Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Canidate Colors/Gradients (Updated)

With Matthew McMullin, the former head Wikipedia editor responsible for updating the candidate color shading page, stepping away from the project due to disputes and conduct disagreements with other users, the page has remained neglected for nearly a month. Since the page hadn't seen any updates, discussions among Wikipedia users took place on the talk page, resulting in an agreement to overhaul the candidate colors. However, this overhaul wasn't executed, leaving the page outdated in terms of new entrants and prominent candidates such as Hurd, Johnson, and Binkley.

In light of this situation, I, a frequent contributor to this Wikipedia page, have taken the initiative to undertake the task of overhauling the candidate shadings. The goal is to provide a more accurate representation and include additional shading for candidates who have garnered prominence and have been featured on the main candidates page.

As a result, I have restructured the original "Candidate colors/gradients" section, to remove it as the main discussion, as it has since been abandoned. This separation acknowledges that this space now serves as the primary hub for discussions concerning candidate color representation. - Expoe34 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (CST)

All colors are taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/USA_legend_colors/proposals/2023a_all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/USA_legend_colors/proposals

·Edit 1: With Saurez out of the race, I gave his more distinct brown color to Binkley, whose shading was a tad too similar to DeSantis and Burgum.- Expoe34 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (CST)

·Edit 2: Removed Suarez and have given his color to Ryan Binkley (Previously light red) Expoe34 (talk)

·Edit 3: I have removed Hurd and Given his color to Perry Johnson, as per the Wikipedia page. In addition, I have given Stapleton a more distinct red shading - Expoe34 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 3: With Corey Stapleton out of the reace, I gave his color to Perry Johnson. - Expoe34 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 4: Removed Perry Johnson - Expoe34 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 4: Removed Binkley along with all withdrawn candidates so far - Expoe34 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2023 (CST)

Chris Christie

Hex code	Percentage
#ebf8f1	<30%
#d7f1e3	30–40%
#a6d9be	40–50%
#77c29a	50–60%
#45ac75	60–70%
#08974a	70–80%
#06763b	80–90%
#04582b	>90%

Ron DeSantis

Hex code	Percentage
#fdecee	<30%
#fbd9dc	30–40%
#f0abb0	40–50%
#ea7982	50–60%
#e04350	60–70%
#cb1d2b	70–80%
#ab000e	80–90%
#81000b	>90%

Nikki Haley

Hex code	Percentage
#fceee6	<30%
#fadece	30–40%
#ebb494	40–50%
#de8a59	50–60%
#d05c18	60–70%
#bc4c0b	70–80%
#9b3900	80–90%
#762b00	>90%

Asa Hutchinson

Hex code	Percentage
#feeffe	<30%
#fcdffc	30–40%
#efb6ef	40–50%
#e68ce6	50–60%
#dc63dc	60–70%
#cd39cd	70–80%
#a526a5	80–90%
#7b1b7b	>90%

Vivek Ramaswamy

Hex code	Percentage
#f0e8be	<30%
#d7c877	30–40%
#CEB948	40–50%
#c0a92f	50–60%
#a88c00	60–70%
#906f00	70–80%
#735700	80–90%
#563f00	>90%

Donald Trump

Hex code	Percentage
#eef1fd	<30%
#dee3fb	30–40%
#b5bded	40–50%
#8d9ae2	50–60%
#6778d7	60–70%
#4156cd	70–80%
#3343a2	80–90%
#243179	>90%

Expoe34 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Now that Suarez has withdrawn before the primaries, should we free up his color and give it to someone else? Maybe Burgum or Binkley because they have fairly similar colors. QuailWatts (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Good Idea! I've since made the tweak to Binkley's color Expoe34 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The colors for DeSantis and Haley seem fairly similar to me. Could one of them be assigned a different color scheme? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't disagree, especially as Haley and Ramaswamy look similar as well, but do you have any suggestions of what to change it to? I'm having trouble finding a better color for Haley. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Przemysl15, can you be more specific, which shades do you find similar? Expoe34 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Metropolitan90, do you mean for the <30% shade, as by comparing them directly, I can see where there's some confusion. However, for the deeper shades, they're starkly different even when I tested color blind settings. Expoe34 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RFC infobox inclusion

Currently the candidates are included in infobox when polling more than 5% nationally. Relevant discussions can be found at this RFC in 2017 and here from 2020.

Question: What is the criteria for inclusion in Republican primary infobox?

1. (1) candidates who win a contest
2. (2) candidates who get 5% of delegates
3. (3) candidates who get 5% of the popular vote
4. (4) a second-place finisher, even if they meet none of the other requirements.
5. (5) candidates who received at least 1 delegate
6. (other) please specify.

207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

why separate discussion from that of the Democratic primary? SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Democratic National Committee conducts caucuses differently. For example, superdelegates don’t exist in the republican primary. Editors may treat them differently. A separate discussion would be more appropriate for Democratic primary.207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

superdelegates are no longer a factor in first-ballot votes for presidential nominating at Democratic primaries. They have no first-ballot vote. So this distinction still does not make any sense. SecretName101 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• 6: Include the candidates mentioned consistently in reliable sources. Reliable sources consistently treat this as a race between Trump and Hailey, to the extent it’s a race at all. Any of the rules above are OR and UNDUE —Jfhutson (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

We need to fill in the map for the Nevada Primary/Caucus results. Both primary results have been declared by sources such as the NYTimes. Someoneexample171 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And the US Virgin Islands. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Does the Nevada primary count as to vote totals? There are lots of “beauty contests” in the past, and they all count. I don’t want an edit war. XXXSX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.35.76 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Seems to be updated already. Please reopen this edit request if not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump should have 63 delegates

This is according to the AP CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Are they counting un-bound delegates they anticipate going to him, perhaps? Or is whatever number was on this article wrong SecretName101 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, NBC does too. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Many media outlets have Trump's delegate total at 63 because they're projecting Trump will win 13 delegates in New Hamsphire to Haley's 9. As of now, we have still not yet confirmed that is the final delegate count. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Propose using the AP projected delegate counts as a neutral source and citing this in the infobox. We need to go by reliable source projections and avoid WP:OR. If there are multiple different projections from reliable sources, we can write a range such as "Projected delegates: 61 (source 1) - 63 (source 2)" Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary at this moment. Right now this is a single delegate difference, if the estimates start varying by more than 10 then maybe that should be considered but to do this over a single delegate when there's over 1000 seems premature. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Green Papers used the wrong method when calculating delegates for NH because of NH's weird rounding rules. It uses the correct method further down on the page to match AP, but that isn't what it shows at the top. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Popular Vote Source in the infobox - TGP

My recent addition to the infobox here was reverted by @Scribetastic, with the comment that The Green Papers has not included the most current Nevada caucus numbers. That is not correct according to The Green Papers - the popular vote page specifically stated that NV is included. I think including a source in the infobox is necessary so readers can see where the information is coming from and to avoid WP:OR. Currently the popular vote data appears to be unsourced entirely. I am not going to revert the change to avoid WP:Edit warring, but I would appreciate clarification and perhaps some second opinions from other editors. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you are totally correct in your reasoning here.

TGP is one of, if not the, only reliable news source that displays the nationwide popular vote. None of the major reliable news sources (CNN, NYT, ABC, NBC) do, mostly because the primaries are more about delegates than actual votes.

If we wanted to accurately find the popular vote, we could find the official results from IA, NH, NV, and VI and add them altogether, but as you said, this would be violating W:OR.

TGP is the closest thing we have right now to a source that backs up the popular vote, so I think using their numbers is the safest bet. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, The Green Papers included the NV caucus in its overall calculation. However, TGP lists Trump as having received 59,787 votes. The official NVGOP caucus results page promulgated by the state party lists Trump as having received 59,982 votes. Hence, the 195-vote difference in totals.

TGP is a fine secondary source generally, but information from primary sources should taken precedence. WP:OR explicitly does not extend to "routine calculations," WP:CALC. "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers...is almost always permissible." WP:OR simply does not apply here, as you or Thelittlepoliticalboy suggest.

I understand the argument to have a singular source of reference, but it is simply not updated to reflect current totals. (e.g. TGP did not update its total to reflect the official VI results until after Wikipedia editors added the total from sourced primary sources.) Scribetastic (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the information in the infobox is currently unsourced. Readers and editors should be able to see exactly where the numbers are coming from. Even if this is a footnote, it should note that the national popular vote data is being calculated by adding data from X, Y, Z sources. Secondarily, is there a better source for NV popular vote than a Google Sheets link? I don't see why we should consider that to be more accurate than TGP. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump wins Michigan Primary

Please replace the info saying the Michigan primary is on feb 27 with Trump won Michigan Primary on 27 Turtlepro22 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)