Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:. This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here. California (through American Independent Party) Florida (through Reform Party of the United States of America) Utah Arizona Colorado (through state Libertarian party) New Mexico Mississippi (through state Reform Party) Texas (Certified by counties. Hasn't been certified by state yet officially. Seems de facto, however.) Georgia (through both signatures and a fusion ticket of third-parties; but challenged.) Iowa (through fusion ticket of third-parties) South Carolina (through Alliance Party nomination) North Carolina Tennessee Delaware (through Independent Party of Delaware) Michigan (through Natural Law Party) Indiana Minnesota Hawaii He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.) As @GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong. For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC) What's an RFC? A "Request for comment" or "Robert Fried Chicken?" Or is it "Robert F**kin' Chennedy?" —SquidHomme (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC) The first. The RfC referenced is RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1) which closed with the following criteria: Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes and [a] candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.) Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC) There is no source whatsoever claiming Kennedy has made the ballot in Oklahoma, and even you didn’t include it in your list. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 12:21, 5 August 2024 (UTC) I think we resolved this by saying to wait for the Kennedy campaign article to say he is at 270 before dealing with the finer details. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC) I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC) A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC) We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @David O. Johnson:. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) He doesn't. The Arizona ref you linked says, "Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval." They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC) The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC) In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Please stop? GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC) So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC) That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC) They have not been. According to the states presented, Kennedy has access to 263 electoral votes. California has 54, Florida has 30, Utah has 6, Arizona has 11, Colorado has 10, New Mexico has 5, Texas has 40, Mississippi has 6, Georgia has 16, South Carolina has 8, North Carolina has 16, Tennessee has 11, Delaware has 3, Indiana has 11, Michigan has 15, Iowa has 6, and Minnesota has 10. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 23:26, 2 August 2024 (UTC) I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC) The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1 The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Yep, it is going to be a problem. Though, some of it might be resolvable by the Secretary of State in those locations where they show who is on the ballot. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC) I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC) That sounds reasonable to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC) Additionally, I did some more searching and CBS News also lists him as qualifying in Tennessee, so it seems to check out. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Hi, could you update the ref on the page where the CA SOS has certified the AIP? I found an LA Times source here [1] that stated that it still had to be certified, but that was back in April. I changed RFK's status in California to pending certification based on that, but if you find otherwise, please feel free to revert. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC) Sorry for delay in response. I was going by the primary source here[2] which lists AIP among a small number of qualified political parties. It may get into some WP:OR to SYNTH this with AIP saying RFK is their man. But I think that by the spirit of the RFC, he is on the ballot in California. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC) This still does not change the fact that these states DO NOT add up to 270, they add up to 263. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 23:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC) It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC) Kennedy has fulfilled the requirements necessary to be eligible for over 400 electoral votes, and there is absolutely no basis for believing that he will have access to less than 270 votes. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to exclude him at the present time apart from personal bias. To be clear, I will not be voting for Kennedy. However, the media has shown that he is absolutely a major candidate (along with the Secret Service who, themselves saying that they only provide protection to major candidates, have now provided protection to Kennedy). To exclude him at this time would be grossly negligent and biased. 2600:100C:B237:2882:79C7:ECFA:C30E:7A01 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC) This is not accurate and who you vote for isn't relevant in any way. We don't care. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC) I do care! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC) Kennedy has applied for more than 400, but as of now, he does not have enough to reach 270. When he does, we should add him. However, at this time, if we are including the states that are disputed, Kennedy has qualified for 263. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 23:30, 2 August 2024 (UTC) When he does, we should add him. Provided the 5% criteria is satisfied if he does. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC) The criterion established in the RfC was ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes - I don't think the polling criterion is being widely debated here as it's pretty clearly met. According to our own article, which I don't disagree is not a appropriate source, he is only confirmed on the ballot in states comprising a total of 203 electors. While we shouldn't be using our own article on his campaign as a source, it makes zero sense to try and decide something different here than we are on that article, as that article is the main topic for his campaign. If there isn't reliable sourcing to justify us including the state(s) in question on his campaign's article, we shouldn't be using them to determine whether he's in the infobox here. I agree with others that no matter what his campaign/sources have stated we should not consider him to have "ballot access" until the petitions are actually certified and he is confirmed on the ballot. I do disagree with some others that there is any one criteria for ballot access that matters - whether or not he got ballot access on his own as an independent or by being the nominee of a party guaranteed ballot access by state law - he has ballot access in either of those cases and that state's electoral votes can count. But he does not yet have that access confirmed in 270 electoral votes worth of states. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 06:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Proposal The New York Times[3] and The Hill[4] seem to be keeping track of ballot access in an editorially responsible way. Nevertheless, there are discrepancies: NYT gives him CA & HI, where The Hill has SC, NV, and FL. I would like to suggest that we give him credit for either, with the rational being that adding a state to these trackers is a discreet act. Either RS could omit a state through negligence, but neither would add a state negligently. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC) Honestly, I think bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez got it right by saying we should wait until at least his campaign's article shows he has 270. Then we can try to determine what is reliable enough regarding the discrepancies. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Fair enough. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC) What the NYT and the Hill say does not matter, the state's themselves publish lists of candidates as well. Once the certified number hits 270, as long as the sourcing is there it does not matter who it comes from.148.74.50.94 (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Just wanted to point out that RFKJR is barely hovering above the 5% threshold. If he averages less than that, his ballot access status will become moot as far as the infobox is concerned. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC) @Prcc27 I understand. I wish we could make an IAR request or second consensus on permitting an exception on this one due to many of the big polls being "funky" with third party candidates this time around. Rather that be some pollsters providing some respondents with the poll without Rfk Jr or others or polls having just the Republican and Democratic candidate by default and multiple respondents voluntarily (VOL) put RFK Jr or Cornell West, etc in. Posted some evidence https://imgur.com/a/Tl3Mr6u Buildershed (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC) And yes I understand that this idea would have issues with Wikipedia policy Buildershed (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Nothing funky about the polling, IMO. Kamala Harris has been eating away at RFKJR.’s support in the polls. We don’t need to be making exceptions for any candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC) @Prcc27 Did you look at the evidence? Buildershed (talk) 21:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC) Obviously polls that exclude RFKJR are not included in the polling aggregates that include him. This really is a nonissue. Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2024 (UTC) It's up to polling agencies on who they want to include on their polls. We can't really make the call to disregard polls that exclude minor candidates. LV ✉ ✎ 22:00, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Trump's current potrait

The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg

File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! --MarioProtIV (^talk/_contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg (Option A)

He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Would it be appropariate to digitally change the colour of the tie to be red? This feels like something that'd solve this issue once and for all. Nursultan Malik^(talk) 09:52, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

File:Donald Trump June 2024.jpg (Option B)

His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression, option B. GhulamIslam (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Contrariwise, I don't think a 7-year-old is even old enough to run for President in the first place. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

7 years is old. Anyone that's 11 years old in 2017 can legally copulate by now. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 21:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Agree and I am supporting the upmost shown image in the discussion because it is one of the more recent ones and it have a relatively neutral expression Punker85 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

This is a much better image due to his even more neutral facial expression (when compared to any of his previously proposed images) and his eyes are pointed more to the center. —SquidHomme ^(talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, this is why I was against the argument of not using his official portrait because it was going to open a can of worms about updating the pic every year/few months whereas his official portrait would've remained. Yet, here we are. If I had to support a picture, I'd go for option A as it has a better angle and expression of Trump. He's facing more forward than the other option. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Can someone please change the portrait, it’s so bad lol Geffery2210 (talk) 02:28, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Should change it to option A imo Geffery2210 (talk) 02:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Last sentence should be stricken. (47th president)

We don't actually know if the 2024 election will result in the 47th president and 50th Vice-President, a lot can happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Biden is the 46th president who is no longer in the running. No matter who wins, it'll result in the 47th president and 50th vice president being elected. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Again not true, until Biden officially leaves office on January 20th 2025, at the swearing in of the next president, we won't know who the 47th president and 50th vice president will be. A lot can still happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed theoretically possible that, e.g., Biden resigns or dies, making Harris the 47th president before January, and then Harris loses the election and the winner becomes the 48th president. BD2412 T 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, it's like saying the winner of the 2028 election will result in the 48th president, we don't know that. Especially with how crazy America politics can get. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Oh now I get it. I thought you were questioning the order in the event if it's Biden leaving office on 1/20/2025. Well, I support with your sentiment that anything could happen from this point until 1/20/2025. I'm inclined to keep the sentence as it's based of what we know now, but I could understand the opposing arguments. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

We could add some qualifying language, then, e.g., "assuming Biden and Harris serve in their current offices until the end of their current terms". BD2412 T 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Not necessarily. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

As I'm aware on Wikipedia it is procedure not to be presumptive about future events, as an example the winner of the 2024 election being sworn in as the 47th President. We don't know for sure if that will happen, although it is likely, just like it is likely that the 2028 election will result in the 48th president being sworn in(Although much less so). Regardless 6 months is an eternity in American politics. Given the fact that Biden is of advanced age, and we're in a very tumultuous political time, where both political leaders seem to be in danger of political violence, it's definitely not set in stone. Hell Biden might even resign just to guarantee the first female president, we really don't know. Just like in 2020, there was a real chance that Trump could have gotten Impeached and removed from office, making Biden the 47th president. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

If I were to say the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games will occur later today, that would be predicting the future. There may be a terrorist attack or alien invasion in the intervening period that causes a delay or cancellation (or the end of all life on Earth). WP has a policy that specifically says that we can presume certain future events that are "almost certain to take place." The likelihood of an 80 year old man dying in the next year is about 7%. Inauguration day is in just 6 months, and Biden will have access to the best care in the meantime. And being that he is no longer an active politician and of an advanced age, his exposure to risky events like public rallies will be quite low. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between an event that's 1 day away, vs an event that's 6 months away. Again using that argument, it's like saying, prior to Joe Biden dropping out, the 48th President will be sworn in on January 20th, 2029. Is that likely to happen in that scenario? Yes. Is it guaranteed? no. Trump got impeached twice and nearly assassinated. Many reports have suggested Biden get removed due to the 25th amendment, his health is a big question mark. He might even resign. Again all reasonable hypotheticals, not alien invasions. The odds of a terrorist attack or alien invasion preventing the Olympics is so small that that's such a straw man it's ridiculous. (How many Alien invasions prevented the Olympics historically?). Compare that with a series of presidential assassinations or attempts, president's dying in office, president's being impeached, removed or just resigning. I'm sure everyone thought Nixon would be re-elected, until he wasn't. If Trump loses for example, he could stage major political violence. We really don't know. If this was 20 years ago it would be a more reasonable assumption. This is one of the most volatile political times in American history. It would also be reasonable if this was a month prior to the inauguration, during a lame duck session, where everyone has accepted the results. At this junction in history it is far from a guarantee. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Alright to use 47th prez & 50th vice prez, as long as nothing unexpected happens. Otherwise, we'd simply change the numberings. GoodDay (talk) 22:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I remember a while back when Newsom beat Cox I wrote that the winner would be the 40th Governor of California, and they where pretty adamant not to make such a statement until the winner was sworn in, and that was a lot less of a contentious race and pretty much a guaranteed victory for Newsom. I don't get the "implying that nothing unexpected happens". The event hasn't happened yet, the nominee of the Democratic party hasn't even been decided, there is no rule that the 47 president and 50th vice president will be sworn in, after the 60th presidential election of the United States. It's not like a sporting competition where you can guarantee that the team that beats the other team in the final will be (XXX) champions. They're so many political scenarios that can take place until then. If this is the case, and assuming Trump wins (Which is probably 50-50 proposition at this point). Why not just start already assuming that the 48th president will be sworn in on January 20th, 2029? That won't be done because people realize that maybe in 4 years time a lot could happen. In 5 months time, a lot still could happen. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

If/until the unexpected occurs? there's nothing that requires changing. PS - IP 68, will you please indent your posts correctly & sign your posts correctly? GoodDay (talk) 20:04, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Fox News projections?

Should we consider using Fox News projections as one of our news sources we use to update the infobox and map in November? Per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS, Fox News is not reliable with regard to politics. I would actually lean in support of using Fox News projections, if the Fox News Decision Desk was 100% free of influence from the network. But in 2020, the network did not allow their Decision Desk to call Nevada for Biden, even though they were ready to make the call. Yes, the Arizona call was bad and was part of the reason the network stepped in; but nevertheless, it is still concerning when a network does not allow their Decision Desk to operate independently. Consequently, I think we should not use Fox News projections when we update our infobox and map, albeit we should give due weight to their projections in the article and lead. Prcc27 (talk) 09:18, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Yes Buildershed (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for possibly continuing to use the Fox News Decision Desk? Prcc27 (talk) 17:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

They're generally not reliable. But the Decision Desk has substantially more autonomy than, say, WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS so I'm leaning against removing it. (Albeit not entirely.) KlayCax (talk) 04:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

They do not have enough autonomy, IMHO, per what I said above. Prcc27 (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Even if there's lack of independence or bias in how they forecast the election: this is only really going to be a problem if we're basing it on how Wikipedia calls elections.

Otherwise, it's like saying that a projection from X (Nate Silver's model) doesn't have independence. For projections? I don't think it's a big deal. What's exactly the concern here?

The only time I can imagine this being a problem is if it influences Wikipedia coverage. KlayCax (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think we need to redo how we call states for the purposes of Wikipedia. A "conservative" (in terms of calls) source like Reuters or New York Times seems best. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Associated press is the most basic and longstanding trusted source. 172.58.160.73 (talk) 10:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not think we should use Reuters or NYT; that would be WP:UNDUE. We should stick to the major media organizations only, i.e. the National Election Pool (ABC, CBS, CNN, and NBC) and AP VoteCast (AP only, Fox News [crossed out per WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS]). If we want to be conservative about which states we call, we can simply implement a requirement that a state is not added until all major media organizations call a state. This is what we more or less did in 2020. We can worry about the criteria for adding a state later; right now, I just want to make sure we are all on the same page about Fox News being a no go. Prcc27 (talk) 06:28, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I assume there are a quantity of sources used? If Fox is unique in holding out for calling a state for Biden, we should absolutely ignore that and proceed. GreatCaesarsGhost 02:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

In 2020, the criteria for adding a state to the infobox and map was to wait until all major media outlets make a projection for that state. If we adopt the same criteria in 2024 (although that is still TBD), I absolutely agree with you that we should add a state’s electoral votes with or without Fox News’s blessing. Even if we move forward with a less strict criteria, I still think many users and readers will take Fox projections with a grain of salt, so maybe the best course of action is to avoid Fox projections altogether? There are plenty of other networks Wikipedia can rely on for election projections. Prcc27 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

As someone from the city with the proud history of having given Rupert Murdoch to the world, I can say that I trust his media outlets 100% with the football scores. I don't think he has ever let us down there. Beyond that, no. We should stick to policy and ignore anything Fox News say on the election. And before anyone asks, no, we don't want him back thanks. HiLo48 (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I also do not think that we should use Fox News projections. The entire network is a deliberately extremely unreliable and divisive propagandistic and manipulative extremist hate-machine. David A (talk) 06:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Again, this is not a policy matter, nor is it taking it as a reliable source. The proposal is simply to list their forecast of the election. WP: FOXNEWSPOLITICS doesn't apply here.

Independence of the Fox News Decision Desk is much less of a concern when it revolves around forecasts. The vast majority of reliable sources include their forecasts, among others. Hard to say there's an issue.

I don't like Fox News either but I'm struggling to see what the deal is. KlayCax (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

How do we know Fox News isn’t going to tell their Decision Desk which states they should and shouldn’t make a projection for? I used to at the very least trust their Decision Desk, but now I have less faith in them after they were influenced by the network executives in 2020. I respectfully disagree with the notion that the Fox News Decision Desk is “independent” from the entire outlet as a whole. Prcc27 (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

KlayCax, either you or I have misinterpreted Prcc27's request here. A "forecast" is what they do now. A "projection" is what they do after the polls close. My understanding is Prcc27 wants to remove Fox from the list of sources that we are using to confirm a candidate has won a state on November 5th. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:53, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies then. Wasn't sure what the intention was. I'm alright with that, @GreatCaesarsGhost:. I think the Fox News forecasts should remain in the Electoral College Projections section.

I would support "[removing the Fox News Decision Desk] from the list of sources that we are using to confirm a candidate has won a state on November 5th."

We don't have to reuse the standard done in 2020. KlayCax (talk) 20:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I think it could be worth to mention it, but of course if one network makes a call, and others dispute it, then it should not be solely used. I think this is rather common sense - as you want multiple networks to make a call before going ahead.

There's always a possibility of Fox breaking precedent, or weird deja vu 2000 scenarios occurring and I don't think it should be ignored either, as states can have their results contested for a week, or up to a month. I doubt this will be the last we will hear of this discussion. Borifjiufchu (talk) 09:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Election date

Cyrobyte, it's absurd to list the election date as December in the infobox.

While it's technically true, it's not the general understood sense of the phrase "election day". I'm pretty certain that all previous US presidential elections have the November date, not the December date, in their respective infoboxes (aside from the 2020 United States presidential election article, which you changed). David O. Johnson (talk) 16:34, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that it is absurd to include both the actual date the president is elected and the date of the general election of the electors. I don't think that we should omit the actual date just because the public doesn't understand how the election actually works. Cyrobyte (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Look at the language that the US Constitution uses when discussing the presidential election:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. [...] The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice.

The electoral college election in December is the actual election. The November election is just an election in each state and DC to elect the electors. The constitution clearly says that the state legislatures can appoint electors in any manner they want. The average person is not aware of this because they are not educated, so they think that the actual election takes place on November 5. Why not just put both dates in? Cyrobyte (talk) 16:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

This detail can be added to the second graph under the "Procedure" where it is already mentioned. The lede should only note November, and I assure you that you will not find consensus here to modify that. I'll assume you are acting in good faith, but saying December is "the actual date" is creeping into Stop the Steal conspiracy territory. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The indirect election on November 5 is an actual election for president; on that date millions will vote for president (using the indirect process). Every reliable source is going to identify November 5 as the election day. A footnote might be appropriate, but it shouldn't say that the November election is not "actual." -- JFHutson (talk) 17:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

In the most technical sense the election of the president does occur in December, with the election ultimately being indirect. However no reliable sources describe it this way. They pretty much uniformally treat the election of electors in November as the actual election, with the subsequent vote in December being a mere formality, confirming the result which was determined in November. The fact that the election is technically indirect is not enough of a reason to depict the election day as being in December. Instead, this can be explained elsewhere in the article, namely in the lead and the procedure section. Gust Justice (talk) 19:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

I believe in 2020 we had a footnote in the projected electoral vote field which clarified that the electors vote in December, and that the election is certified on January 6th. We should do something similar this November. But in the meantime, I am open to a footnote explaining when the electors vote in the election date field. Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Democracy

In the Democracy section we have "Kennedy and Trump have claimed that Joe Biden is a threat to democracy". No reason is given for this claim. It looks like nothing more than unsubstantiated political rhetoric. Is it meant to look like this, or did the accusers actually give reasons for their allegations that we haven't reported? HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is weird and shortened it in half to try and reduce the WP:Undue it had. I would support deleting Superb Owl (talk) 03:24, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Biden dropping out is even more reason to remove those sentences from the article entirely. Prcc27 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Is it meant to look like this, or did the accusers actually give reasons for their allegations that we haven't reported? So what happened was that BootsED added it to the article back in April as the following: Speaking on Erin Burnett OutFront, Kennedy said that President Biden poses a bigger threat to democracy than does Donald Trump. Trump has claimed that Joe Biden is the "destroyer" and real threat to democracy, and has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him, of which there has been no evidence. (First edit, Second edit) That was how it was until a few hours ago when Superb Owl above edited it to: Kennedy and Trump have claimed that Joe Biden a threat to democracy, while Trump has repeated false claims that the 2020 election was rigged and stolen from him. (Recent edit) In short, a recent edit gave it much more attention and the point seems moot given Prcc27's reply. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:13, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a long time ago but if my memory serves it was added in to address balance concerns. If the consensus is to remove it I have no objection. BootsED (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Silver Bulletin forecast

I want to see some consensus before I try and implement this because it will probably take time to fiddle with that chart, but what do you all think of adding the Silver Bulletin forecast by Nate Silver to the forecast chart? [5] R. G. Checkers ^talk 22:44, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks like Silver Bulletin was already added to the article as far as polling aggregation. If we do add them for forecasts, someone will likely have to subscribe, as the state forecasts are usually paywalled. Prcc27 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I’m subscribed R. G. Checkers ^talk 23:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I do not oppose adding Silver Bulletin. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Excessively bold edits

Maybe it's just me, but in an article with so much activity on the talk page and so many potentially partisan editors quibbling over individual sentences, WP:CAREFUL should be in play. I don't think anyone should be striking multiple well cited paragraphs[6] without discussion here. The material stricken here is generally accurate and relevant to the section. If we need to tweak, that's fine. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The paragraph has been restored and tweaked to address some of the concerns, including mismatches between sources and the text, WP:Verifiability issues and tense issues Superb Owl (talk) 17:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

The Roll Call has happened today

Should we remove the word presumptive from Kamala Harris, Kamala Harris has won the roll call today. Alhanuty (talk) 17:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It looks like someone has already updated the infobox; here's a source for it. [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Per this CBS source [8], Harris won't accept the nomination until voting closes on Monday. I think we should wait until it's official. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We removed “presumptive” from Trump before he formally accepted his nomination (even though I argued we should have waited for him to accept it). I think we added him only after every delegate had voted, so we should be able to remove it on Monday, regardless of when Harris will be formally accepting the nomination (if we want to be consistent). Prcc27 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with @Prcc27. –yeagvr · ✉ 18:45, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

We may want to go ahead with it before Monday, if it's clear she is now the nominee, or we might have a weekend of edit-warring back and forth again by various editors on the articles. Related, there's already another edit request at Talk:Kamala Harris#Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 August 2024 and I'm sure it won't be the last. Raladic (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It's not official until voting closes, though. I'd rather have some edits that need to be undone than put inaccurate information in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

It is also similar to how we handle the infobox for when states are called since they are not called by media organizations until voting has concluded in a state. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Let's wait until the delegates vote at the Democratic National Convention. GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Just to ask, what would be the benefit of doing so? My understanding is that this is the official roll call for the DNC's presidential nomination. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:11, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Folks, the DNC has said she has the nomination. [9] Reliable sources all say its official. [10] There are no other candidates. It's done. I'm removing presumptive now. Editors here saying they want to wait for some future date need to rationalize why with sources; we are not going to go by vibes. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:43, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the edit.

That linked AP ref says "She’s looking to officially claim the nomination on Monday evening when the DNC is expected to release final results."

The WaPo ref says the same thing:"“I will officially accept your nomination next week, once the virtual voting period is closed,” Harris said on a live stream as delegates continued to cast ballots. “But already I’m happy to know we have enough delegates to secure the nomination.” The process officially continues through Monday, despite the foregone conclusion."

Please see the previous discussion here. [11]

I can't get the section link to work, but it's the right page.

Let's not jump ahead of the sources. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

She can "officially accept" whenever she wants; That's not the same thing as officially being the nominee. Even if you were right on the technicality (which you are not), you are now editing purely to make a pedantic point. It is disruptive. Please stop. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Why should we do things any differently than what we did for Trump? Even when Trump had a majority of delegate votes, we waited for every delegate to vote before we removed “presumptive”. Is Kamala Harris the official nominee? No? Then that must mean she is still presumptive by definition, right? Prcc27 (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we waited for every delegate based on this edit. The source in the edit summary says Trump announced the choice just ahead of the Ohio delegation’s roll call vote on the convention floor. Shortly after the announcement, Trump officially became the nominee with Florida’s roll call.

Still, I don't think we should remove the presumptive part until the roll call concludes on Monday. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Based on the time stamp of that edit and the time when the vote concluded, I believe we did in fact wait for the voting to conclude. [12] Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. Then I am mistaken. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Permission to edit this page?

I’m a Wikipedia editor who joined a few years ago, and I have contributed to multiple pages, when can I be granted access to edit this page. I pledge that I never vandalize under any circumstances. SmashingThreePlates (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hello! This article is subject to extended confirmed protection. Access to edit pages under this protection is automatically granted to users being at least 30 days old and having 500 edits. You currently have made 158 edits (see here[13]). GreatCaesarsGhost 13:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

You can make an edit request on the talk page if you wish to suggest changes. See WP:ER for more details and make sure a request follows WP:EDITXY if you do so. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Kamala Is now the official nominee

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

the *presumptive* needs to be removed John Bois (talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Wait until the delegates vote at the Convention. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

See #The Roll Call has happened today for discussion about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RFKJR residency

We currently list RFKJR.’s residency as “California”, even though he claims “New York” as his place of residency. How should we handle this? [14][15] Prcc27 (talk) 16:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Can we just omit it? Listing either California or New York without elaboration could be an issue. Is there really much value in listing a candidates declared home state? I'm aware that his running mate is also from California, but the "concern" about them winning the state is a little silly. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:54, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

It might look a little weird omitting his homestate while leaving everyone else’s homestate, especially in infoboxes. Prcc27 (talk) 22:30, 5 August 2024 (UTC)