Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Possible Candidate Info
Rep. Dean Phillips has been in the news about running for president (MinnPost, New York Times, CNN, USA Today, Huffington Post). His article does not say what he stands for! His article needs his positions and more about him. —— BekLeed (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Any editor is free to improve an individual article with relevant content. BD2412  T 01:01, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you kindly. I wouldn’t even know where to begin editing as I am not experienced and I have ailments that make it difficult to type for long periods. I am looking to aid someone in the process as I cannot take it on just by myself. —- BekLeed (talk) 01:41, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Biden & Nixon
We mention the potential for Trump to equal a feat done by Cleveland. Perhaps we could also mention the potential for Biden to equal a feat done by Nixon. In the latter case, elected twice as vice president & twice as president. GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2023
The link for Ryan Binkley on this page is not the official link to his actual page when you hover over his name. His page appears whenever you click the link, but if you hover over it, you get simple:Ryan Binkley, not the overview of the official page, like with the other candidates. 206.246.7.180 (talk) 14:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * ❌. The main Wikipedia article for Binkley is only in draft form, so the link to Wikipedia's "simple English" version is all that is currently available.  The hovering result you describe is not under our control.  If and when the draft article is accepted, this will change.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ryan Binkley does not have a wikipedia article, only a "simple english" wikipedia article, which should be RfDed. Scu ba (talk) 02:14, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Suarez dropped out
Not sure how to make the new table but yeah YangGang2024 (talk) 17:10, 29 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added the section.
 * Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Cornell West revisited
Shouldn’t Cornell West get a table with his face and information? He seems to have significant media coverage, which is one of the inclusion requirements for the major party candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Abortion access is a left-wing term
Should be called "abortion issue" in a neutral way. "Abortion access" sounds like license to murder, "murder license". 62.226.95.222 (talk) 18:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a citation for any of this or it it your personal opinion? Bkatcher (talk) 19:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry but calling it "abortion access" is not partisan. The fact that you immediately compared it to license to murder doesn't help - this sounds more like a personal opinion.
 * "Access to abortion" or "abortion access" is a neutral standpoint as much as stating a campaign issue of teenagers having "access to alcohol" or "access to cocaine." Some people think that 18 year olds should have "access to alcohol." A lot don't. Some people think people there should be "cocaine access." Most don't. Trajan1 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Need to Collaborate with a Writer(s) over in the 1924 US Presidential Election Article
This might not be the proper place to ask, but I'm not sure which political talk pages these days get more traffic than this one. I'm working on the 1924 United States presidential election article, something that I had previously worked on back in 2014 or so, and a lot of information recently had to be stripped from it due to mistakes by my past self. Given we are looking at the 99th Anniversary of the '24 election soon, I also thought it appropriate as the one to get a real major facelift. Now, as someone who struggles to write articles or break down information efficiently, I had been hoping to find a collaborator who could take my sources/notes and "put it to paper" as it were, and I have reached out in a number of places. The Wikiproject that I am a part of however seems to be inactive, as do any of the Wikiprojects dealing with US elections, the Help Desk was didn't inspire much confidence, and my attempts to reach out to the older editors who might know someone who might be interested have turned up bupkis. This is something of a final shot in the dark to see if anyone might be interested in helping me. If you are interested please let me know, and even if you yourself aren't, but know someone who might be, please note it down for me. Ariostos (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Claudia De La Cruz and Karina Garcia Campaign announced
Claudia De La Cruz and Karina Garcia have announced their campaign for President and Vice President respectively. They are running as the Party for Socialism and Liberation candidates. TravisCSmith (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Should the state level articles already exist?
For example:2024 United States presidential election in Florida. Seems way WP:TOOSOON to me.

The only information in the state level articles not covered in this article, is the polling data, which is largely irrelevant until both main party candidates are finalised (or likely) anyway. Like it strikes me as WP:NOTDATABASE to have 51 articles for an election where the candidates are not finalized, with all individual state polls for hypothetical candidates. Obviously these articles will need to exist eventually so just draftify them.

Also, there is 0 need at all to have, for example, 2024 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia this early, there's really no need to have it at all I'd say a few weeks before the election. Other more competitive states could warrant their own article earlier, although not this early, with polls and any state-specific issues.

If this has already been discussed, just point me in the direction of the relevant discussion, thanks. MarkiPoli (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Irrelevant text
Crime,[4] education,[5] immigration,[6] gun control,[7][8] healthcare, abortion access,[9] LGBT rights (especially transgender rights), the state of the economy,[10] climate change[11] and the indictments against Donald Trump are expected to be leading campaign issues. - Should be removed; irrelevant and only applies to one candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.78.217 (talk) 01:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2023
The election is on November 7th Tuesday. Not the 5th that is a Sunday 2600:1012:B156:20D5:742E:FDCB:D93E:3623 (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: November 7 will be a Tuesday in 2023, but this is about the 2024 elections. Election Day will be November 5, 2024. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Abortion access link target
I would suggest changing the link target for "abortion access" in the list of issues from abortion-rights movements to abortion in the United States due to WP:NPOV. 206.204.236.63 (talk) 01:53, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Campaign Website Links for Republican Candidates
Under the list of current democratic candidates, an external link to their campaign page is provided, but not done so for the list of republican candidates. This should be rectified for the sake of consistency. 130.245.192.8 (talk) 03:07, 28 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Done Punker85 (talk) 22:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Hypothetical
Okay, I think this is an important question for us all to consider w/the future of this article: would we list RFK Jr. as an infobox candidate in 2024 if he continues to gain the attention he has? I mean I could see him pulling a Ross Perot in 2024, but that’s just my opinion. What do you guys think? Dancingtudorqueen (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Before the election, we tend to only list candidates in the infobox if their party got 5% in the previous election. As that isn't the case here, we most likely would not list him in the infobox.
 * If there was a high amount of reliable sourcing indicating he was a major contender for the office, we might make an exception and list him, but so far no sourcing has appeared. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 00:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we should list him, Cornel West, and any third party candidate with substantial media coverage. Prcc27 (talk) 01:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misunderstood the question. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Since it has over 10% in most polls, I think it should be added to the infobox in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.125.60.125 (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * There's only three three-way polls with him? One of them is from a pollster I have never heard of ("American Values"). Way too small a sample. Plus, none are from after his third-party campaign became official (people sometimes are more supportive of a hypothetical than of a real candidacy. Once something is real, it has to be assessed as it is rather than seen as a mere alternative to the existing options). SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Until reliable polling aggregation sources have aggregates including such candidates, we won't have a clear weight of how much support he has overall in polling. I'd wait until aggregates are available with such candidates included. The absence of such aggregation from major aggregators currently shows that there is not frequent enough polling to establish a clear consensus/indication among polls. Once Stein and Johnson began gaining more prominence/support, there were four-way aggregates in 2016. Once such aggregates are available, we can place some sort of rule relating to having at least 5% performance in the current aggregation of a number of such aggregates. SecretName101 (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Should Kennedy have his own label in the infobox?
I'm unaware of any precedent on this, but now that a series of polls including his independent run have released and all place him from 7%~14%, and the barrier for entry on previous elections for candidates was 5%, should Kennedy be on the infobox? Colin.1678 (talk) 15:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't put him in the Infobox yet, no; while he is polling within the acceptable range, he currently doesn't have ballot access anywhere, and the other rule of thumb for these things was that the candidate was required to have access to a minimum of (270) Electoral Votes, least that was the case as I remember it (12) years ago. --Ariostos (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah awesome, thanks! How would one be able to track where he has ballot access in? Colin.1678 (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is already a section about this above. Prcc27 (talk) 18:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

RFK Jr. portrait in Independents section
Since RFK has been given significant media attention, and in the polls released so far pitting him in a general election showing him to be in double digits, should Kennedy be given a portrait in the independents section. Since portraits tend to be designated to notable candidates, I think one would be in order here as he clearly is notable. Also something for future consideration, if Kennedy is shown to have a sustained polling average of 5% or higher (especially after each party's nominations conclude), should be added to the infobox? NonHydranary (talk) 20:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, and add portrait for Cornell West since he also has had significant media attention. Prcc27 (talk) 20:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you saying for just him or everyone with 5% or higher? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would hope everyone to avoid a WP:POV violation. Prcc27 (talk) 20:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Everyone 5% or higher, as that is typically what defines a major candidate. If Cornel West has an average of 5%+, he should be added as well because he has significant attention, however I believe West's average is ~4%. NonHydranary (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with 5% but I would like to see sustained polling of that. Maybe five straight polls of over 5% to be added, a five straight of less than 5% to be dropped? Esolo5002 (talk) 20:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with that NonHydranary (talk) 21:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Esolo5092's suggestion as well A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Ballot access also needs to be weighed. At this point, Kennedy could not be elected president regardless of what his popular vote is, because he does not have access to enough electors. SecretName101 (talk) 20:11, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * okay. But as for the addition to the infobox that someone tried to do, no. Against current consensus. And regardless, Until reliable polling aggregation sources have aggregates including such candidates, we won't have a clear weight of how much support they have overall in polling.
 * I'd wait until aggregates are available with such candidates included.
 * The absence of such aggregation from major aggregators currently shows that there is not frequent enough polling to establish a clear consensus/indication among polls. Once Stein and Johnson began gaining more prominence/support, there were four-way aggregates in 2016.
 * Once such aggregates are available, we can place some sort of rule relating to having at least 5% performance in the current aggregation of a number of such aggregates. SecretName101 (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Ye withdrawn?
Should we list Ye (formerly known as “Kanye”) as withdrawn? I personally prefer not to do so until the candidates themselves announce they are withdrawing, rather than a source from their inner circle. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Williamson erasure??
“Biden's first significant challenger was Robert F. Kennedy Jr.”………did Marianne Williamson not declare ahead of Kennedy? SecretName101 (talk) 21:27, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Going through the diffs, the wording was adjusted in this edit:. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:37, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the wording prior to that change was even worse perhaps. “Formidable” seems like fluff for Kennedy. He was characterized in realizable sources as a longshot, not a formidable challenger. SecretName101 (talk) 02:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * As you mentioned, there's no current mention of Williamson either. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Just revised the section. If you look at the rest of it, it also read as promotion fluff for Kennedy, with characterizations of him as a free-speech warrior etc. that were unsupported by citation.
 * Disgraceful that this went un-corrected for so long. We should be easily able to detect such blatant NPOV violations. SecretName101 (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * In any case, it's much improved now. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

RFK in infobox
I don't think Robert F. Kennedy Jr. should be included in the infobox currently. Even if polls show him as a potential challenger, it is still far too early to tell if he will actually matter in the race as of now. I would like to know what the consensus is on this topic. Howard 🌽33  23:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Nevermind I just saw that there was already a discussion about this earlier in the talk page. Disregard the earlier comment. Howard  🌽33  23:11, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion,
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shouldnt be in the election infobox unless he gets into the presidential debates. For now, remove him. Patriciogetsongettingridofhiswiki (talk) 04:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please see the discussion above and add your opinion there instead of creating an whole new topic. TheBritinator (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 October 2023
Please add Charles Ballay, MD under list for Presidential Candidates 2024 for Libertarian Party. Website www.Ballay2024.com 108.236.69.231 (talk) 21:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 21:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Running mates
Hello, Within the candidates table on both primaries, should there be some way to display candidates' running mates (their name underneath the Presidential candidates, in the campaign logo/announcement date box, or so on) if they have one? After all, it't not just necessarily the Biden 24 campaign - it's the Biden/Harris campaign. Here's a link to a picture I made to better illustrate my ideas. Thanks! Colin.1678 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It doesn’t really matter who your running mate is, unless you actually win the nomination. Did it matter that Ted Cruz chose Carly Fiorina as his running mate in 2016? (Not really). Might be premature for that to be included in the table. Prcc27 (talk) 21:40, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Worth noting: this is not like some governor's races (Michigan and Illinois, for instance) in which candidates and their running mate appear on the ballot together during primary. If a candidate announces their running mate ahead of/during the primaries, technically all they've done is voice their preference of running mate.
 * Though it is almost certain not to happen, it is well-within the rights of Biden's convention delegates (as well as any delegates not bound to Biden) to disregard his preference and move to choose someone else as the vice presidential nominee at the convention. This is because nothing the primary or convention rules binds any delegates to support a particular person for vice president (unlike president, in which bound delegates do exist). SecretName101 (talk) 01:16, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's true and fair, but I do believe it is definitely of mention who these candidates are declaring the running mates, even if technically it would just be a preference. If not in the table, some sort of acknowledgement, perhaps just footnotes, mentioning the running mates could be desirable. Colin.1678 (talk) 01:20, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Biden's intention to keep Harris as VP is mentioned in the prose in the Democratic primary section. i think that is sufficient until the convention when she would be formally selected. Griffindaly (talk) 04:21, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Guys change all the Republican candidates photos it looks so weird with the same background
yep YangGang2024 (talk) 20:30, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Independent/third party candidate
so a third party candidate is on the top part of the wiki but is Kennedy even significant enough to be on the top part there? 2600:8801:1187:7F00:10C:EFE8:6A0A:5ECB (talk) 08:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless RFK Jr's polling numbers are above 5% nationally? I don't think he should be included in the top infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:25, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally. I think he does. Not only Was he Biden's biggest Challenger (although that's not saying much.) During his Time in the Democratic Party. Polls Show He's Taking a Small Chunk out of the percentage. But that's just me. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 20:32, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is 152.18.190.15 (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems like he is consistently polling above 5% nationally. But he should not be included until he is also at least on the ballot in the minimum number of states, in my opinion. Otherwise we get into the same pointless discussion about primary candidates and the number of polls that count for an average, what sites to use, whether the candidate has to be formally "announced." Just use a simple legal standard. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 05:10, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He's consistently polling above 15% nationally. This is a case of WP: IDONTLIKETHIS from editors. I remember when the articles surrounding Trump in mid-2015 to late-2016 always referred to him as a "fringe candidate" or "underdog".
 * Kennedy's a nut - and nuts can win votes. Per previous RFC's, Kennedy has to be included in the infobox. KlayCax (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: can anybody clarify if ballot access was also a requirement for infobox inclusion? If so, it might be premature to add Kennedy to the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 05:27, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not generally been a requirement, no. . To be fair: there hasn't been a major third-party candidate in the U.S. presidential election before. (When Wikipedia was active.) KlayCax (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You’re right, I found the RfC. I guess it depends what you consider “major”.. I think it is too soon to say that Kennedy is a “major” candidate, but that’s my own personal POV. If he meets the criteria, he should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that Kennedy Jr. is a nut. That being said, editors here are repeating the mistakes of Wikipedia's coverage of Trump in 2015-2016. (Saying the early polls were an outlier, he can't win, an underdog, his views are too fringe, et al.)
 * This seems to be an exact repeat. KlayCax (talk) 18:14, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:27, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment If we're keeping Kennedy on the infobox, should we also include his home state on it as its done with the presidential nominees in previous election articles? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:47, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m indifferent, but it might be better to wait until we have a Democratic and Republican nominee, otherwise it will mainly be empty information. Also, this edit war in the infobox needs to stop. We need a consensus on this issue, and we need to stick to it. Prcc27 (talk) 14:15, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As you said: there already has been a RFC established on this.
 * I haven't seen any good criteria for excluding Kennedy outside of:
 * WP: IDONTLIKETHIS
 * His views are "not mainstream enough to win" (Wikipedia made this mistake about Trump in 2015-2016. This is why commentators opinions are no longer considered for inclusion.)
 * Unless something radical changes, I don't see any reason for exclusion. KlayCax (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * An RfC for the 2020 article. Consensus can change. It is WP:UNDUE weight to list RFK Jr. in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * But consensus hasn't changed here. A majority of the commentators here favor inclusion.
 * Kennedy has crazy ideas. Yet that doesn't impact whether or not he'll receive votes. Polling has consistently found that he's the strongest third-party contender since Ross Perot in 1992. KlayCax (talk) 18:20, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I see a lack of consensus. Without looking too hard, see and  in the third party section below. It is UNDUE. And not all polling puts him at 15%. Polls, especially this early, overstate the impact of independent and third party candidates. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * has explicitly stated so. His poll average is consistently near or above the mid-10s. There's a few outlier polls in every election - but that's the gist of what reliable sources state.
 * was neutral on whether it should be included. But favors inclusion for now, per the previous RFC.
 * To me, this seems like a repeat of Trump in 2015. Editors stated he should never be included in the lead under any circumstance due to his beliefs... and he won the election.
 * Presently, Kennedy Jr. has better odds of winning the presidency - according to betting markets - than DeSantis or Haley. Both of which have been taken at least relatively seriously by news organizations.
 * This of course isn't an endorsement of his beliefs. KlayCax (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While I know everyone had their own opinion. I think R. Kennedy Jr. Should Be on the Info box.
 * He's..
 * - Eligible for the Presidency.
 * - Popular Candidate. During Democratic. He was Biden's Only Big Challenge. Though. As I said before. That isn't really much.
 * - Lot's of Media Coverage. Literally for 2 days flat (Oct. 7th - 8th.). When you Searched up "2024 presidential election" all you get is "Who is Robert F. Kennedy Jr?" Or "Robert F. Kennedy Switches to Independent."
 * - Lastly. Like KlayCax Said. He has Better Chances than all of the Republican Candidates. (Excluding Trump and Maybe Desantis.)
 * All in All. Kennedy Probably Should Stay in the Infobox. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 18:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I do think the “nominee” parameter may be inaccurate if a candidate is running as an independent. Perhaps we could have this fixed? Prcc27 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Including him in the infobox certainly seems WP:UNDUE given how media coverage portrays him; no one is arguing that he has a serious chance of winning or is a major contender. Early polls often overstate third-party candidates. I also don't see a consensus from this discussion for including him; if nothing clear emerges, we might want to have an RfC on this to get a clearer consensus. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:49, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Media coverage has generally portrayed him as a serious candidate, including Politico, Deseret News, Quinnipiac, and Sabato's Crystal Ball. Kennedy is now being routinely included in polling.
 *  He's beating Biden in Tennessee and several other states. (22% to 18%). This is an exact repeat of how many editors handled Trump during the 2016 presidential election. Editors didn't want to include him in the infobox of the 2016 Republican primaries, argued that it was an outlier, et al. The truth of the matter is: polling is accurate. Kennedy is widely considered a viable candidate, has significant financial resources, and will likely be able to achieve ballot access in all 50 states.
 * As stated elsewhere: betting markets are giving him a 3-7% chance of winning - higher than either DeSantis, Ramaswamy, or Haley, which all of which are considered serious contenders.
 * If Kennedy isn't a serious contender, then neither is DeSantis, Haley, or Ramaswamy. The only reason I've seen by editors to remove him is WP: IDONTLIKETHIS. Yes, nuts can get votes. That doesn't merit removal.
 * We shouldn't overturn longstanding consensus because editors dislike Kennedy. That's not the point of Wikipedia. Heck, I don't like him. He still belongs in the infobox. KlayCax (talk) 00:09, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Biden is polling higher in Tennessee than Kennedy. Prcc27 (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See here. Kennedy gets 22% to Biden's 18%. KlayCax (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The source most likely got it backwards. Prcc27 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * See for yourself: . Esolo5002 (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The opposition to including him seems to be a form of a denialism. I haven't seen any rational argument against inclusion (or for a double standard) outside of editor's distaste. Third-party candidates do not routinely get 20% of the vote: even this far out. Several historians and political scientists have also been quoted saying that his bid is serious. These factors weren't present in 2000-2020. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:41, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is consistently polling above the threshold for inclusion, it seems only sensible to include him. Does he have a chance of winning? God be merciful, no, but being insane doesn't exclude one from a wikibox if enough of the electorate shares such a proclivity. PeacockShah (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't predict the future, but I'd be highly surprised (if Kennedy is still in the race) that he'll gain any electoral votes, let alone enough to require a contingency election. So, my position is still the same. Kennedy should be excluded. GoodDay (talk) 15:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a request for comment is the best way to move forward, personally I think Kennedy should stay in the infobox. His polling numbers are significantly higher than any third-party candidate we've seen since Perot. Even if he doesn't win, his strong numbers will have a sway in the election. Cornel West on the other hand, has not shown significant numbers as of yet and shouldn't be included. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:56, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * RFC's are a measure of absolute last resort. Presently, there's a strong (3 to 1 ratio) agreement that he belongs. Unless he starts nosediving in the polls: we shouldn't waste the time of editors through a RFC (See WP: SNOWBALL.)
 * This is a clearly a case where there would be an agreement to preserve mention in the lead and/or lack of consensus (meaning status quo under the previous RFC).
 * Political insiders say he's a serious candidate. Therefore, we state it. KlayCax (talk) 00:11, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree West shouldn't be in the infobox or lead, . There's definitely a widespread agreement among editors related to that. KlayCax (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it may be premature for him to be included. The RfC in 2020 was done in July, 4 months before the General Election. That is very different from the current situation: nobody has even voted in the primaries yet, let alone nominate a candidate for the major parties. Seems WP:UNDUE to have Kennedy in the infobox all by himself at this stage. Maybe we should have a ballot access requirement, at least until at least one of the major party candidates wins the nomination? I also am open to increasing the polling threshold to 15%, which is the threshold required for participation in the presidential debates. Prcc27 (talk) 03:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In South American elections Wikipedia is showing poll leaders in the infobox for 2024 elections. StardustToStardust (talk) 10:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You don't need to get electoral votes to be in the infobox, only above 5% of the vote. Using your logic Ross Perot would not be worth including in the infobox. Kennedy's polling is more than enough to at least for now include him in the infobox. DragonLegit04 (talk) 19:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 5% in the polls ≠ 5% actual results. Prcc27 (talk) 21:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Mr. Prcc27. It really doesn't matter about the amount in the polls. Its that he's doing good in the first place. And DragonLegit04 made a good point.There are several Independent Candidates that didn't get votes. Yet still made the infobox. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 22:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said an independent candidate can’t be in an infobox. I just think it might be WP:UNDUE to include him this early on in the election when none of the major candidates are in the infobox. I don’t think having ballot access or substantial media coverage as additional requirements is a bad idea. Prcc27 (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure how much we should compare between other countries... But Wikipedia is presently showing the faces of candidates in the infobox up to a year for other presidential races. Why should there be exceptionialism for America? StardustToStardust (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Infobox inclusion would be above 5%, which he has, without fail, achieved and excelled beyond, regardless of electoral votes. PeacockShah (talk) 20:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:Prcc27 for the most part. While RFK Jr. does technically meet the requirements for infobox inclusion right now, I also suspect that they weren't designed with the anticipation that a third party candidate would poll this well this far away from the general election. My take is that we should wait until the Republicans nominate their candidate in mid-July of next year. If Kennedy is still in the race and continues to poll above 5% by that time, then he should be featured. Having him there all by himself right now implies that there is a certainty his candidacy will have a significant impact on the election when that is far from certain at the moment. - EditDude (talk) 03:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with, , and the others here: Kennedy merits mention in the infobox. His poll numbers are exceptionally high, he has tons of funding and widespread endorsements from major influencers. What convinced me is seeing the Politico article. It states that he's a serious candidate. It seems remarkably unlikely that Kennedy gets under <5% of the vote.
 * One might say that it's "WP: CRYSTAL". Yet that's exactly what we do with including Republicans and Democrats in the infobox before candidates are nominated. If an independent candidate is getting 4x the criteria for inclusion in polling it's a slamdunk case. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, based on the recent polls, it does actually seem that Kennedy will have a significant impact on the election for now. In my opinion, Kennedy stays in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Several editors here say they don't want to "mainstream anti-vaccine activism" by including him. I'm still new here... But that seems like a form of activism to me, right? One could arguably remove Trump's name under the same criteria given. StardustToStardust (talk) 04:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with such a stance, but he has the support, I am afraid. PeacockShah (talk) 20:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Strong showings for third-party candidates?

 * This sentence: “polling has indicated the strongest showings for third-party candidates” is problematic for many reasons:
 * First of all, does the source even say that..? If not, that’s original research.
 * Second of all, the source is likely not reliable.
 * Finally, it seems like WP:CRYSTAL to insinuate third party candidates have a “strong showing”, before a vote has even been casted. Saying they are polling high would be fine (find a proper source first though), but the current wording goes way too far. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The coverage of RFK in the lede is ridiculous. "Polling has consistently indicated" a finish in the mid teens is incorrect because he is frequently in the single digits, but it is also misleading as early polls don't reflect actual voting intentions. It is well understood that poll takers are more open to fringe candidates well in advance of an election, but rally around conventional choices when the election is real. Further, RS coverage is overwhelming treating him as a potential spoiler, not an actual candidate. Choosing a few credulous and questionable sources (The Messenger?!) that buck this trend is UNBALANCED.    GreatCaesarsGhost   14:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree and removed it. Third party candidates always poll higher than their actual results on Election Day. More to the point, the Quinnipiac poll they're citing looks like an outlier. "The Messenger" is a sponsor of polls and likely not reliable. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:45, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, I don't know about keeping that "widespread dissatisfaction" line. Where are we getting that from? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The Politico article here. KlayCax (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One article from the beltway press saying it's "widespread" does not necessarily make it so. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Several others have stated as such, as well. KlayCax (talk) 07:35, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I've restored an in-use reference you deleted with the comment "see talk page". It's not clear to me which conversation I'm meant to reference as an explanation for deleting that reference, so I chose this one ... even though it doesn't specifically mention the reference in question. Given all that, I'm assuming the removal was accidental and I've restored the reference because it is used elsewhere in the article. -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * And I've deleted the whole "polling has consistently indicated" statement because it's not an accurate description of what polling does at all. It's a snapshot in time, not a prediction of the election a year away. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:37, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * FWIW these polls aren't very usable. A US presidential election is effectively 50 mini-presidential elections, due to the electoral collage. You may have (say) 15% support nationally, but that doesn't mean much, if it's spread out so thin, that you don't win the popular vote in any state. GoodDay (talk) 15:48, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To be fair, it matters if you want to qualify for the presidential debates. Regardless, we should not be using polls to say Kennedy has a stronger showing than Ross Perot. We do not know whether he will or will not have a stronger showing. Prcc27 (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerning the Commission on Presidential Debates? They'll up that threshold to 20%, should Kennedy or any independent candidate appear like they might qualify ;) GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is using the CPD guidelines to determine RFK Jr’s inclusion in the infobox appropriate at the moment anyway? They have not posted their requirements to make the stage (15% in 4 polls near Labor Day in 2020 iirc) for 2024, and Republicans withdrew from the commission anyway. Dingers5Days (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 15% nationally though is notable enough to have on an infobox, see a bunch of senate or governor races where a third party candidate gets more than 5%, or the 1980 or 1996 elections. There is a mountain of precedent here. TheFellaVB (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you are commenting in the wrong section. Also, obviously if RFKJR. gets 15% in the actual results, he should be in the infobox. But the election hasn’t happened yet. Prcc27 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

NewsNation Reliable?
Is NewsNation reliable enough for inclusion in our article? I can’t find it listed on WP:RSP. Prcc27 (talk) 04:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I went to the WP:RSN for further guidance on this. Prcc27 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Please...
The article says that both Biden and Trump are eligible, but then there's a footnote that says:

Some legal experts argue that Trump is ineligible for any governmental office under the 14th Amendment because his actions during the January 6 Capitol attack constituted an "insurrection or rebellion".

Can anyone extend the footnote to saying:

...However, others disagree because...?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:04, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * How about we quit saying Trump is eligible? Prcc27 (talk) 17:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Trump is eligble unless current 14th Amendment court cases rule otherwise. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is eligible until the US Supreme Court (invokes the 14th amendment) decide he's not. So far, that hasn't happened. GoodDay (talk) 17:57, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I've added basically this. It does seem to not make sense that we both say he's eligible, and that some legal experts argue he's not (without justifying why we still say he's eligible). Endwise (talk) 03:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * “Though it is unlikely that any such legals challenges would succeed in court” seems WP:UNDUE, especially in wikivoice. I think in the spirit of WP:CRYSTAL it should just be left out. Makes no sense to speculate on the likelihood of whether or not the legal challenges will succeed. Prcc27 (talk) 03:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To me it would seem far more undue if we just said that this legal opinion exists, without any clarification at all, even though RS say it is unlikely for it to succeed in court. As Georgia guy said above it also makes the writing in our article quite puzzling. Also for the record, saying that something is unlikely to happen, if RS say so, is not a WP:CRYSTAL issue I don't think. Endwise (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * “Though it is considered unlikely that such legal challenges would succeed in court” would be better. Clarification is fine, but we shouldn’t disregard the ineligibility viewpoint. Prcc27 (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I agree that that wording is better. Makes sense to me Endwise (talk) 06:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like the eligibility stuff was removed altogether, which is fine per WP:ONUS. Prcc27 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Cenk Uyger should be added to major candidates because of vast media attention. While I'm here, Kennedy and West should ABSOLUTELY have their own table for Independents
yep YangGang2024 (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
 * nope — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.59.216.93 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Well now I don't know who to believe. — Czello (music) 20:45, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Can Cenk Uyger even be classified as a major candidate considering the fact that he is constitutionally ineligible for the Presidency? Even if he was, he hasn't met current wikipedia qualifications for major candidate status. TheFellaVB (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
 * The courts are yet to decide if Trump is constitutionally eligible given that he may have engaged in insurrection against the constitution which per the 14th amendment would make him ineligible to stand. I don't think many would accept that he be excluded as a major candidate on that basis. TarnishedPathtalk 23:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Kennedy and West should be considered major candidates, if they have substantial media coverage. I’m undecided on Uyger, although I don’t think him being ineligible would preclude him from being considered a major candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * West does not have polling nor coverage equivalent to that of a major candidate. PeacockShah (talk) 03:42, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be astonished if he doesn't register in 5 polls, partly because there's so few people running for the Democrat nomination. But the polling criteria lags the media criteria because we have to wait for the polls to be carried out. He has had similar media attention as half a dozen other major candidates that all went on to meet the polling criteria, so my view is add him now and save the wait. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand this but I haven’t even seen him in many polls to begin with. There has been one Quinnipiac Poll and one Echelon Insights poll, are two polls enough to be considered major? Because Williamson and Kennedy were in every poll before Kennedy’s withdraw MoMoChohan (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is constitutionally illegal for him to run. He legally cannot be a candidate. Even if he says he is. Scu ba (talk) 20:37, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * He can run, he just can't serve. NonHydranary (talk) 15:44, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't matter, if by some nightmarish scenario he somehow wins the nomination and the general election, if he cannot hold the office, what is the point? It is a pure hypothetical, and at best a desperate popularity gauge in an attempt to stay relevant after 2016. Scu ba (talk) 06:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Infobox name, regardless
I don't really have a strong opinion either way on whether RFK is included as an independent candidate in the infobox, but I do think there's a problem with the way it's currently formatted: it says "nominee"! Since he's running as an independent, he isn't the "nominee" of anything (there isn't an Independent Party) -- is there a way to fix this independent of the above conversation? jp×g🗯️ 11:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * He is a nominee. He's a nominee for President. He nominated himself for the office. KittyTeam (talk) 14:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, the way the table is set up, it lists the "Nominee" for the "Democratic" party, then it lists the "Nominee" for the "Republican" party (both of which are correct), then it lists the "Nominee" for the "Independent", which does not exist. jp×g🗯️ 18:46, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's always been formated that way. There's nothing wrong with the format. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think “nominee” could be problematic wording. Although as KittyTeam pointed out, maybe not? Do independents still circulate a nomination petition to get on the ballot? If there ever is consensus to change “nominee” to something else, we would want to consult Template talk:Infobox election to make the change. Prcc27 (talk) 21:22, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

RfC: Polling criteria for “major candidate” status
The current consensus for being considered a “major candidate” for this article and listed in the table is a candidate must meet one of the following criteria: being listed in 5 national polls, substantial media coverage, or holding significant elected office. Should the polling criteria remain? Now that the first Republican debate took place, I feel it is appropriate to revisit this question. Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No: The polling criteria has forced us to give undue weight to candidates with minimal media coverage. Even though I thought the polling criteria was flawed, I previously argued that it would be unfair to remove the criteria right after someone (Perry Johnson) qualified, so I said let’s at least keep him as a “major” candidate and see if he qualifies for the debates. After all, polling could be an indicator of whether one will or will not qualify for a debate. Given that the GOP actually has polling as one of their criteria for qualifying for the debates, I think that our polling criteria is obsolete. The new criteria should be substantial media coverage, holding significant elected office, or having qualified for at least 1 party sanctioned debate. Prcc27 (talk) 04:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with your criteria is that candidates like Hurd, Elder and Suarez would be included in the same section as candidates like John Anthony Castro and Steve Laffey who are vastly less notable than Hurd, Elder and Suarez. Yes, all of the three are vastly less notable Trump and maybe even DeSantis, but this will make them a lot less notable than they actually are Punker85 (talk) 16:46, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true. A candidate would only have to meet one of the criteria. Elder, Hurd, and Suarez already meet the “substantial media coverage” criterion, and their status as “major candidates” would be unaffected by this change. In fact, Perry Johnson may even qualify as a “major” candidate, even without the polling criteria if he has enough media coverage. Prcc27 (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, you are right, I'm dumb
 * But also, having enough media coverage is a very vague criteria, so it would be very difficult to admit someone who doesn't an obviously big media coverage Punker85 (talk) 19:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes: For a few reasons. First, changing the criteria mid election cycle will encourage editors to try and change the criteria when they don't like it's application. Then we get a lot of RFCs. We need to have an RFC after the cycle to discuss tightening our criteria, not multiple throughout the cycle. Second, it's not WP:UNDUE to mention the fact the candidates ran and tried to make it to the debates. There was a lot of national coverage of it. Remember the major candidates are just people that ran a notable campaign, it's not meant to be a list of the only candidates with a shot of winning. Finally, candidates are going to start dropping out over the next few months so it will naturally narrow down, we don't need to narrow our criteria. The field will narrow itself. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Consensus can change. I agree, it would have been wrong to change the criteria a while back, but the election cycle changes, and our article should as well to reflect the reality of who is and isn’t a “major” candidate. If it wasn’t clear then that some of these candidates aren’t major candidates, it should be crystal clear now. It is undue, because we are treating candidates as “major” when most reliable sources do not agree with our assessment. It is pretty telling that two of the candidates that qualified under the polling criteria were obvious outliers even by Wikipedia standards (e.g. Perry Johnson did not have a portrait on our article for a significant amount of time, and Ryan Binkley did not have a Wikipedia article until a few days ago). “The field will narrow itself” is irrelevant. We will likely have a section for candidates that withdraw, and only candidates that are actually major should get a portrait in that section, if a gallery is included in that section. Prcc27 (talk) 05:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Johnson portrait and Binkley arguments are two WP:OTHERCONTENT arguments. Johnson not having a copyright free photo available had nothing to do with whether or not he is a major candidate. On the Binkley argument, the standards for being a notable political candidate and general notability guidelines are different. Binkley had an article, but it was AFDed and deleted. Both arguments are WP:OTHERCONTENT, that don't focus on the sources, but other stuff internal to Wikipedia. Sometimes you're just missing a photo or someone you want to link just isn't notable enough for their own article when you're editing on Wikipedia. Those things just happen on here sometimes. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The “othercontent” essay aside, “coincidence” or not, the candidates that have qualified under the polling criteria have been outliers when it comes to media coverage when compared to the other candidates currently listed as “major”. Is there any reliable source that considers those two candidates to be “major” or at least treats them as serious candidates? Prcc27 (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Politico includes them both in their rundown of campaigns seriously trying to make the debate. There are sources on both campaigns and they both tried to seriously run. Johnson is honestly probably getting more coverage than Will Hurd and maybe even Larry Elder at this point. Binkley would be the absolute lowest tier candidate of the majors, but he does appear to be running a major campaign compared to the candidates in our minor candidates section. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If Perry Johnson is getting substantial media coverage, then obviously he would get to stay in the table. I am fine with that, but the polling criteria is problematic. Unfortunately, I suspect part of the reason he is getting more coverage is because he was included in our table on Wikipedia. I hope I’m wrong, but it is possible. Prcc27 (talk) 16:22, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * According to the views of his page, it went up by a lot when he was included in the table but was strangely at 0 before that and, according to Google trends, his inclusion seems to had little to no impact Punker85 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The BBC, Vox and maybe Axios considered both of them as "major"
 * CNN, NBC News and the Associated Press considered Johnson as "major" Punker85 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The CNN one is debatable.. Those are candidates listed in the “poll of polls”. It means those candidates are included in polls, which obviously isn’t surprising because they did meet our current polling criteria. It does not necessarily mean that they are considered “major” by CNN. Prcc27 (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Where you see bias, I see mere observation that there is a clear illustration indicating that standard previously set is simply not effective (especially not this far into the campaign, when polls are plentiful). The standard should never have been set in a manner that didn't weigh performance in polls. I don't see how inclusion five times at 0%, for instance, could ever be considered to be rationale for considering someone a "major" candidate, and yet this standard would allow it.
 * Polls can be sponsored by interest groups and campaigns. That provides an easy way for interest groups to manipulate us under the current standard to include non-notable candidates as "major candidates" on a majorly-trafficked web source. SecretName101 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes but a very unenthusiastic yes from me. I was a proponent of the 5-poll criterion, and I don't believe in manipulating the criteria during the campaign in order to include or exclude specific candidates from the "major" category. But I would not support a 5-poll criterion for future campaigns since it allowed Perry Johnson and Ryan Binkley to be categorized as major candidates, which I would consider a failure of the criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I totally respect your perspective, but just want to offer a counter perspective that the criterion worked well in regards to Johnson and Binkley. If you look at a lot of the media coverage leading up to the debate, I don't think it's wrong to say Johnson was a major candidate during the summer of 2023 while pushing to make the debate stage. Binkley was a major candidate for a few weeks as he pushed for donations and polling to make the debate stage. Are these campaigns historic? Not in the slightest, but there is enough coverage to meet verifiable requirements without original research. There's not a neutral point of view or WP:UNDUE problem with mentioning the fact their campaigns happened and briefly were discussed in good sources. They aren't getting paragraph's of texts like Biden, Trump, or Desantis. They're getting sentences, mentions, and table summaries, which the coverage warrants. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The requirement should be media coverage, full stop. Even if the current candidates that qualified by polling have significant media coverage (that’s debatable) that doesn’t change the fact that someone else with little to no media coverage could be listed in 5 national polls in the near future, and we would be forced to call them “major candidates”. If Binkley and Johnson already have substantial media coverage, there shouldn’t be an issue with removing the polling requirement. Prcc27 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * In theory, I fully agree with you; but in practice we almost never agree on what substantial media coverage means. Check the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries talk archives if you don't believe me. People have argued things from 5 to 20 sources and there's no consensus on what it means. It's too ambiguous. We need some objective criteria to help ground our discussions or we'll have endless debates on what constitutes substantial media coverage. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * If we want to define what “substantial media coverage” is, by all means, let’s have that discussion. That is not what this RfC is about, however. “5 national polls” is not an objective criteria, and there is also debate on what that actually means. Does that mean 5 different pollsters, or can all 5 polls be from Gallup and you qualify? What about polls affiliated with a candidate, are those included or excluded? Which polls are reliable and which ones should be excluded? Should you at least have to poll at 1%, or is simply being included in a poll all that matters? Prcc27 (talk) 21:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * The Plain language reading is pretty clear and objective: 5 national polls. Any national poll from a source that would be a WP:RS (because our general content policies still apply). I think I advocated for adding independent the last time we talked about it, but I think people thought the RS policy would keep out affiliated polling. But to answer you're questions:
 * 5 polls from Gallup or Morning Consul would qualify you (this did not happen, and is hypothetical strawman)
 * Polls affiliated with a candidate would not meet WP:RS and be excluded.
 * Polls that qualify as WP:RS.
 * Being included is the metric.
 * TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not a hypothetical strawman. I am relaying the concerns another user made, when Perry Johnson qualified with 5 polls, but some of them were from the same pollster. A user suggested the criterion should be 5 different polls. The point is, there is disagreement on what the 5 national polls criteria means or should entail. The “substantial media coverage” criterion is not the only one being disputed, so let’s not pretend that it is. Prcc27 (talk) 22:44, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No Five polls might even be too little. The whole point of separating out the major from the minor candidates is so that Wikipedia doesn't put undue weight on people who have no chance to even compete. If they can't even muster a consistent, above zero, presence on the polls, why should they be counted as a major candidate? Scu ba (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * @Scu ba I’m confused. So do you support the current 5 poll criteria or oppose it? Or are you saying it should be changed/modified..? Under the current criteria, a candidate can poll at 0% in 5 nationals polls, and we would be forced to call that candidate “major”, even if they have not polled at 1% in any polls. “If they can't even muster a consistent, above zero, presence on the polls, why should they be counted as a major candidate?” That sentence would make sense, if the inclusion requirement was you have to have substantial media coverage and be included in 5 polls. But currently, the criteria is you have to have substantial media coverage or be included in 5 polls; you don’t have to meet both criteria. I wouldn’t have a problem with the criteria if you had to meet the polling requirement and another criterion; but calling someone “major” with hardly any media coverage just because they were included in 5 polls is problematic. As I said before, qualifying for a debate should suffice, especially since on the Republican side, you already have to meet a polling threshold in order to qualify. Prcc27 (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As it stands now, I support the 5 poll criteria because that is the agreed upon consensus. Am I absolutely thrilled about it? No. I am fine with the Five Polls or Significant Media, sorry if that was confusing. The only qualm I have with the debate criteria being Wikipedia's criteria is that is a little too stringent, namely because it doesn't take into consideration Hurd or Suraez who I feel like are the "major minor candidates" Scu ba (talk) 20:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying. Hurd and Suarez already meet the “substantial media coverage” criterion, so if a debate requirement replaced a polling requirement– they would still be able to continue to remain in the table. Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you change your !vote from “yes” to “no”? Just want to make sure it is clear. Prcc27 (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I misread what the question was asking. I thought Yes was to change the polling criteria. Scu ba (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No This idea requiring being seen in a national poll is biased. It is already known that those who do make the national polls, only put candidate names that they think have a chance to win, thus the reason behind the 'Others' listing.  By putting this as a rule here, it would just carry over that specific bias, where the norm for Wikipedia is to be unbiased when ever possible.  Aceing_Winter_Snows_Harsh_Cold (talk) 03:51, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the whole point? The only candidates that should be listed as major are the ones that "have a chance to win" Scu ba (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes for prominently featured candidates. Five national polls could be too high of a requirement, or it could be too low. I don't know for sure. Maybe the criteria should be limiting the prominently featured candidates to ones covered in polls, provided that such polls have at least one from a left-leaning polling agency and one from a right-leaning polling agency just an idea . For bullet-listed candidates with a single sentence, I'm more open to allowing other candidates, but this guideline should only apply to independent candidates. More niche Republicans and Democrats should be placed into their own parties' primaries and caucuses articles.  Invading Invader  (userpage, talk) 18:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes The current criteria to be considered a major candidate is not broken and it shouldn't be fixed mid-election cycle. Per InvadingInvader and TulsaPoliticsFan points. As the primaries continue, the field will narrow down and secondly I believe to be a major candidate here on enwiki doesn't mean they have a shot of winning/are longshots, it's the fact they ran a somewhat notable campaign and met certain requirements either polling or media coverage. I also believe it is not biased to be included in the national poll to be considered a major candidate either. If your name appears on a national poll (either polling at 0% or 1% or 15%) I think you're still a major candidate as your name is being mentioned in the poll in the first place. I do firmly believe that Johnson/Binkley are considered major candidates (let's face it this argument has started because we've considered them major per this criterion) and excluding them/considering redoing our major candidates criteria is a bit bias and unfair. Further more by having the polling criterion remain, it can also clear some disputes if a candidate is major enough. We can have candidates who have had major media coverage but there would still be some disputes about their status as a major candidate, so by having the 5 polling requirement would help create less confusion/debate about a candidate's major status. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:48, 31 August 2023 (UTC)


 * No There's no reason candidates who've got no national presence like Perry Johnson and Ryan Binkley, and with very little actual media coverage should be included in the "major candidates" section alongside names such as Ron DeSantis and Donald Trump. Expoe34 (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No Binkley is just not a major or noteworthy candidate. The criteria should be adapted in some way that will remove him, so I guess this will have to do. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)


 * No: Mainly per rationale given by Prcc27 above, the current polling criteria should not remain. It has now become clear that this was a misguided inclusion requirement that has led to giving undue weight to clearly minor candidates. The next best option to scrapping the polling standard altogether (which I would support) is to amend it to mean 5 (or more) different credible polling outlets (those that would pass WP:RS criteria) and require a minimum of, say, 1% in all 5 (or more) or average that percentage in 5 (or more) different polling outlets combined (as verified in reliable sources, of course). It is much likely that a candidate receiving significant national coverage in major media sources would meet these guidelines, as opposed to merely being listed in a set number of polls. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes I think it provides a basic way to sift through candidates running serious campaigns and also-rans. Say what you will about Binkley and Johnson, but they have run legitimate campaigns. Both have met the donor thresholds for the GOP debate twice now, and in fact the New York Times actually now includes both in their major candidates list, which is a change from early on in the campaign, and is something Wikipedia beat them to. I think people are misunderstanding what a major candidate even is. I mean, the 2020 Democratic primary lists candidates like Wayne Messam, Richard Ojeda, and Joe Sestak. I get that they all held office at one point, but would you actually say any of them should've been included with Biden or Sanders? I would say yes, because while their campaigns were insignificant, they were notable as former office holders. If you are appearing in a number of national polls like Binkley and Johnson did, surely there is something separating you from Corey Stapleton and Steve Laffey, who haven't been.
 * And as an aside, I think it's weird that a candidate can meet one or both of the thresholds to make the GOP debate (Which requires a minimum of 2 or 3 polls) and not be considered a notable candidate on Wikipedia. Dantedino88 (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The criteria should not remain. At Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries I proposed changing the criteria to something like "current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has obtained at least 1% support in ten national polls, or has qualified to participate in a party-sponsored debate."
 * The current criteria might have somewhat worked when polls were few and far between. But at this point, it is ridiculously low. Furthermore, interest groups and campaigns can sponsor polls, making this a standard that is incredibly easily manipulated in order to elevate a non-notable candidate to being listed as a major candidate on a prominent web source (Wikipedia). I disagree overall with having ever had a standard that is based on mere inclusion in polls, rather than weighing whether there was any remotely significant support measured in polls. SecretName101 (talk) 18:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)


 * :No: the polling criteria has clearly been shown to be too laxed in what it considers a "major" candidate, as demonstrated by the inclusion of Binkley, Johnson, and Stapleton, all of whom barely reach the Wikipedia-set threshold, and who are rarely even considered as such on other election websites. Expoe34 (talk) 19:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes: the current criteria is far too inclusive, in no way are Corey Stapleton or Ryan Binkley "major" candidates. If anything, the criteria of who qualifies for the debates is good enough, or a bit more extensively, an average of 1% or higher between the poll aggregators. 2600:1700:18A4:4D10:3BDC:371F:5BD4:FFA2 (talk) 00:57, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: We should maybe use a polling website to vote on if we should keep it. WiinterU (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

FORMAL proposal/further RFC: Change "major candidate" criteria for primary election candidates
Discussion earlier in the talk page has dealt with this subject. I am now formally proposing that we make such a change.

Mere inclusion in five national polls should not be enough to qualify one as a major candidate. It is really hard to rationalize that someone could be considered a major candidate if they poll at 0% support in five national polls and while meeting no other criteria to be seen as "major".

Allowing mere inclusion in a small number of polls was a mistake. It was a serious error failing to attach any weight to how candidates perform in polls in which they are included. Furthermore, since many polls have private sponsors, this opens us up to manipulation. An interest group, PAC, or campaign committee very well could include a non-notable name in their polls in hopes of helping them be listed as a "major candidate" on this well-trafficked website.

We can debate what the new standard should be, but the first question each commenter should answer is should we change the criteria? Please, answer that first before delving into the details as to what the new criteria should look like. SecretName101 (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * For the record: current criteria is that a candidate is a major candidate if they are "a current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has been included in at least five national polls."
 * I think we should change the polling qualifier to be 1% performance in ten or more polls (if it were earlier in the campaign season and polls were less frequent to come by, I'd say less than ten. But at this point in the race, ten is more than generous). I would also add qualification or participation in a party-sponsored debate as another means to qualify as a major candidate.
 * My idea would change it to "a current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative); has obtained at least 1% support in ten national polls; or has qualified to participate in a party-sponsored debate."
 * This doesn't have to be the new standard. Just my thought on what it should look like. Feel free to propose alternatives.
 * Again, the first question is whether the standard should change. What it should change to is the second question to answer. SecretName101 (talk) 04:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes the polling criteria has clearly been shown to be too laxed in what it considers a "major" candidate, as demonstrated by the inclusion of Binkley, Johnson, and Stapleton, all of whom barely reach the Wikipedia-set threshold, and who are rarely even considered as such on other election websites. Expoe34 (talk) 20:01, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * A question: If, for example, a candidate get 0.9% in a poll, can it be rounded up to 1% and be valid under your proposal? Punker85 (talk) 21:22, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think not. SecretName101 (talk) 20:09, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I would think not either. 1% should mean exactly 1% or greater. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:22, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes and I propose changing the polling criteria to be included in at least 1 national poll from at least 5 different polling firms so a candidate can't become a major candidate from getting 5 polls from one or very few firms Punker85 (talk) 01:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * And also, candidate sponsored polls should not be included in the criteria Punker85 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
 * My official polling criteria proposal: The candidate has been included in polls from five different polling firms/organizations which aren't sponsored by a candidate, candidate campaign or candidate political action committee (PAC) Punker85 (talk) 21:15, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should be changed, per my reasoning at the beginning of this RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the criteria should be changed, specifically the polling standard. I'm good with the other existing criteria. As to the second question of what should be the new standard, I'm in 100% agreement with SecretName's rationale and proposal of 1%/10> polls and/or inclusion in at least one party-sponsored debate.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:50, 6 October 2023 (UTC)


 * No the criteria should not be changed. We currently have very good metrics that kept candidates like Steve Laffey out of the major candidates box. Stapleton, Binkley and Johnson are major candidates and even though they haven't done well in national polling it does not mean that they stop being major candidates. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Mister Conservative What makes those three major candidates? SecretName101 (talk) 16:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes the criteria should be changed, the current criteria is quite frankly laughable. When it comes to the offices held requirement, I would also include mayors of large cities and cabinet secretaries in addition to president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, and U.S. representative; obviously there is nuance to this, but a mayor of New York City and a mayor of Aberdeen, South Dakota are not on the same level. As for what the cut-off would be, I'm more agnostic to that: top ten most-populous cities, top 20, top 50? For the polling criteria, I would be even more drastic – at least 5% in five or more national polls. I don't see how 1% is really all that different from 0% and someone who doesn't reach the officeholder requirement that also can't poll more than 1% in national polls does not seem like a major candidate to me. If others think 5% is too high than I am fine to go down lower, but I don't think the requirement needs to be so low, but the current requirement does need to change. It's embarrassing how many irrelevant candidates completely ignored by our reliable sources are being treated as major candidates by Wikipedia because of this ridiculously low bar to cross. Also agreed that qualification for a national debate should also be a qualifier if one somehow doesn't clear the other requirements. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 23:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC) Yes, the criteria we currently have is too lax. Regarding specific suggestions, I would add that a candidate needs to be featured by more than one polling organization. Turns out, all five polls which qualify Stapleton at the moment are from the same polling organization, namely Harris X. This qualified Stapleton despite the fact that he didn't raise a single dollar in Q2 2023. Similarly, Rocky De La Fuente became a "major" Republican presidential candidate in 2020 because YouGov decided to start including him in their weekly national polls, allowing him to cross the threshold within a little over a month. In retrospect, that should have been a warning sign for us to reconsider this criterion. I also agree with User:Jjj1238 in expanding the officeholder requirement so that we can include noteworthy regional figures like Suarez. Finally, I continue to advocate for a media criterion, as I think it can accurately capture the rise of unorthodox candidates like Yang and Ramaswamy. Looking back at my old proposal, I think setting an objective threshold of twenty articles makes sense in hindsight. There wasn't nearly as much coverage of the primary race at the time, and any unelected candidate who's worth the hype will meet this threshold in due time. Considering all of this, my current proposal is that a major candidate: Binkley, Johnson, and Stapleton currently fail to qualify under this criteria, as do the minor candidates that are currently listed. Johnson is pretty close to meeting the polling criterion, though, as he currently has nine polls over 1%. I'll leave it up to anyone reading this to decide if that should mean my polling criterion proposal should change. - EditDude (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Let's not have promoters of truly minor candidates gaming requirements to introduce truly inconsequential figures to the major candidates list. BD2412  T 23:14, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
 * has received exclusive coverage by twenty separate major national networks ('exclusive' here meaning that the articles are all primarily about the candidate in question)
 * has held or currently holds a significant elected office (such as president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, national cabinet secretary, or mayor of one of the top fifty cities)
 * has received 1% in at least ten national polls by at least three polling organizations


 * I do like the suggestion of requiring multiple polling agencies. SecretName101 (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

No It has only broken down this cycle because Trump is running at incumbent level support, but the number of quality candidates is at the level you would expect when there is no incumbent. This scenario is unlikely to repeat often. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * We aren’t talking about number of candidates. We are talking about assessing which are major candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I started this RfC a month ago. When would we expect to close this? A month from when the new section was started? Sooner? Just wondering. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it’ll wrap up soon. Will probably be a lengthy close to assess for whomever does, because it seemed unclear in the main RFC what a “no” meant and what a “yes” meant. some people supporting the same exact thing in their comments said the opposite in regards to a yes or a no.
 * if the close is to change it, I think the next step is to make proposals, see what proposals catch wind, and then decide between the most popular proposals. SecretName101 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree Punker85 (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like this discussion thread has not been made into a formal WP:RfC. In particular, there's no RfC tag which is used to generate an RfC ID and add this to an RfC list. See this discussion for more info on why this is not ideal.  I doubt if the discussion can be closed without these steps. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:42, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This is a subsection of the formal RfC I started above. It’s a redundant question worded differently. I don’t think it needs its own RfC tag. In fact, I will be requesting formal closure very shortly. Prcc27 (talk) 22:24, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see that a bot removed the RfC ID from the main discussion after it expired. Nevermind.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 23:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

No I concur with SecretName101's position. I agree we shouldn't include PAC polls on account of the potential for manipulation, but this is otherwise a useful metric for now. If it's too weak, 5 national polls should at least contribute to qualifying a candidate as major for us - e.g. 5 national polls plus fundraising comparable to other, qualified candidates, or a certain number of articles, or an office which doesn't quite qualify (e.g. a statewide office with more significant powers than a US House Member's but, apparently, a lower profile - I'm thinking of Stapleton here). PutItOnAMap (talk) 01:45, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

YES There is NO world where candidates like Perry Johnson, Ryan Binkley or Corey Stapelton should even be considered in the same list as candidates like Donald Trump, Nikki Haley or Ron DeSantis. Scu ba (talk) 02:00, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should change the criteria. The fact that Corey Stapleton, a candidate who has received zero national media coverage, can be included simply because he was included in 5 national polls--polls where he received 0% support, mind you--is evidence enough that the polling criteria is flawed. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 03:18, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Can we get rolling on this? There is clear consensus. <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 02:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I already requested a formal close. Prcc27 (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

No My thoughts haven't changed from the initial discussion. Closer please apply my comments from the earlier section to this one as well. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I think the closer should take into consideration a user’s comment in either section. It’s the same question worded differently. Prcc27 (talk) 22:16, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Agreed Prcc27. The closer must also be careful to read comments, since there appeared to be inconsistent understanding/application of what "no" and "yes" indicated in the original section. SecretName101 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Yes: clearly, our standards are far too lax. Now, I propose a combination of SecretName101, EditDude, and Punker85's ideas, as follows. This proposal will strike "substantial major media coverage", as that is an unreliable and unspecific metric. Now, I propose that a major candidate:
 * has received exclusive coverage by eight separate major national outlets; or
 * This allows for both coverage before and after the campaign: entry, dropping out, winning a state, what have you.
 * is a current or previous holder of significant elected office (president, vice president, governor, U.S. senator, U.S. representative, mayor of a major American city); or
 * Major American cities include those on the top-50 most populous.
 * has received 2% in at least five national polls by at least five independent polling organizations
 * I'm increasing the threshold here due to the number of fake candidates used in polls.

I hope this to be a successful proposal. &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 22:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, can we get moving on this? <b style="color: #AB2B2B;">{ [ ( jjj</b> <b style="color: #000000;">1238 ) ] }</b> 06:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I already requested for this to be closed, I’m guessing this rfc might be a little too complex for most closers? Prcc27 (talk) 06:14, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Binkley
I think it’s time to remove him from the major candidate grid. All the others have qualified for multiple debates and have been included in loads of polls while Binkley has been included in the overwhelming minority of polls and has qualified for 0 debates. MoMoChohan (talk) 01:28, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * also he doesn’t even have his own separate page on this site? MoMoChohan (talk) 01:29, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The RfC on this matter still has not been resolved… Prcc27 (talk) 01:56, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * it is now resolved. Binkley has been downgraded to minor candidate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 05:34, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Moving this sub-section into the above closed section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:49, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Can we have a settled decisions or current status quo posted in the description of the discussion?
We have multiple closed discussions on here that the official consensus isn’t stated or clarified but discussion is closed. We literally do not know what the stance is for things such as including RFK jr. in the Infobox, etc which are still being warred over because a consensus hasn’t been declared, even after multiple closed discussions. 174.230.145.60 (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * If somebody wants to find all the consensuses that would apply to this article, I would be willing to create a stickied list at the top of this discussion page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:55, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does not make sense to have redundant sections created; that is why I keep archiving them. If you have a comment, go to the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 06:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Candidate home state?
Is the candidate's home state where they currently live? Or where they were born/grew up? I'm asking because Cornel West lists California, which is where he grew up, but since he's a professor at Princeton and Harvard so wouldn't it be New Jersey or Massachusetts? Same goes for Trump and RFK Jr. because I would associate both of them with New York and Massachusetts respectively, and not Florida and California which is listed in their tables. 2601:189:4181:D030:B51E:792F:1968:EEF2 (talk) 02:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I think we usually list the state in which the candidate currently resides. Prcc27 (talk) 02:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct. That's why Trumps home state is listed as Florida and not New York state. We have a note explaining it in the Republican Party Declared candidates table: "Trump's original state of residence was New York, but that changed when he moved to Mar-a-Lago in 2019."David O. Johnson (talk)

Thoughts about the inclusion of this table under Third party candidates
Boldly added this, was reverted. I think based on polling its warranted.

RfC: Donald Trump as the presumptive nominee in the infobox.
Love him or hate him, Donald Trump is looking to be the presumptive nominee for this election's GOP convention.

With his boss-like role in the party, he maintains the dominator of polls; that's not saying he's just any high-polling candidate either, he has an absolutely massive lead over his opponents. Polling in the 80s while your contenders are stuck in the 10s signal a major change in how we do things on Wikipedia.

That is why I propose we include Donald John Trump as the "presumptive nominee" (with a disclaimer of course) in the infobox. Similar to RFK Jr., we leave his running mate section as TBD.

So, thoughts? Western Progressivist (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Strong no. This would go against bedrock policies which restrict original research and presumptions.  I don't believe any reliable sources, including those you linked, use the phrase "presumptive nominee".  Also, he has the same number of delegates as you and I now and for the next two months, at least.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm also a No and don't think that Trump should be called the "presumptive nominee." It's way too early to tell. Anything could happen between now and election day. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:04, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. Though I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that Trump will be the Republican nominee and Biden will be the Democratic nominee it is simply to early to put them in the infobox. The primaries are still on going. Theoretically someone else could end up being the nominee. KittyTeam (talk) 01:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The primaries haven't started yet, actually. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * NO First off, please read WP:RFCBEFORE and follow that before claiming to start a RfC. As to the merits, we only have a "presumptive nominee" once they have won the necessary number of delegates to secure the nomination. Nobody has voted yet. Polling is a snapshot in time. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No If Trump becomes the presumptive nominee, it will be the moment that he wins the majority of the delegates to the 2024 Republican Convention. Cullen328 (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Very Strong No - While the chances are minimal, a major shake-up during the primaries could still happen. Polls are polls. Nothing matters until the delegates vote. Longestview (talk) 01:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Snow Oppose. Obviously this is a silly proposal with votes not even cast in the Republican primaries yet. Anything could happen and the process should be played out. Putting Biden in the infobox has a much stronger argument and I would still oppose that. Esolo5002 (talk) 01:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No: WP:CRYSTAL, yep, and something might happen (other candidates might win, etc.). &mdash; Javert2113 (Siarad.&#124;&#164;) 01:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No per all above. Clear violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOR. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Complete no: While now he as a commanding lead over all other candidates, there is still a possibility that he won't become the Republican nominee Punker85 (talk) 01:50, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Joe Biden is more of a “presumptive nominee” than Donald Trump is.. Prcc27 (talk) 02:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not just an oppose, but a strongest possible oppose. As has been said above, no votes have been cast yet in this election; while it's almost certain that this individual will win his party's nomination, it's not impossible that he won't and we cannot confirm the future until it happens. Acalamari 09:02, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy
I feel as though if Kennedy has a card on the electoral map, he should at least be separated from the other independent candidates… he’s in the middle of a podcaster and Afroman right now. A guy who is polling above the threshold to participate in the presidential debates should be separated from hip hop artists and podcasters MoMoChohan (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Kennedy is not on the ballot in a single state and is not polling highly. He should not get his image at the top of this article. 331dot (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think OP means he should get a photo in the body, which I agree with; ditto for West (Cornel, not Ye). Prcc27 (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think 16%ish Is High enough AKiwiAtHeart (talk) 07:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Israel and Pro-Biden bias in paragraph.
The following paragraph is shown in the "Foreign policy" section:

"During the Israel–Hamas war, Biden announced "unequivocal" military support for Israel, and condemned the actions of Hamas and other Palestinian militants as terrorism. He is considered to be the most pro-Israel candidate in the race, and has stated that he is a "Zionist in his heart". Trump has been seen as generally supportive of Israel, but has become more critical of their policies since the 2020 presidential election, particularly those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump has criticized the Israeli settlements in the West Bank and stated "I don’t think Bibi ever wanted to make peace [with the Palestinians]." Kennedy condemned the massacres of Israeli citizens by Hamas. Kennedy has said he wants to "end the proxy wars, bombing campaigns, covert operations, coups, paramilitaries, and everything else that has become so normal most people don’t know what’s happening." "

The wording "the most pro-Israel candidate" is not supported by the source given. The "zionist in his heart" quote may have undue weight; it was said in the 1990s and is not particularly relevant. The whole part about Trump being generally supportive but critical of Israel is true but also bias. It doesn't mention his very staunch support of Israel itself during this war and his comments on attacks on American bases in the Middle East. It mentions him being critical about the settlements, but Biden has been too. It's irrelevant. Most of the criticisms Trump has raised are about the Netanyahu admin specifically. And when mentioning Kennedy, it's a complete misrepresentation of him. It mentions a quote he made about Israel months ago. It also doesn't mention that he has been very pro-Israeli during this war and shown in the article referenced. He said that he wants to "provide Israel with whatever it needs to defend itself" and that America should have "unwavering, resolute, and practical action" for Israel. All of this combined seems to have to goal of convincing people that Biden is more pro-Israeli than any other candidate and is in fact the most pro-Israeli. Tweaking should definitely be made to the wording and efforts should be made to include and exclude what I've lined out here. Personisinsterest (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. The tone of this section is very SYNTHy.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Project 2025, Roe v. Wade, and Jan. 6 Capitol Attack in lead
Hi,. All three of these things have been extensively covered in reliable sources. How are they instances of WP: UNDUE? Abortion has dominated the elections since the decision, Trump has repeatedly brought up claims of election fraud + Jan 6th, and Project 2025 has been widely described as the most important part of Trump's agenda in a possible second term. KlayCax (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I don’t oppose re-adding the Roe v. Wade and January 6th trivia if properly sourced. Project 2025 doesn’t seem like a campaign issue so definitely does not belong in that section. 1 or 2 sentences in maybe the background section is even pushing it, but a whole verbose section definitely seems undue. Prcc27 (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * A lot of that represents the policies Trump is running on, . So I wouldn't say that this is the case. It's received immense attention from both conservative and liberal sources that are judged to be RS's.
 * Trump's promise to "drain the swamp" is essentially this. Now, it probably needs balanced out, but I think it clearly meets the criteria of notability for a campaign issue. KlayCax (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the campaign? Seems to have more to do with background information on the election and the consequences of what would happen if Trump is re-elected. We have not even voted in the primaries yet, so if not WP:UNDUE, definitely WP:CRYSTAL to dedicate an entire section for one primary election candidate. Prcc27 (talk) 19:25, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have anything to do with any of the campaigns. That wasn't what they were saying. What they were saying is based on what did happen and what Mr. Trump is Saying as Of Now. This Isn't Background Info Either. The "Rode v. Wade." Court Hearing and The "January 6th Capitol Attack." Are still Big Topics. Even Today. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 22:00, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * which is exactly why it should not be in the campaign issues section. so in that case it would not belong in the background section either. Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Polling has indicated that the "state of democracy" is the second or third leading issue for voters. (Behind economic factors and abortion.) We could put it in that section. But putting Project 2025 in there would present questions of bias. Project 2025 applies to any Republican candidate and has received immense attention among WP: Reliable sources. There's no reason to exclude it from the article. KlayCax (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There isn’t really a good section for it to be covered. Might just be best to link to it in the “see also” section. Prcc27 (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Guns section
Was the firearms regulation section WP:UNDUE or should it be re-added (a user just removed it)? If the latter, are there any newer sources we should be using? Prcc27 (talk) 16:09, 15 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Guess nobody has any strong feelings one way or the other..? Prcc27 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Kennedy close match-up?
Kennedy ? Where in the sources cited do they say he is polling in the 20s in polling aggregation? Real Clear Politics currently has him in the teens. “Closely behind” Biden and Trump? I don’t think so.. I think this sentence should be removed entirely. Prcc27 (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Deseret News. KlayCax (talk) 01:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Huh? Which source are you talking about? The Deseret News is not currently listed as a source for this claim. Prcc27 (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * By my count of the polls listed in Nationwide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election, and including the Reuters poll that isn't there yet, RFKJr is above 20% in 4 out of 13 polls in a 3-way race, and 0 out of 9 in a 4-way race since his announcement as an independent. Saying "consistently in the 20s" and citing three polls where this occurs is quite misleading.  Also, the word "aggregation" in that sentence is completely wrong and "closely behind" is clearly unsupported, in my view.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I've removed it and replaced the ref. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:26, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In doing this, you removed two reference definitions that were used elswhere in the article. It's not clear to me if you mean to remove other material, too (and remove the further invocations of those references), or if you meant to replace those referenes as well. I've restored the references you've deleted so that the article no longer has referencing errors for these two citations. -- Mikeblas (talk) 17:07, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intention to break the references. I'll take more care in the future. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Cornel West in the infobox
As the current criteria for including a candidate in the infobox is "above 5% average in polls", Cornel West also belongs in the infobox. Both the recent Quinnipiac University poll and an earlier Emerson College poll show West polling at 6%. I'm fine with changing the inclusion criteria, but under the current criteria, either both Kennedy and West need to be included or neither. Nosferattus (talk) 16:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We do not go off of individual polls, we go off of aggregates. Although this aggregate suggests that West is above 5%. I feel like we should hold off on West until we can confidently say he has sustained support above 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * West doesn't seem to be hitting 5% consistently enough in a likely four-way race. Longestview (talk) 17:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He does in a likely 3-way. I am not sure if we have a requirement on how many candidates must be included in the aggregation. FWIW, it will likely be at least a 6-way race once the Green Party and Libertarian Party join (assuming no one else joins/drops out). Prcc27 (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. That polling requires that you exclude Kennedy - who polls at 8-25%. In 4-ways, aggregate polls have West at 3.8%. GardenCosmos (talk) 18:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The criteria that was agreed to in the previous RFC was "above 5% average in polls", not "above 5% consistently" or "above 5% in races with a certain number of candidates". IMO, we should either remove Kennedy or add West (or change the criteria). Nosferattus (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You do have a point. But some people at the last RfC did express concerns of having to remove and re-add a candidate that is teeter tottering at 5% average. It does not make sense to go back and forth, and per WP:NOTNEWS, there is no rush to add him. Prcc27 (talk) 19:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a decent point. Nosferattus (talk) 19:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No per GardenCosmos. The 3-way aggregate does not matter as Kennedy is clearly relevent in polling, especially if their both, as proposed, going to be in the infobox. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The aggregate is completely useless at this stage, because we do not even know who will win the Republican and Democratic nominations. If either Trump, Biden, or both lose the nomination, the aggregate becomes useless. Prcc27 (talk) 23:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Biden underdog?
The article currently says Umm.. this seems WP:UNDUE and per WP:NOTNEWS it seems premature. Prcc27 (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed it. It's still a year out. Bkatcher (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is another good example of how we Wikipedia editors need to be more savvy than we are about what to include and not include. We should not just regurgitate whatever a reliable source says without deeper consideration. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely. This is also plain wrong; polls are all over the place and while Biden is slightly trailing in most polling averages, it’s far from a clear overwhelming trend.  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

He doesn’t have ballot access
Calling him a major candidate when he's got no ballot access right now seems wrong Liberty poet (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. No third-party candidate should be listed on Wikipedia unless they are officially on the ballot. Additionally, we do not yet know the amount of States and what specific States he will receive votes in if he becomes a write-in only candidate.
 * Daniel (talk) 15:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should I, as an article editor, remove him from the page just in case? GamerKid1984 (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes because we do not even know if he will be on the debates just like Ross Perot was on the debates in 1992. Daniel (talk) 01:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Other Noteworthy Presidential Candidates
Libertarians

Joshua Rodriguez, An Interview can be found here

Chris Fronzak "Declared intent to run" as no paperwork has been filed

Hugo Valdez-Garcia and Beau Lindsey As seen here in this post, could be considered minor candidates

Transhumanist

Tom Ross (Nominee) An interview with him

Democratic

Paperboy Prince, a minor candidate- on the ballot in NH Microplastic Consumer (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Prince was previously added, and I added Fronzak and Ross. Rodriguez, Valdez-Garcia, and Lindsey cannot be included on this page as they don’t have Wikipedia articles (see invisible comment on the page), but they can be included at 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries.  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 00:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources given for Rodriguez, Valdez-Garcia, and Lindsey do not appear to meet WP:RS criteria, which is necessary for inclusion of candidates on any election page. Also, Rodriguez' campaign website link has been invalid for several months and it is unclear whether or not he is still running. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I don’t see a major issue with them but I see your point. Maybe we should hold off for now until we get something better.  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Edits on Cornell West
Prcc27 keeps attempting to readd West into the polling section of the article. In truth, West is a fringe candidate who isn't even reaching 5% of the vote when people are given him as an option, and is widely acknowledged as a spoiler for Biden.

Kennedy Jr. is presently the only serious third-party candidate. I haven't seen many pollsters even have questions that include West. StardustToStardust (talk) 03:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I already gave you the link which shows that West reaches 5% in a 3 way matchup. And he has been included in many polls. It really isn’t your place to be calling candidates “fringe”. Prcc27 (talk) 05:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * In some, but not all polls. Kennedy consistently gets over 5%. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Is Kennedy not included in the aggregate in the article..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * West is under 5%. Why does he belong? StardustToStardust (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not going to explain this to you again that in Biden/Trump/West matchups he is over 5%. Yes, he is under 5% when you include Kennedy, but that’s beside the point. There is no 5% threshold for polling aggregate inclusion, maybe you’re thinking of the infobox criteria? There will be several candidates on the ballot, not just the Democrat, the Republican, and Kennedy. The purpose of having West in the graph is to show us what the voting margin will likely be in 2024. You even conceded that he’s a “spoiler”, our readers deserve to know how West could impact the results. In any case, I actually feel like the aggregates are a little bit premature during the primary season, so I’d be okay with removing all the aggregates altogether. If the readers want that information, they can go to the polling article. Prcc27 (talk) 15:25, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He's also been trying to promote West into the article . Despite the fact that he's averaging 1-2% in polling. Ridiculous he's being listed in the same light as Kennedy.
 * https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2024/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_biden_vs_kennedy_vs_west-8289.html
 * Should be removed. WP: ONUS is on . StardustToStardust (talk) 15:18, 21 November 2023
 * This is inappropriate behavior, and a clear violation of WP:CANVASS. Do not tag users in an attempt to campaign for people to support your argument. As for WP:ONUS.. the onus is on you to get consensus for the aggregates to be included in the article at all. Prcc27 (talk) 15:34, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying West is a spoiler? Nobody is owed our vote. They have to earn it. If people want to vote for West they can vote for West without the idea that they're spoiling the election for someone else being shoved to their faces. As someone who currently plans to vote 3rd Party, I'm tired of the "spoiler" idea. Lostfan333 (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, especially when you consider that both conservatives and liberals vote for third party candidates, so it might just end up canceling itself out. Instead of bashing candidates, we should be focused on improving the article. Pretending that West is not a candidate isn’t helpful. Prcc27 (talk) 15:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Looking at the current display of prez polling at RCP, most pollsters that list Kennedy also list West. As long as pollsters are asking about a candidate, we should be listing them in the polls section. There is occasional but less frequent polling on other candidates (i.e. Stein, Manchin), and we could exclude them on that basis.    GreatCaesarsGhost   17:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that being included in polling aggregators is evidence he's WP:DUE for inclusion in our section that has polling aggregates. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:27, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * There's multiple polling aggregates, however.
 * Trump v. Biden v. Kennedy seems the most WP: DUE. Adding fringe, minor candidates like West, the libertarian candidate, and Stein are undue. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:09, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One could argue Biden v. Trump only is more WP:DUE. If our readers want to see aggregates with less candidates (2-way or 3-way instead of 4-way), they can go on the main article. Prcc27 (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kennedy's polling past 15% consistently. Trump, Biden, and Kennedy are obviously the only serious candidates in the race. Other polls have shown Stein, Manchin, and the libertairan nominee going past West. Why should he be included over them? If it's really a big deal: just display a two way race as well for Trump v. Biden. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Stein just entered the race literally a few days ago, Manchin has yet to announce. That’s why we do not have enough polls for them. This further proves my point that these aggregates may be premature. Nevertheless, once we get more aggregates with more candidates, we can certainly replace the current aggregate with more candidates. Prcc27 (talk) 20:33, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

RFC Candidates need enough ballot access to win the election in order to be considered major
There’s been a lot of discussion recently on what constitutes a major candidate and what the criteria should be. I’m going to propose a very simple addition to the criteria - candidates who have failed to make the ballot in states worth a majority of electoral votes or delegates cannot be considered a major candidate. If a candidate cannot possibly win, they aren’t major. This would allow us to exclude RFK or Cornel West if they fail to get on the ballot in states with 270 electoral votes, and would also solve the Cenk Uygur controversy by letting the question of it he’s allowed to run for President run its due course. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:57, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your input. Lostfan333 (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is not a proper RfC, please read WP:RFCBEFORE. Also, what do you mean by “considered a major candidate”? Infobox criteria? Getting a table with a photo in the body? Prcc27 (talk) 20:36, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, RFC is not the right thing for it. "Considered a major candidate" is placement in the "major candidates" section of the article, and anything else that comes with that. Sorry for the confusion. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 21:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think that theoretically being able to win should be a criterion for what makes a candidate major for two reasons. First of all, winning may not be the goal of a major candidate. Take George Wallace, who was a major candidate not trying to win and was instead aiming to prevent anyone from receiving a majority of votes and leveraging that in the House. While Wallace was on the ballot in every state, that wasn't necessary for his strategy, as he was aiming for a strong performance in a few states. This is covered much better by a polling criterion. Second of all, actually being able to win may not be what reliable sources consider important. If someone like Uygur, or anyone else ineligible, is running and reliable sources consider it important enough to cover it, then that should be reflected. This is covered much better by the significant media coverage criterion. Przemysl15 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Prcc27 reversions
revised the article to his preferred lead. Mentions of foreign policy, which has been described as one of the campaign's top issues, has been completely removed.

Abortion now takes up almost a third to half of the final paragraph. While no one is disputing it's a major issue of the campaign, it's only been generally ranked in the single-digits, and topics such as the economy and immigration consistently outperform it. I also haven't seen anything suggesting "healthcare" will be a top issue. Is this supposed to mean COVID-19?

The changes also imply that same-sex marriage is a leading issue of the 2024 presidential campaign. That's simply not true and actively misleading. The New York Times article that was removed essentially states this. StardustToStardust (talk) 06:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Main issues lead
treated as the “main” campaign issue of 2024 seems like WP:RECENTISM. I prefer the old wording on Dobbs & January 6th. Also, we can’t mention undocumented immigration in the lead if it’s not mentioned in the body. Prcc27 (talk) 03:43, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Dobbs and Jan 6th both happened before the 2022 elections.
 * One will have happened nearly half a decade before the election. That's massively undue to say the least. StardustToStardust (talk) 05:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like your personal WP:POV to me.. You don’t get to decide what’s WP:DUE & WP:UNDUE, the sources do (no pun intended). Prcc27 (talk) 06:47, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The time for that was 2022. Not 2024. StardustToStardust (talk) 14:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In your opinion. The sources suggest that abortion will be a leading issue in 2024 too. Prcc27 (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Abortion is already mentioned in the lead. There's no need to repeat it twice. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with Dobbs but Jan 6th is completely irrelevant to this election, especially if Trump ends up not being the nominee. Lostfan333 (talk) 15:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have a whole section on January 6th in the body. But I am okay with waiting to see who wins the nomination before adding to the lead. Prcc27 (talk) 15:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Lostfan333 (talk) 15:42, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Some recent sources specifically discussing what they see as the key issues for the 2024 elections:
 * Reuters highlights abortion, the economy, immigration, crime, and foreign policy
 * USA Today highlights abortion, the economy (inflation), and foreign policy
 * I think there's justification for a specific mention/feature about abortion because of how emphatically sources seem to describe its importance. Not so sure about foreign policy, but I certainly don't see a great justification for a mention of Jan 6th given how rarely it seems to be discussed. Sources seem to describe the economy/inflation for instance as more important than both of those issues, and the economy is also usually what voters self-identify in polls as the most important issue to them as well. Endwise (talk) 08:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We definitely need a section on immigration. Until then, it stays out of the lead. Since January 6th is not cited as a key issue, I went ahead and condensed the election interference section. Prcc27 (talk) 18:03, 26 November 2023 (UTC)