![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm pretty sure the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article had a six months or sooner rule where no sources older than six months were allowed. Will this article still have the same standard? David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article has been accepted. This should probably also be accepted similarly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
no reason not to keep its, its fine
We don't need this page just yet until events are scheduled and people are actually running. Proposal to merge just like the 2024 democratic primary. Primus01 ( talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The inconsistency between the Republican and Democratic parties still remains. We should either keep both or merge this article with the main election until the primaries start. The inconsistency between the two rival parties is the key factor. Primus01 ( talk) 18:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
In this case, inconsistency is good. The two parties are internally very different and the races will be very different from each other. Look at 2012./ Arglebargle79 ( talk) 01:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Remove the following section: 2021 January 20: The Trump administration ends and President Donald Trump will leave the White House.
The results have not been certified and the electoral college has not voted yet, so we can't definitely say this will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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:
For potential candidates:
For declined candidates:
Curbon7 ( talk) 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Submitted bare-bones AfC given the increasing coverage of the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. The 2020 Republican primary standalone page was created in 2017, for context. I lifted the candidate section directly from 2024 United States presidential election. I do not know the proper way to resolve this, if resolution is necessary. Sorry, I am still learning. Mihir.pethe1 ( talk) 07:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
folks have saying trump is about to announce for a long time. Renember when he planed to announce on july4. he should not be in the announcement pending catergory Cookiegator ( talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Corey Stapleton has been open about considering a run for office, and seemingly has a website outright announcing his candidacy. I don't know if he's officially filed, but all signs seem to suggest that he is indeed planning to run. Should we add him onto the 'Openly Expressed Intent' section, or is there something that I'm missing here? Walpole2019 ( talk) 08:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Stapleton has held statewide office. Why is he at the bottom of the section in terms of candidates? Declared candidates should be at the top, or at least above potential and undeclared candidates. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"Donald Trump was defeated by President Joe Biden by over 7 million votes in 2020"
And? The US president is NOT determined by the winner of a national popular vote and rather by 50 different popular votes, one for each individual state. 93.206.53.87 ( talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I've heard that over 100 fringe candidates have already declared. I came here hoping to learn more about them, but I don't see any discussion of the subject. Nogoodbooks ( talk) 17:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Was removed by Syaz. Why is that? GeorgeBailey ( talk) 16:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
THere's virtually nothing in this messy complication [compilation, forgive the typo] of random data that actually discusses presidential primaries. The lede is devoted to lengthy discussion of Donald Trump rather than the article's supposed subject. Where's the guarantee there will even be a Republican primary process in 2024? Townlake ( talk) 04:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Nikki Haley's Fox News interview today didn't state she had formed an exploratory committee for president yet. Nothing filed with the FEC either. I think she should be moved back to the "publicly expressed interest" category. Alexjjj ( talk) 00:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/ron-desantis-donald-trump-2024-president/index.html
Can someone add this? I'm not great at editing!! Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I belive that a candidate should not have a place in the main polling box for the Trump and non-Trump categories until they hit double digits. Right now, it is very confusing to editors and viewers to have so much date for candidates polling with very low numbers. I would like to change this as soon as possible. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The endorsement section of DeSantis seems at best premature. This article states he has not publicly stated his intention. Several of the endorsements don't even read as endorsements for President. I think it should be removed. Mpen320 ( talk) 03:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I noticed there was an endorsements section for Donald Trump at the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign article, in addition to the one on this article. Would a transclusion there, linking to the Trump section of this article, be the best way to avoid any redundancy? David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The present source for Stone's endorsement of Trump doesn't actually say that Stone endorsed Trump. It gives some of Stone's commentary on Trump, DeSantis, and the possible 2024 primary. It certainly implies Stone supports Trump, but other than calling Stone a 'Trump loyalist', it doesn't really say so outright.
I tried adding this CNN news release as a source for Stone: <
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/trump-2024-presidential-bid> (I think I was unable to just because I don't know how.) In the last paragraph of the section 'Beating Others to the Punch', it says, 'Other guests [at Trump's announcement] included longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone...'. If attendance at Trump's speech can be taken as tantamount to endorsement, this would seem more unambiguous than the other source (although I was trying to add, not replace).
Toadmore (
talk)
02:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
If Trump wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, then chose DeSantis as his vice presidential running mate. One of them would have to change their state residency, as both can't receive electoral votes from Florida, as a ticket. Note in 2000, Cheney had to change his state residency from Texas to Wyoming, so that both Bush & himself, could receive the prez & vice prez electoral votes from Texas. GoodDay ( talk) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we move desantis from potential to publicly expressed interest? I feel like he , as a major candidate, should be above considering he is the favorite to win at the moment. 73.247.81.254 ( talk) 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Is it confirmed that he's even running in the Republican primary?
2. Should he be listed if he hasn't yet filed with the FEC? Perathian ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Some editor or editors apparently are trying to push Corey Stapleton as a major candidate in this article. This appears to be against consensus. (See discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1#Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major".) As I mentioned above, being a state's secretary of state is not a prominent enough office to confer major candidate status. Stapleton has been included in zero polls that I know of. Also, he has received little if any news media coverage that I can find. (Note that the source cited for his candidacy is his own campaign's press release.) Can we agree that Stapleton should be demoted to the "Other declared candidates" section? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not think Corey Stapleton should be treated as just "Other declared candidate", I understand the case that he is nowhere near the top in the main choices for a potential GOP primary, but he is still a significant figure, and I consider every figure that held a statewide office should classify as a notable candidate, this unless the list gets increasingly bigger, but with only 2 individuals as declared candidates he should be treated the same as Trump. SuperGion915 ( talk) 03:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
many people in the articles say they are indifferent to trump's announcement or are not willing to comment. Should these people get a declined to endorse box? Free city of stratford ok ( talk) 15:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Bob Iger was listed as a candidate who filed paperwork. The paperwork in question is dubious and almost definitely a hoax. It's linked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221222041241/https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P40010167/1672914/ Oswako ( talk) 04:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Somewhere along the line "Announcement scheduled" melted into "Decision Pending" which to me seems indistinguishable from "Publicly Expressed Interest". We are expecting a decision one way or another at some point from everyone wo has expressed interest. I don't see a meaningful difference between Hutchinson, whose decision is nebulously expected by April, from Mike Pence, who is basically already campaigning, and whose decision also expected sometime soon, likely by April, too. Someone who has an announcement scheduled with a specific time and place for said announcement is worth noting separately. Otherwise, "Decision Pending" doesn't strike me as a useful subsection. Vrivasfl ( talk) 20:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I propose that we divide polling into boxes by calendar year, in the same way or a similar way that the article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries does. This poll box is getting very long, and as it continues to grow in size, it becomes more difficult to edit and work with. To make it easier to look at for viewers, and easier for editors to contribute to, I propose that we divide polling boxes into a 2020-2021 box, a 2022 box, and a 2023 box, (with an eventual 2024 box when that time comes). I would love to hear your feedback on all of this. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Nikki Haley just announced she is running for president and is the first major formal challenger. The current graph has Trump and Haley who is running, Pence and DeSantis who seem interested, and then Cruz who is running for Senate right now. Should we keep the main graph just to the major declared candidates and throw Pence and DeSantis and Cruz into "other" until they announce, if they do? Also a noticeable January to June 2022 polling gap that should be fixed. JoshRamirez29 ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Should this poll be added to the page? 98.20.155.249 ( talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Should this be added to the Endorsements section? [4] https://twitter.com/GenDonBolduc/status/1626204788647170048 98.20.155.249 ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The section “Other Declared Candidates” is not really needed, obviously we are not going to add extremely minor candidates but people like Corey Stapelton and John Bolton have held high profile positions and were reported on by the media. 2601:18C:8C01:370:802E:5F97:FD21:A67C ( talk) 21:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Found this on the FEC site, do not know if it counts for an FEC filing or not, here's the link. HurricaneKappa ( talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This is in the opening paragraphs, who considers him the frontrunner? At the time he declared his candidacy he was and still is significantly behind DeSantis in the betting and media analysis. The source cited to back up this claim is from 11 months before he announced. I've not bothered reading the rest of the article given this statement. 31.52.117.117 ( talk) 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Could editors please stop making arbitrary decisions of placing potential candidates under the sub-heading 'Decision Pending'. All of the PEI potential candidates have a decision to make which is pending. The 'Decision Pending' section should be reserved for candidates who have indicated that they are in the process of making a decision on a specific date within a very short period of time, say up to a fortnight. It's quite ridiculous to re-categorise someone who says they will make a definite decision in April. They will all need to make a decision at some point in time, probably in the first half of this year. Mrodowicz ( talk) 02:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Should British PM Boris Johnson be listed? I get that it's cited by a reliable source, but the man renounced his American citizenship, would he even be eligible? 2601:249:8E00:420:4816:6F6A:4385:1472 ( talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
In light of recent reports/announcements, I have created drafts at Draft:Chris Sununu 2024 presidential campaign and Draft:Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign. If these subjects do indeed announce campaigns as expected, the drafts can be moved to mainspace immediately thereafter. BD2412 T 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the “Rollan Roberts II” link in the minor candidates section points to the Wikipedia article about his father, not Roberts himself (who doesn’t currently have one). The younger Roberts’ announcement got enough attention (due to the fainting-wife incident) that I think he _is_ now notable enough for his own WP article, but it doesn’t make sense to have the son’s name wikilink to the article about the father. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 ( talk) 15:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I know there isn't a lot of content to work with, but seems unbalanced to have an intro that discusses a singular candidate in-depth at a length of 60% of the 2012 intro and virtually equal to 2016. There's presumably a lot more content to come and perhaps better to prune now, rather than later? Slywriter ( talk) 22:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Tim Scott should be classified in the exploratory committee section right now. I don't think having a political action committee set up translates to launching an exploratory committee. He hasn't filed with the FEC or announced one. Since it's been announced he's doing a listening tour later starting Feb 16th, which will lead into an announcement, I think it's more appropriate he be listed in the "decision pending" section. A decision expected in late February or March. Alexjjj ( talk) 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
John Bolton has just confirmed he is, in fact, running for president. Should we add him to the "Declared major candidates" list? The Sackinator ( talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
There was a article from The Hill website that interviewed Marco Rubio about the 2024 presidential field. In the article, he was asked about a 2024 bid for president, he says he "doesn’t have any plans to run for anything in the immediate future.” - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3858306-senate-republicans-fear-trump-repeat-as-2024-field-emerges/
Would this be enough to move Rubio from the potential list to the declined list? With Trump in the race and DeSantis almost certain to get in, two candidates from Florida, it doesn't look like he would change his mind in the next few months either about a run for president. Alexjjj ( talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Fmr. Ohio Governor John Kasich should be listed under Potential Candidates 66.116.122.249 ( talk) 18:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
As my previous discussion here got no attention, I have opened a discussion at NPOVN concerning content about Donald Trump. Slywriter ( talk) 01:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to include a section on how the public opinion of Donald Trump within the Republican Party has declined during his post-presidency. Utopiayouser ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the Democratic Party is changing the state primary schedule, was wondering why this page doesn’t talk about the schedule, nor is there a link to this page on the Presidential Primary main page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.181.192.29 (
talk)
23:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
One way to get into the major candidate section is "substantial media coverage". This is the requirement for *any* content to get into a Wikipedia article, though. The "other declared candidates" section is for candidates that don't meet Wikipedia's own sourcing requirements. Why are we ignoring WP:WEIGHT here and including total joke candidacies that RS do not consider worth reporting? 25stargeneral ( talk) 08:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Do we put him in "Declared Major Candidates", due to him having substantial media coverage, abiet some, or in "Other Declared Candidates", personally I think "Other Declared Candidates", wanna see opinions on this. HurricaneKappa ( talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
In the top paragraphs of the article he is called a "major candidate" I am not sure that is a truthful telling of events. He has not appeared on any polls to my knowledge, and other than his announcement he is virtually unrecognizable. So I believe he should not be declared as a "major candidate" in the top paragraphs. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 17:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ramaswamy is not a major candidate. Polls were not cited for Ramaswamy. Even if he is featured in polls if he is below 1% he is not a major candidate. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it defined in a previous discussion somewhere? David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this article may need a protection placed on it so that information remains accurate. I'm not sure what its called or how to get it. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at the major candidates list in the 2020 Democrat primaries: /info/en/?search=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates
It contains people like:
- Wayne Messam, who got very little media attention, wasn't in any of the debates, got 0% and 1% in the polls he was featured in and his highest office was a small city mayor.
- Richard Ojeda, whose highest position was a state senator.
- Marianne Williamson, who never polled higher than 2% in a poll.
If that list includes those people, we should DEFINITELY be including Vivek Ramaswamy and Corey Stapleton in our list of major candidates and then we should discuss the others. I don't see what reason there is for considering Wayne Messam as a major candidate but not Ramaswamy when he's gotten far more media attention.
I think we should have a vote on this. Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 12:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Current colors: Trump = Blue Nikki Haley = Orange
I think that, if/when Ron DeSantis declares, he should recieve the same red color Marco Rubio got back in 2016. Perhaps Pompeo gets green. WorldMappings ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Struggling to understand why DeSantis is listed in this category. The other names listed here all have sources in which the person talks about their 2024 run. The DeSantis sources are articles that show he is a potential candidate but nothing more. Should I move him to the potential candidate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.117.63 ( talk) 10:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
As it stands, our "substantial media coverage" criterion is essentially useless. It's laughable that we have such a qualifier on the actual page when we continue to exclude Vivek Ramaswamy, a candidate who has been consistently in the media in the past week. The issue, of course, lies in how subjective the criterion is, even if Ramaswamy blatantly passes any reasonable interpretation of what "substantial coverage" entails. Seeing as we have no clear idea how to apply it, we should remove the criterion from the page unless we can come to an agreement as to how we can determine whether a candidate has been taken seriously by prominent media outlets.
I believe that a substantial media coverage criterion can still have some value. I propose that a candidate has received substantial media coverage when their declared candidacy has been covered by five separate major national networks. This means that a qualifying article must:
Under this criterion, Ramaswamy easily becomes a major candidate, as shown by the examples listed in another thread. As far as I can tell, the other "other declared candidates" have all received much more limited coverage:
I believe a criterion such as this would have recognized Yang's candidacy by mid-March 2019, when he started getting recognition as a major candidate. It's not perfect, but it's at least something.
One possible issue with this criterion that I can foresee is that it could lead to bloated citations. To prevent this, perhaps we could make it a habit to restrict the sources in our references section to just one once the candidate eventually meets our polling or electoral criteria.
Feel free to suggest any amendments or omissions to my proposal. It's important that we start nailing this down so that we can accurately reflect reliable coverage of presidential races. ~ EditDude ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Can we make a table for the other declared candidates so that they stop putting Johnson and Ramaswamy as major candidates ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 05:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Leave it at one, and here's why. The whole reason why we make a distinction between major and minor candidates is because we want to avoid giving undue weight to candidates who are not being treated on the same level by the reliable media sources we use. The article should match the reality, so the only real criterium is substantial media coverage. The other two are shortcuts. "Previous significant elected office" exists because it would be a waste of time to have to reach consensus on nearly every politician when these people, almost without exception, have been treated as major candidates by the reliable media souces. "Five national polls" exists to avoid continuing edit wars. Ramaswamy is a major candidate, and honestly, I don't even understand how people can disagree about that, but some people do. Ramaswamy will eventually meet the polling requirement, and when he does, the edit wars will cease. We really shouldn't have to wait for that to acknowledge the reality that he is, right now, treated as a major candidate by the reliable media sources. My vote is to keep the criteria as they are. If, however, consensus is that something must change, then I suggest simply removing "substantial media coverage" as a criterium. This will have the effect of removing Ramaswamy as a major candidate (which I think is wrong) until he appears in five polls (which I think gives undue weight to pollsters), but it is at least only temporary. Vrivasfl ( talk) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Perry Johnson should be the major candidate section currently. He has never been elected or been a nominee for a race, has not been polled in any polls yet nor has he been interviewed on any major cable news channels yet like the current 3 have gotten. The CPAC poll that was mentioned when the user added him to the major candidates section, I don't believe is enough to justify for him to be a major candidate. Alexjjj ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe he should be a major candidate. He meets the criteria for media coverage. Look at the major candidates list for the 2020 democrat primaries. It had people like Richard Ojeda and Wayne Messam who didn't receive much media attention. Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Perry Johnson was readded to the major candidates section because of inclusion in five polls. Can someone link these five polls here? On page for Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, Perry is only included in one poll. If Johnson has appeared in five national polls, they should be included on that page. I invite User:Zander123sims4, who made the edit, to respond. Vrivasfl ( talk) 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
In light of the substantial media attention Perry Johnson has received since his announcement for President, in particular, as a result of his performance of 3rd place at 5% in the CPAC straw poll, the SuperBowl ad he ran in Iowa, as well as the Fox Ads he perpetually is running in Iowa and New Hampshire, I think he should be reconsidered for the declared major candidates category. At the very least, he meets it based on the criteria used for approving Ramaswamy which was "detailed news coverage from multiple major media sources." I have linked some significant articles and interviews below. ABC News Washington Times Fox News AP News NBC Chicago Freep US News Yahoo Sports Fox News HuffPost NewsMax Michigan Radio Bridgemi WXYZ News Metro Times SandiegoTribune Morganton StlToday Desmoineregister Mediate Fortworth Inc WLNS Newsbreak Fox2Detroit SeattleTimes The Gazette Fox Business Interview
Allow me to remind everyone that we did provide an objective definition of "substantial media coverage" on an earlier thread. Please feel free to go and look, but for everyone's convenience, I will copy it here:
At the time, no one voice ay opposition to these requirement. We did not reach an consensus on how many such articles. For what its worth, of the articles cited at the beginning of this thread, I counted 12 that might satisfy this standard, though maybe less if we treat local newspapers as local news affiliates and not count them. Is that enough? My vote is a soft no, but I can take it or leave it. Vrivasfl ( talk) 13:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
What in the world? 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C476:A9B4:928F:3F53 ( talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've seen a few editors cite old discussions for what the current consensus is on inclusion in this page. Would it be possible to list the current consensus somewhere on the talk page permanently so new editors can know the criteria and experienced editors can all have the criteria in front of us when we're debating particular inclusions? There is something similar on Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus that lists current page consensuses and I think something like that would be helpful here. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it should at least be considered that many of the candidates who would have been said to be a "Major Declared Candidate" in previous Presidential races would not have been included until very late based on the current criteria. In light of this, I think we should consider updating the criteria to include candidates who meet any of the following criteria:
1. Have finished in the top 5 in any reputable national poll, or straw poll that has a track record of accurately predicting the nominee, as long as the percentage of the vote received is 2% or more (candidates who finish in the top 5 but do not get 2% may be included because of preferential treatment that is not reflective of their true current performance and people may only be voting for them because their name is on the ballot; while this is significantly better than the 5 polls criterion, even without this stipulation, I think it would help distinguish strong candidates from very unpopular candidates who managed to get listed on a poll- we could consider an exemption for those who finished in the top 5 with less than 2% of the vote but did not appear on the ballot in the poll). I think it would be prudent to include the top candidates over worse-preforming candidates, regardless of sheer amount of polling which is a less reliable indicator of good performance in an election than ones actual performance in polls. This would have captured candidates who preformed well in polls who did not get a large amount of media coverage early on (i.e. Andrew Yang for the 2020 Democratic Primary). This is especially necessary before most candidates have an opportunity to be included in five national polls. If one is able to ever preform in the top 5 and get 2% in a national reputable poll, or highly correlative straw poll, they are a major candidate, regardless of any other factors.
2. Have spent or pledge to spend ten million dollars or more during the Presidential race, as these pledges reliably have tract to candidates who preformed near the top of the primary heap (e.g. Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Tom Steyer). Tom Steyer would not have been included for some time based on the current criteria, but would be considered a major candidate by this criteria which reliably predicts candidates who perform well. Perryj1622 ( talk) 04:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
We could also consider removing the "significant media attention" requirement if we cannot come to a consensus on a quantifiable metric for this criteria. 1 could be a replacement to the 5 polls criteria, or they could both be considered criteria. 1 can be amended as needed, but I think at the very least, an objective poll performance criterion, for reputable polls, should be permitted to allow candidates to be included under "Major Declared Candidates" for the reasons outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perryj1622 ( talk • contribs)
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.I'd highlight the phrase "in proportion." Here, we're trying to balance our listing in proportion to what the reliable sources say. Its not enough to have media coverage in reliable sourcing for us to call someone a "major candidate" we need the proportion of coverage to also reflect that in line with WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we are giving a candidate more prominence than the sourcing justifies and we're violating policy. That's why we don't just list everyone as a major candidate and we try to reach consensus on who we label a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Is Johnson not considered a well-covered enough candidate? BuiltByBromine ( talk) 21:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
What should the colors for each candidate in the Wikibox be?
Here's my personal take:
Trump = Blue
Nikki Haley = Orange
Ron DeSantis = Red (similar to Rubio's color in the 2016 Wikibox)
Vivek Ramaswamy = Yellow
Mike Pence = Green
Tim Scott = Purple
Asa Hutchinson = Unsure. I put dark red there for now.
(italicized text are candidates undeclared but are likely going to run)
WorldMappings (
talk)
14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
He was listed as a potential candidate, then removed entirely from the article. Thats the first time I can remember that happening and ive been following election pages since the 2016 election. I'm just asking if that was an error or if I missed something. Usually if they go out of the 'potential candidates' its because they declined or are about to announce. Any reason why he's nowhere now? Thanks! Sneakycrown ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
.“We’ve never discussed this,” said Dave Carney, Abbott’s top political adviser who has worked on several presidential campaigns. “Never done any plans for it. No travel that would be a prelude to testing-the-waters type stuff. Just focused on things here in Texas.”
In the 2024 primaries, should his candidate color be the same as his previous 2016 and 2020 ones? 72.183.119.220 ( talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Since Larry Elder is announcing his run for president today, I think we should have a discussion on whether he should be classified in the 'major' section or the 'other' section. I believe he should stay in the 'other' section until he has been included in 5 national polls. Right now, he has only been included in 3 2024 national presidential primary polls, all of them being polled by Trafalgar. He has never been elected to any office and he has not yet been considered a substantial candidate with the media at this point. Alexjjj ( talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
I feel like it should be unanimous to include him in the major candidate tally.
[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]
Im working on his section right after adding this topic Scu ba ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
It seems there is substantial disagreement as to what the requirement for the number of articles there has to be for someone to be considered a "Major Declared Candidate." The only candidate who has achieved this status via the fulfillment of this requirement and this requirement alone is Vivek Ramaswamy, who achieved it upon 5 unique reputable national news articles about him being cited. It is currently being argued that because another candidate, Perry Johnson, does not meet a much higher threshold of articles, he should not be included as a major candidate, even though he meets the criteria by which Ramaswamy was first added. I propose we have a vote to determine the exact numerical requirement for one to be considered a major candidate and apply it accordingly. If we keep the requirement that we had previously, both candidates should be added. If it is changed, we should demonstrate Ramaswamy still belongs in the category based on the new criterion. Perryj1622 ( talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm pretty sure the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries article had a six months or sooner rule where no sources older than six months were allowed. Will this article still have the same standard? David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries article has been accepted. This should probably also be accepted similarly. Robert McClenon ( talk) 16:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
no reason not to keep its, its fine
We don't need this page just yet until events are scheduled and people are actually running. Proposal to merge just like the 2024 democratic primary. Primus01 ( talk) 19:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The inconsistency between the Republican and Democratic parties still remains. We should either keep both or merge this article with the main election until the primaries start. The inconsistency between the two rival parties is the key factor. Primus01 ( talk) 18:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
In this case, inconsistency is good. The two parties are internally very different and the races will be very different from each other. Look at 2012./ Arglebargle79 ( talk) 01:59, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Remove the following section: 2021 January 20: The Trump administration ends and President Donald Trump will leave the White House.
The results have not been certified and the electoral college has not voted yet, so we can't definitely say this will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH ( talk • contribs) 12:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
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:
For potential candidates:
For declined candidates:
Curbon7 ( talk) 10:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
Submitted bare-bones AfC given the increasing coverage of the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. The 2020 Republican primary standalone page was created in 2017, for context. I lifted the candidate section directly from 2024 United States presidential election. I do not know the proper way to resolve this, if resolution is necessary. Sorry, I am still learning. Mihir.pethe1 ( talk) 07:36, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
folks have saying trump is about to announce for a long time. Renember when he planed to announce on july4. he should not be in the announcement pending catergory Cookiegator ( talk) 19:15, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Corey Stapleton has been open about considering a run for office, and seemingly has a website outright announcing his candidacy. I don't know if he's officially filed, but all signs seem to suggest that he is indeed planning to run. Should we add him onto the 'Openly Expressed Intent' section, or is there something that I'm missing here? Walpole2019 ( talk) 08:04, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Stapleton has held statewide office. Why is he at the bottom of the section in terms of candidates? Declared candidates should be at the top, or at least above potential and undeclared candidates. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 19:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
"Donald Trump was defeated by President Joe Biden by over 7 million votes in 2020"
And? The US president is NOT determined by the winner of a national popular vote and rather by 50 different popular votes, one for each individual state. 93.206.53.87 ( talk) 21:12, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
I've heard that over 100 fringe candidates have already declared. I came here hoping to learn more about them, but I don't see any discussion of the subject. Nogoodbooks ( talk) 17:28, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Was removed by Syaz. Why is that? GeorgeBailey ( talk) 16:25, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
THere's virtually nothing in this messy complication [compilation, forgive the typo] of random data that actually discusses presidential primaries. The lede is devoted to lengthy discussion of Donald Trump rather than the article's supposed subject. Where's the guarantee there will even be a Republican primary process in 2024? Townlake ( talk) 04:54, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Nikki Haley's Fox News interview today didn't state she had formed an exploratory committee for president yet. Nothing filed with the FEC either. I think she should be moved back to the "publicly expressed interest" category. Alexjjj ( talk) 00:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
https://edition.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/ron-desantis-donald-trump-2024-president/index.html
Can someone add this? I'm not great at editing!! Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 17:29, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I belive that a candidate should not have a place in the main polling box for the Trump and non-Trump categories until they hit double digits. Right now, it is very confusing to editors and viewers to have so much date for candidates polling with very low numbers. I would like to change this as soon as possible. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 17:28, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
The endorsement section of DeSantis seems at best premature. This article states he has not publicly stated his intention. Several of the endorsements don't even read as endorsements for President. I think it should be removed. Mpen320 ( talk) 03:54, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I noticed there was an endorsements section for Donald Trump at the Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign article, in addition to the one on this article. Would a transclusion there, linking to the Trump section of this article, be the best way to avoid any redundancy? David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The present source for Stone's endorsement of Trump doesn't actually say that Stone endorsed Trump. It gives some of Stone's commentary on Trump, DeSantis, and the possible 2024 primary. It certainly implies Stone supports Trump, but other than calling Stone a 'Trump loyalist', it doesn't really say so outright.
I tried adding this CNN news release as a source for Stone: <
https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/trump-2024-presidential-bid> (I think I was unable to just because I don't know how.) In the last paragraph of the section 'Beating Others to the Punch', it says, 'Other guests [at Trump's announcement] included longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone...'. If attendance at Trump's speech can be taken as tantamount to endorsement, this would seem more unambiguous than the other source (although I was trying to add, not replace).
Toadmore (
talk)
02:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
If Trump wins the 2024 Republican presidential nomination, then chose DeSantis as his vice presidential running mate. One of them would have to change their state residency, as both can't receive electoral votes from Florida, as a ticket. Note in 2000, Cheney had to change his state residency from Texas to Wyoming, so that both Bush & himself, could receive the prez & vice prez electoral votes from Texas. GoodDay ( talk) 22:41, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Should we move desantis from potential to publicly expressed interest? I feel like he , as a major candidate, should be above considering he is the favorite to win at the moment. 73.247.81.254 ( talk) 22:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
1. Is it confirmed that he's even running in the Republican primary?
2. Should he be listed if he hasn't yet filed with the FEC? Perathian ( talk) 17:14, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Some editor or editors apparently are trying to push Corey Stapleton as a major candidate in this article. This appears to be against consensus. (See discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1#Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major".) As I mentioned above, being a state's secretary of state is not a prominent enough office to confer major candidate status. Stapleton has been included in zero polls that I know of. Also, he has received little if any news media coverage that I can find. (Note that the source cited for his candidacy is his own campaign's press release.) Can we agree that Stapleton should be demoted to the "Other declared candidates" section? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I do not think Corey Stapleton should be treated as just "Other declared candidate", I understand the case that he is nowhere near the top in the main choices for a potential GOP primary, but he is still a significant figure, and I consider every figure that held a statewide office should classify as a notable candidate, this unless the list gets increasingly bigger, but with only 2 individuals as declared candidates he should be treated the same as Trump. SuperGion915 ( talk) 03:15, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
many people in the articles say they are indifferent to trump's announcement or are not willing to comment. Should these people get a declined to endorse box? Free city of stratford ok ( talk) 15:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Bob Iger was listed as a candidate who filed paperwork. The paperwork in question is dubious and almost definitely a hoax. It's linked here: https://web.archive.org/web/20221222041241/https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P40010167/1672914/ Oswako ( talk) 04:32, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Somewhere along the line "Announcement scheduled" melted into "Decision Pending" which to me seems indistinguishable from "Publicly Expressed Interest". We are expecting a decision one way or another at some point from everyone wo has expressed interest. I don't see a meaningful difference between Hutchinson, whose decision is nebulously expected by April, from Mike Pence, who is basically already campaigning, and whose decision also expected sometime soon, likely by April, too. Someone who has an announcement scheduled with a specific time and place for said announcement is worth noting separately. Otherwise, "Decision Pending" doesn't strike me as a useful subsection. Vrivasfl ( talk) 20:45, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
I propose that we divide polling into boxes by calendar year, in the same way or a similar way that the article Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries does. This poll box is getting very long, and as it continues to grow in size, it becomes more difficult to edit and work with. To make it easier to look at for viewers, and easier for editors to contribute to, I propose that we divide polling boxes into a 2020-2021 box, a 2022 box, and a 2023 box, (with an eventual 2024 box when that time comes). I would love to hear your feedback on all of this. GeorgeBailey ( talk) 15:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Nikki Haley just announced she is running for president and is the first major formal challenger. The current graph has Trump and Haley who is running, Pence and DeSantis who seem interested, and then Cruz who is running for Senate right now. Should we keep the main graph just to the major declared candidates and throw Pence and DeSantis and Cruz into "other" until they announce, if they do? Also a noticeable January to June 2022 polling gap that should be fixed. JoshRamirez29 ( talk) 17:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Should this poll be added to the page? 98.20.155.249 ( talk) 22:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Should this be added to the Endorsements section? [4] https://twitter.com/GenDonBolduc/status/1626204788647170048 98.20.155.249 ( talk) 15:33, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The section “Other Declared Candidates” is not really needed, obviously we are not going to add extremely minor candidates but people like Corey Stapelton and John Bolton have held high profile positions and were reported on by the media. 2601:18C:8C01:370:802E:5F97:FD21:A67C ( talk) 21:33, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Found this on the FEC site, do not know if it counts for an FEC filing or not, here's the link. HurricaneKappa ( talk) 15:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
This is in the opening paragraphs, who considers him the frontrunner? At the time he declared his candidacy he was and still is significantly behind DeSantis in the betting and media analysis. The source cited to back up this claim is from 11 months before he announced. I've not bothered reading the rest of the article given this statement. 31.52.117.117 ( talk) 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Could editors please stop making arbitrary decisions of placing potential candidates under the sub-heading 'Decision Pending'. All of the PEI potential candidates have a decision to make which is pending. The 'Decision Pending' section should be reserved for candidates who have indicated that they are in the process of making a decision on a specific date within a very short period of time, say up to a fortnight. It's quite ridiculous to re-categorise someone who says they will make a definite decision in April. They will all need to make a decision at some point in time, probably in the first half of this year. Mrodowicz ( talk) 02:50, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Should British PM Boris Johnson be listed? I get that it's cited by a reliable source, but the man renounced his American citizenship, would he even be eligible? 2601:249:8E00:420:4816:6F6A:4385:1472 ( talk) 17:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
In light of recent reports/announcements, I have created drafts at Draft:Chris Sununu 2024 presidential campaign and Draft:Nikki Haley 2024 presidential campaign. If these subjects do indeed announce campaigns as expected, the drafts can be moved to mainspace immediately thereafter. BD2412 T 17:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Just a heads up, the “Rollan Roberts II” link in the minor candidates section points to the Wikipedia article about his father, not Roberts himself (who doesn’t currently have one). The younger Roberts’ announcement got enough attention (due to the fainting-wife incident) that I think he _is_ now notable enough for his own WP article, but it doesn’t make sense to have the son’s name wikilink to the article about the father. 2604:2D80:6984:3800:0:0:0:7094 ( talk) 15:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I know there isn't a lot of content to work with, but seems unbalanced to have an intro that discusses a singular candidate in-depth at a length of 60% of the 2012 intro and virtually equal to 2016. There's presumably a lot more content to come and perhaps better to prune now, rather than later? Slywriter ( talk) 22:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Tim Scott should be classified in the exploratory committee section right now. I don't think having a political action committee set up translates to launching an exploratory committee. He hasn't filed with the FEC or announced one. Since it's been announced he's doing a listening tour later starting Feb 16th, which will lead into an announcement, I think it's more appropriate he be listed in the "decision pending" section. A decision expected in late February or March. Alexjjj ( talk) 01:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
John Bolton has just confirmed he is, in fact, running for president. Should we add him to the "Declared major candidates" list? The Sackinator ( talk) 14:09, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
There was a article from The Hill website that interviewed Marco Rubio about the 2024 presidential field. In the article, he was asked about a 2024 bid for president, he says he "doesn’t have any plans to run for anything in the immediate future.” - https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/3858306-senate-republicans-fear-trump-repeat-as-2024-field-emerges/
Would this be enough to move Rubio from the potential list to the declined list? With Trump in the race and DeSantis almost certain to get in, two candidates from Florida, it doesn't look like he would change his mind in the next few months either about a run for president. Alexjjj ( talk) 01:32, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Fmr. Ohio Governor John Kasich should be listed under Potential Candidates 66.116.122.249 ( talk) 18:49, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries
As my previous discussion here got no attention, I have opened a discussion at NPOVN concerning content about Donald Trump. Slywriter ( talk) 01:39, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be a good idea to include a section on how the public opinion of Donald Trump within the Republican Party has declined during his post-presidency. Utopiayouser ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Given the Democratic Party is changing the state primary schedule, was wondering why this page doesn’t talk about the schedule, nor is there a link to this page on the Presidential Primary main page. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
69.181.192.29 (
talk)
23:19, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
One way to get into the major candidate section is "substantial media coverage". This is the requirement for *any* content to get into a Wikipedia article, though. The "other declared candidates" section is for candidates that don't meet Wikipedia's own sourcing requirements. Why are we ignoring WP:WEIGHT here and including total joke candidacies that RS do not consider worth reporting? 25stargeneral ( talk) 08:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Do we put him in "Declared Major Candidates", due to him having substantial media coverage, abiet some, or in "Other Declared Candidates", personally I think "Other Declared Candidates", wanna see opinions on this. HurricaneKappa ( talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
In the top paragraphs of the article he is called a "major candidate" I am not sure that is a truthful telling of events. He has not appeared on any polls to my knowledge, and other than his announcement he is virtually unrecognizable. So I believe he should not be declared as a "major candidate" in the top paragraphs. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 17:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Ramaswamy is not a major candidate. Polls were not cited for Ramaswamy. Even if he is featured in polls if he is below 1% he is not a major candidate. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 20:17, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 04:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it defined in a previous discussion somewhere? David O. Johnson ( talk) 05:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I think this article may need a protection placed on it so that information remains accurate. I'm not sure what its called or how to get it. ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Take a look at the major candidates list in the 2020 Democrat primaries: /info/en/?search=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_candidates
It contains people like:
- Wayne Messam, who got very little media attention, wasn't in any of the debates, got 0% and 1% in the polls he was featured in and his highest office was a small city mayor.
- Richard Ojeda, whose highest position was a state senator.
- Marianne Williamson, who never polled higher than 2% in a poll.
If that list includes those people, we should DEFINITELY be including Vivek Ramaswamy and Corey Stapleton in our list of major candidates and then we should discuss the others. I don't see what reason there is for considering Wayne Messam as a major candidate but not Ramaswamy when he's gotten far more media attention.
I think we should have a vote on this. Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 12:16, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Current colors: Trump = Blue Nikki Haley = Orange
I think that, if/when Ron DeSantis declares, he should recieve the same red color Marco Rubio got back in 2016. Perhaps Pompeo gets green. WorldMappings ( talk) 15:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Struggling to understand why DeSantis is listed in this category. The other names listed here all have sources in which the person talks about their 2024 run. The DeSantis sources are articles that show he is a potential candidate but nothing more. Should I move him to the potential candidate section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.117.63 ( talk) 10:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
As it stands, our "substantial media coverage" criterion is essentially useless. It's laughable that we have such a qualifier on the actual page when we continue to exclude Vivek Ramaswamy, a candidate who has been consistently in the media in the past week. The issue, of course, lies in how subjective the criterion is, even if Ramaswamy blatantly passes any reasonable interpretation of what "substantial coverage" entails. Seeing as we have no clear idea how to apply it, we should remove the criterion from the page unless we can come to an agreement as to how we can determine whether a candidate has been taken seriously by prominent media outlets.
I believe that a substantial media coverage criterion can still have some value. I propose that a candidate has received substantial media coverage when their declared candidacy has been covered by five separate major national networks. This means that a qualifying article must:
Under this criterion, Ramaswamy easily becomes a major candidate, as shown by the examples listed in another thread. As far as I can tell, the other "other declared candidates" have all received much more limited coverage:
I believe a criterion such as this would have recognized Yang's candidacy by mid-March 2019, when he started getting recognition as a major candidate. It's not perfect, but it's at least something.
One possible issue with this criterion that I can foresee is that it could lead to bloated citations. To prevent this, perhaps we could make it a habit to restrict the sources in our references section to just one once the candidate eventually meets our polling or electoral criteria.
Feel free to suggest any amendments or omissions to my proposal. It's important that we start nailing this down so that we can accurately reflect reliable coverage of presidential races. ~ EditDude ( talk) 18:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Can we make a table for the other declared candidates so that they stop putting Johnson and Ramaswamy as major candidates ( Aricmfergie ( talk) 05:06, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Leave it at one, and here's why. The whole reason why we make a distinction between major and minor candidates is because we want to avoid giving undue weight to candidates who are not being treated on the same level by the reliable media sources we use. The article should match the reality, so the only real criterium is substantial media coverage. The other two are shortcuts. "Previous significant elected office" exists because it would be a waste of time to have to reach consensus on nearly every politician when these people, almost without exception, have been treated as major candidates by the reliable media souces. "Five national polls" exists to avoid continuing edit wars. Ramaswamy is a major candidate, and honestly, I don't even understand how people can disagree about that, but some people do. Ramaswamy will eventually meet the polling requirement, and when he does, the edit wars will cease. We really shouldn't have to wait for that to acknowledge the reality that he is, right now, treated as a major candidate by the reliable media sources. My vote is to keep the criteria as they are. If, however, consensus is that something must change, then I suggest simply removing "substantial media coverage" as a criterium. This will have the effect of removing Ramaswamy as a major candidate (which I think is wrong) until he appears in five polls (which I think gives undue weight to pollsters), but it is at least only temporary. Vrivasfl ( talk) 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think Perry Johnson should be the major candidate section currently. He has never been elected or been a nominee for a race, has not been polled in any polls yet nor has he been interviewed on any major cable news channels yet like the current 3 have gotten. The CPAC poll that was mentioned when the user added him to the major candidates section, I don't believe is enough to justify for him to be a major candidate. Alexjjj ( talk) 21:22, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I believe he should be a major candidate. He meets the criteria for media coverage. Look at the major candidates list for the 2020 democrat primaries. It had people like Richard Ojeda and Wayne Messam who didn't receive much media attention. Rhetoricalnoodle ( talk) 13:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Perry Johnson was readded to the major candidates section because of inclusion in five polls. Can someone link these five polls here? On page for Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, Perry is only included in one poll. If Johnson has appeared in five national polls, they should be included on that page. I invite User:Zander123sims4, who made the edit, to respond. Vrivasfl ( talk) 14:03, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
In light of the substantial media attention Perry Johnson has received since his announcement for President, in particular, as a result of his performance of 3rd place at 5% in the CPAC straw poll, the SuperBowl ad he ran in Iowa, as well as the Fox Ads he perpetually is running in Iowa and New Hampshire, I think he should be reconsidered for the declared major candidates category. At the very least, he meets it based on the criteria used for approving Ramaswamy which was "detailed news coverage from multiple major media sources." I have linked some significant articles and interviews below. ABC News Washington Times Fox News AP News NBC Chicago Freep US News Yahoo Sports Fox News HuffPost NewsMax Michigan Radio Bridgemi WXYZ News Metro Times SandiegoTribune Morganton StlToday Desmoineregister Mediate Fortworth Inc WLNS Newsbreak Fox2Detroit SeattleTimes The Gazette Fox Business Interview
Allow me to remind everyone that we did provide an objective definition of "substantial media coverage" on an earlier thread. Please feel free to go and look, but for everyone's convenience, I will copy it here:
At the time, no one voice ay opposition to these requirement. We did not reach an consensus on how many such articles. For what its worth, of the articles cited at the beginning of this thread, I counted 12 that might satisfy this standard, though maybe less if we treat local newspapers as local news affiliates and not count them. Is that enough? My vote is a soft no, but I can take it or leave it. Vrivasfl ( talk) 13:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
What in the world? 2603:6011:9600:52C0:C476:A9B4:928F:3F53 ( talk) 00:50, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've seen a few editors cite old discussions for what the current consensus is on inclusion in this page. Would it be possible to list the current consensus somewhere on the talk page permanently so new editors can know the criteria and experienced editors can all have the criteria in front of us when we're debating particular inclusions? There is something similar on Talk:Donald Trump#Current consensus that lists current page consensuses and I think something like that would be helpful here. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 22:36, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it should at least be considered that many of the candidates who would have been said to be a "Major Declared Candidate" in previous Presidential races would not have been included until very late based on the current criteria. In light of this, I think we should consider updating the criteria to include candidates who meet any of the following criteria:
1. Have finished in the top 5 in any reputable national poll, or straw poll that has a track record of accurately predicting the nominee, as long as the percentage of the vote received is 2% or more (candidates who finish in the top 5 but do not get 2% may be included because of preferential treatment that is not reflective of their true current performance and people may only be voting for them because their name is on the ballot; while this is significantly better than the 5 polls criterion, even without this stipulation, I think it would help distinguish strong candidates from very unpopular candidates who managed to get listed on a poll- we could consider an exemption for those who finished in the top 5 with less than 2% of the vote but did not appear on the ballot in the poll). I think it would be prudent to include the top candidates over worse-preforming candidates, regardless of sheer amount of polling which is a less reliable indicator of good performance in an election than ones actual performance in polls. This would have captured candidates who preformed well in polls who did not get a large amount of media coverage early on (i.e. Andrew Yang for the 2020 Democratic Primary). This is especially necessary before most candidates have an opportunity to be included in five national polls. If one is able to ever preform in the top 5 and get 2% in a national reputable poll, or highly correlative straw poll, they are a major candidate, regardless of any other factors.
2. Have spent or pledge to spend ten million dollars or more during the Presidential race, as these pledges reliably have tract to candidates who preformed near the top of the primary heap (e.g. Donald Trump, Mike Bloomberg, Tom Steyer). Tom Steyer would not have been included for some time based on the current criteria, but would be considered a major candidate by this criteria which reliably predicts candidates who perform well. Perryj1622 ( talk) 04:29, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
We could also consider removing the "significant media attention" requirement if we cannot come to a consensus on a quantifiable metric for this criteria. 1 could be a replacement to the 5 polls criteria, or they could both be considered criteria. 1 can be amended as needed, but I think at the very least, an objective poll performance criterion, for reputable polls, should be permitted to allow candidates to be included under "Major Declared Candidates" for the reasons outlined above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perryj1622 ( talk • contribs)
fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.I'd highlight the phrase "in proportion." Here, we're trying to balance our listing in proportion to what the reliable sources say. Its not enough to have media coverage in reliable sourcing for us to call someone a "major candidate" we need the proportion of coverage to also reflect that in line with WP:UNDUE. Otherwise we are giving a candidate more prominence than the sourcing justifies and we're violating policy. That's why we don't just list everyone as a major candidate and we try to reach consensus on who we label a major candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 19:23, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
Is Johnson not considered a well-covered enough candidate? BuiltByBromine ( talk) 21:07, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
What should the colors for each candidate in the Wikibox be?
Here's my personal take:
Trump = Blue
Nikki Haley = Orange
Ron DeSantis = Red (similar to Rubio's color in the 2016 Wikibox)
Vivek Ramaswamy = Yellow
Mike Pence = Green
Tim Scott = Purple
Asa Hutchinson = Unsure. I put dark red there for now.
(italicized text are candidates undeclared but are likely going to run)
WorldMappings (
talk)
14:26, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
He was listed as a potential candidate, then removed entirely from the article. Thats the first time I can remember that happening and ive been following election pages since the 2016 election. I'm just asking if that was an error or if I missed something. Usually if they go out of the 'potential candidates' its because they declined or are about to announce. Any reason why he's nowhere now? Thanks! Sneakycrown ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
.“We’ve never discussed this,” said Dave Carney, Abbott’s top political adviser who has worked on several presidential campaigns. “Never done any plans for it. No travel that would be a prelude to testing-the-waters type stuff. Just focused on things here in Texas.”
In the 2024 primaries, should his candidate color be the same as his previous 2016 and 2020 ones? 72.183.119.220 ( talk) 16:43, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
Since Larry Elder is announcing his run for president today, I think we should have a discussion on whether he should be classified in the 'major' section or the 'other' section. I believe he should stay in the 'other' section until he has been included in 5 national polls. Right now, he has only been included in 3 2024 national presidential primary polls, all of them being polled by Trafalgar. He has never been elected to any office and he has not yet been considered a substantial candidate with the media at this point. Alexjjj ( talk) 23:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
I feel like it should be unanimous to include him in the major candidate tally.
[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60]
Im working on his section right after adding this topic Scu ba ( talk) 13:48, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
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.
It seems there is substantial disagreement as to what the requirement for the number of articles there has to be for someone to be considered a "Major Declared Candidate." The only candidate who has achieved this status via the fulfillment of this requirement and this requirement alone is Vivek Ramaswamy, who achieved it upon 5 unique reputable national news articles about him being cited. It is currently being argued that because another candidate, Perry Johnson, does not meet a much higher threshold of articles, he should not be included as a major candidate, even though he meets the criteria by which Ramaswamy was first added. I propose we have a vote to determine the exact numerical requirement for one to be considered a major candidate and apply it accordingly. If we keep the requirement that we had previously, both candidates should be added. If it is changed, we should demonstrate Ramaswamy still belongs in the category based on the new criterion. Perryj1622 ( talk) 19:09, 22 March 2023 (UTC)