linked in this article for those who would like to know more details about what the Constitution says on this matter. But I wouldn't even put it there. Sundayclose (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am in full agreement with Sundayclose that the Carter mention is worthless trivia that serves no useful purpose for this article. Refer to WP:SYNTH. Unless multiple reputable independent sources are making a thing of his eligibility to run, there's no compelling reason to include it here. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Sundayclose, its worthless and very unneeded. Its might be redundant to basically say: "yeah technically Carter can run again since he's a one term president but won't because or advanced age (100 years old and let's face it a 100 year old will not run) or he'll be deceased to put it bluntly. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every morning (depending on what time zone you live in) User:82.6.211.197 keeps adding Carter back in and there appears to be no way to stop this from happening. Georgia guy (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Georgia guy: First we need to put an official edit warring warning on their talk page. If they do it again, move to a level 2 warning. Eventually, we should report them for edit warring if they continue to not stop adding what the consensus has already rejected. Prcc27 (talk) 17:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just put a warning on their talk page, and it looks like there is no level 2 for edit warring. Next time they revert the consensus, they should be reported. Prcc27 (talk) 17:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Rooks, Douglas (June 22, 2020). "The curse of the 22nd Amendment". Portland Press Herald. Archived from the original on August 22, 2020. Retrieved August 5, 2020.
  2. ^ Associated Press (September 18, 2019). "'I hope there's an age limit': Jimmy Carter says he couldn't have handled presidency at 80". NBC News. Archived from the original on September 12, 2020. Retrieved September 21, 2020.

Previous consensus on potential candidate inclusion

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

For candidates publicly expressing interest:

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

For potential candidates:

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

For declined candidates:

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Curbon7 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has Hawkins Publicly Expressed Interest?

Since Gary Johnson and Jill Stein ran as third party candidates twice in a row, should Howie Hawkins (the Green Party's nominee in 2020) be under publicly express interest instead of potential candidates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has he expressed any interest in running in 2024? I don't see how Johnson and Stein are relevant to where Hawkins is placed. The fact that they both ran in 2012 and 2016 seems to be a coincidence. Jacoby531 (talk) 23:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:NOR, we can't add him unless there are reliable sources that say he publicly expressed interest. Prcc27 (talk) 11:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley hasn't publicly said he won't run in 2024. I suggest taking him off the list of those who have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.92.151.217 (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he has publicly declined. This cited ref [14], states
"Hawley, a 40-year-old former Missouri attorney general, also threw cold water on a possible 2024 run, telling CNN: "I'm not" considering a White House bid in four years. Asked if a run were in the cards, Hawley said flatly: "It's not." David O. Johnson (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McLaughlin & Associates/Newsmax

I suggest taking these off the list. They're highly unreliable, and Newsmax is Fox News 2.0 (not that Fox's polls are unreliable, but Newsmax just has a reputation for spreading conspiracies, so I don't know if anything would spill into their polls). Additionally, the GOP told candidates not to use McLaughlin after their numbers were way off (though the article is from 2014). Thanoscar21talkcontribs 22:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Publicly expressed interest

Shouldn't the publicly expressed interest section only be for candidates that have publicly expressed interest..? It looks like Rubio, Trump, and possibly others have only expressed interest privately.. Prcc27 (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trump underplayed

Why is Trump underplayed? He will most likely be a republican candidate, and will be the first to launch his campaign, on the inauguration day of Biden, which is likely to happen. He is most likely winner of 2024, in the Primaries 66% of Republicans support him already, and he will have popular support while Biden or Kamala will be drownded in the tide of popular unrest as they will surpass Trump in incompetency, warmongering and leaving the workers forgotten and unemployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.183.44 (talk) 09:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not really worth answering, except for one thing, there are indeed reliable reports that he is contemplating a run in '24. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are not really worth paying attention to, except as an exemplary case of narrow-minded Trump derangement syndrome POV that poisons the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.30.183.44 (talk) 12:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, remember Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Just because you hope something is going to happen, doesn't mean it will. Bkatcher (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down, IP. To date, Trump has not announced that he's going to run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Favorability ratings among primary voters

Many of the polls in the Democratic favorability section look like they sample the entire electorate and not strictly potential Democratic primary voters. Poguetry (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure what suggests that. The favorability ratings for the Democrats in those polls are too high to represent a poll that includes Republicans. More importantly, though, I don't think that a favorability poll is particularly useful in this context; I have a favorable opinion of Betty White, but that doesn't mean I want her to run for President. Since we have actual presidential preference polls, and more will appear, we don't need to include favorability polls too. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gillibrand in polling table/"Want to run" questions

Given that Senator Gillibrand has been included in every democratic poll so far, should she be taken out of the "other" box and given her own column? Additionally, why are polls asking if people want Trump to run again being included in the table? In my opinion, "Do you want x to run?" and "Would you vote for x?" are fundamentally different questions. There are many reasons someone could want a candidate to run for a certain office, but would not want to vote for that candidate for that office. Someone could want candidate x to run to dilute the support of the candidate y who opposes their preferred candidate z. Someone could want a candidate to run for the sake of fostering better debate. Someone could want a candidate to run for office x to prevent them from running for office y. Someone could want a candidate to run because they have a non-political/personal stake in that person running for office (gambling, campaign position, etc.)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=993719177"