Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 198.184.248.250 (talk) at 20:51, 5 March 2024 (→clear bias shown: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted

Bound Delegate count using acronyms not referred to earlier in article

In the candidate tables, the Republican candidates' bound delegates are given as "AP: XX (XX%), TGP: XX (XX%)". In none of the instances of the table are AP or TGP links. In none of the cases do AP or TGP have a footnote. At no point in the article itself is there text of the form "...the Axxxxx Pxxxxx (AP)..."

Neither AP nor TGP are in the exceptions list on the Manual of Style for abbreviations, either.

I will also point out that I have absolutely zero idea what TGP is. I'm guessing AP is Associated Press but I can't even be sure of that.

Can someone who actually understands where the bound delegate counts come from actually help to make the article explain what the random acronyms are, please? It would really be appreciated. Elpasi (talk) 03:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP stands for Associated Press and TGP stands for The Green Papers, a website which tracks the results of primaries. The only discrepancy between AP and TGP involves the NH primary, where TGP apparently used an incorrect method for delegate allocation at the top of the page here (although they use the correct method further down on the page). The correct method is detailed here. I trust AP more for delegate results. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Associated Press delegate counts are here. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the delegate counts according to The Green Papers because they were wrong. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RFK qualifying for debates

I'm striking the following from the debate section "Currently, Kennedy has the polling numbers that would allow him to be on the stage, which could mark the first third-party candidate to be on the stage since Ross Perot in 1992 if his polling trends continue." A) We do not know what polls the debate commission will consider, so we cannot conclude whether RFK is on pace. B) RFK is more often than not below 15% in recent polls. C) Discounting its now-dated mention in an unreliable source (NYPost), it's SYNTH to cherry-pick polls and declare him eligible. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sonski and American Solidarity Party

I may simply be unaware of a previous discussion, but what is the reason that Peter Sonski and the American Solidarity Party have their own wikitable on this page under the third parties section? The Prohibition Party and Socialism/Liberation Party, as well as the parties without ballot access, are listed in bullet point format immediately below, and I do not see why Sonski and the ASP have been given the extra information that the others do not have. All of them should be under simple bullet points, in my opinion, with Kennedy and West's independent campaigns as exceptions. Kafoxe (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there was discussion. This candidate was listed in bullet point format until this edit. I prefer the bullet point format for this and similar candidates, and briefly considered reverting that edit. (I can't remember why I retreated; probably to let someone else do it.) --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that Sonski and the ASP should be returned to the bullet point listing format, for the reasons stated above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forecast Sources

The five sources for forecasts on this page are CNN, IE, Cook, Sabato, and, bafflingly, CNalysis, whose Wikipedia article describes it as being “launched in 2020 by… a political science student at Virginia Tech” and having “a staff of seven as well as one intern.” It seems to me that there are more established, credible sources to include if the article requires five sources in this section. 2601:42:0:14F:8892:B63C:3675:5E54 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair and reasonable point. CNalysis is respected in the community, has a reasonable successful (if short) track record, and demonstrated lack of bias. The size of the staff or age is not particularly relevant to me. All the big boys are more or less one man shops. I think greater inclusion here is important to show that opinion of these close races is mixed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support including CNAlysis as well. KlayCax (talk) 12:55, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

Provided there are no objections, I'm going to add Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the infobox once each candidate obtains a majority of delegates, per precedent.

(I think we should hold off until a majority is officially obtained. Not merely Super Tuesday.) Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who said anything about Super Tuesday..? Sounds like a straw man tactic.. You will not be adding RFKJR anytime soon; there seems to be an early consensus to wait until he gets enough ballot access. We will probably not add any candidates until both the Democratic and Republican races are decided. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait until after the RNC and DNC for that. RFK Jr is irrelevant despite what the polls say. Qutlooker (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the consensus on presumptive nominees being in the infobox? Trump will become presumptive as soon as Haley drops out, which could happen 24 hrs from now. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should wait until the candidates are projected to get a majority of delegates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:25, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommitted draft

In light of recent events I have created a draft for the Uncommitted voting option in Presidential primaries. If anyone wants to assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Draft:Uncommitted (voting option). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roe v. Wade in lead

Is mentioning that this is the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned WP:TRIVIA or WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is considerable coverage that indicates that Dobbs has been driving turnout on the left, and it will have an effect on this race. That said, I really like how this year's article gives a list of issues in the lede (and thus gives them prominence) while leaving the prose to the body. Once you start expanding on one issue in the lede, you will inevitably create questions of balance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump eligibility lead

Now that SCOTUS ruled that states can not disqualify Trump, should we condense the lead about his eligibility or remove it altogether? Seems WP:UNDUE to keep as is. Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be removed from the lead, and the paragraph about it in the Republican Party section should be updated.--Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue for condensed. This story is too big a part of the election. Draft: "Courts in several states had initially ruled that Trump was ineligible for office under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Donald Trump listed in the first paragraph like he’s the Republican nominee?

The Associated Press has a specific policy NOT to identify presidential candidates as presumptive nominees until they’ve either (1) won the necessary number of delegates to be nominated, or (2) their last remaining challenger drops out. Per WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), Donald Trump should not be listed there until he’s the presumptive Republican nominee. 2601:642:4C00:D149:EDCC:5DF2:93C4:BAC7 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say he is the nominee..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

clear bias shown

It shows clear bias to show trump's classified document scandal without showing biden's, and trump's stormy daniels scandal without showing biden's corruption investigation regarding china and russia paying the biden family. 198.184.248.250 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1212031903"