Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 5

Can we come to a conclusion on when we would (hypothetically) add Kennedy back into the infobox.
At this point there is clear consensus not to include Kennedy in the infobox. But we need to set some criteria for when Kennedy would be re-added. Here are some suggestions:

1: 5%+ polling aggregate against Democratic and Republican presumptime candidates (so during the primaries when they've recieved enough delegates) 2: 5%+ polling aggregate against Democratic and Republican nominees (after conventions) 3: 5%+ polling aggregate against Democratic and Republican nominees (after conventions) + ballot access in 26 states 4: 5%+ polling aggregate against Democratic and Republican nominees (after conventions) + ballot access in enough states to win the election 5: 5%+ polling aggregate against Democratic and Republican nominees (after conventions) + ballot access in all 50 states 6: Participation in a presidential debate

I personally would go with 4 as while popular polling is good, if Kennedy isn't going to be on the ballot in a signficant portion of states he's very unlikely to reach 5% in popular vote. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * 5-6 sounds good to me.  Iamreallygoodatcheckers talk 19:51, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Before I get into this, I just want to say that I do not think editors are going to want to wait until after the conventions to add candidates to the infobox. We typically add candidates to the infobox once they are the presumptive nominees, well before the convention. I think per WP:NOTNEWS we as an encyclopedia can and maybe should wait. But I digress. Prcc27 (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Must meet 5 & 6 I feel that while in theory 5 would be a no-brainer, I think that if he were to participate in the presidential debates, that should easily cement him as being a serious third party candidate like Ross Perot. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:19, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 4 seems to be the most fair and reasonable option (per encyclopedic standards), IMO. I suspect it is also the one most likely to get a consensus. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:43, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Option 4 sounds good. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The options you have given us are unfair and unbalanced, since most say “after the convention”, so we’re already off to a bumpy start. Also, we are not just determining when to add Kennedy, as you worded the question, we should decide when to add any candidate. Candidates should not be added to the infobox until after the Democratic and GOP conventions (or at the very least after we know who the presumptive nominees are). The inclusion criterion should ideally be 10% nationwide polling to account for margin of errors, but I can support a 5% threshold for candidates with ballot access to all (or almost all electoral votes). Candidates with ballot access to 270 but substantially less than 538 should have to meet a higher polling threshold nationwide (maybe 10%), since it’s harder to meet 5% post election if you are not even on the ballot in many states. Candidates leading in the polls in a state (or Maine/Nebraska Congressional District) by a 15% margin should not need to meet either the nationwide polling criterion or the ballot access requirement (aside from the state they are polling well in), since they are poised to win electoral votes post-election, and thus would be included after the election. Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agree on your proposal but not on your reasoning (I think the other options are definitely fair).  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:11, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Using something similar to the criteria of the presidential debates would seem to make sense: polling at 15% nationally and ballot access in all 50 states. Agree with Prcc27 that someone who polling has shown to be consistently leading in a state should also be included. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:38, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria for inclusion in the debate actually says you only need ballot access to 270 Electoral votes, not 538 (50+D.C.). Prcc27 (talk) 23:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that as well. The 15% in polling + potential to win is what I care about. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 23:18, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment So I like to think of this issue backwards in that we don't want to list a candidate in the infobox before the election unless they're likely to be there after. With that in mind, there are two ways for a third party candidate to get into the infobox after the election 1) winning over 5% of the national popular vote (I think this is why we've been leaning toward 5% polling metric) and 2) winning a state in the electoral college.


 * Trying to account for the first is difficult because polling aggregates can change and be off, especially when dealing with a small percentile like 5%. Most polls have a margin of error around 4%; this is probably why some editors are pushing for a 10% criteria; a candidate polling in aggregate at 10% is much more likely to consistently hit 5%. The way I see it 5% is a liberal criteria where sometimes the candidate won't hit that and stay in the infobox. 10% is a conservative criteria where most of the time the candidate will probably hit 5%. I don't have a strong opinion on whether the line is 5% or higher, but it should not be lower.


 * I also agree we should have a criteria for if a candidate is winning a state in polling aggregators and when that should qualify inclusion. We haven't had a third party win a state in a while, but it is possible and we should probably have some criteria to account for it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Four without the convention requirement has been my consistent position throughout this discussion for reasons articulated previously. It simply makes sense and has few loopholes. There is no reason to wait until after the conventions. We don't wait until after the conventions to add presumptive nominees, and ballot access here is an overlapping qualification with presumptive nominee status, as discussed previously. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 13:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * While ballot access can tell us if a candidate is WP:DUE or not, (after all, it is debate criterion) it is not a post-election criterion. Ballot access is relevant for meeting the 5% nationwide polling threshold, not so much for the winning an electoral vote post-election requirement. Prcc27 (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It depends on if it our intent to list RFK only if he is a legitimate threat to win, or if he is only a threat to play spoiler. 5% is far too low for the former.   GreatCaesarsGhost   21:50, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Going off of the post-election criteria, it would be the latter. Prcc27 (talk) 21:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we want the pre-election criteria to match the post-election criteria? That seemed to be the consensus in the 2020 RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The 2020 RFC occurred later in the election cycle, when ballot access was moot and thus does not address the issue of ballot access. ~ In order to play spoiler, Kennedy must have ballot access, but only in a few states. I would support 5% and ballot access in 3 states.   GreatCaesarsGhost   19:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You only need to be on the ballot in one state to play spoiler. I do not think it is clear why we would have a ballot access requirement, as there is disagreement regarding what this should accomplish and what the threshold would be. The 270+ threshold is proposed so there would be a theoretical chance of winning (aside from contingent election pathways), all 50 states I guess is proposed so that a candidate proves they are WP:DUE? And then there is the argument that you only need to be on the ballot in some (or even one state) to have a significant impact on the election (or even win through contingent election). Prcc27 (talk) 20:34, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite simply, you can't play spoiler without ballot access, and RFK will probably never have it. Declaring as as democrat then flipping to independent when he didn't get any support is not the action of a serious person. Running as an independent is an extremely difficult process, not something you do on a whim like this. Ballot access is a difficult, expensive, and serious process. It would be the best indicator that the campaign is legitimate.   GreatCaesarsGhost   21:17, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was not really referring to RFKJR, as I had already said that the inclusion criteria should never be just about him. It is not inconceivable that an Independent/third party candidate could be on the ballot in only one state, and still play “spoiler”, albeit they obviously would not meet our 5% nationwide popular vote threshold without sufficient ballot access. Playing spoiler is probably too low of a threshold (depending on how you define what a “spoiler” is). There were several candidates that were within the Gore/Bush Florida margin in 2000, not just Nader; and you could argue they were spoilers. Prcc27 (talk) 22:02, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Number 4 at a bare minimum. In my humble opinion, giving infobox inclusion to a candidate who cannot actually reach 270 electoral votes would teeter on WP:PROMO. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:20, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Question: Would write-in access count towards the ballot access threshold? Regardless, I disagree. A candidate on the ballot in 270+ EVs that usually only gets 5% of the vote in each state is less likely to be elected president than a candidate only on the ballot in a few states that actually wins electoral college votes (or almost wins electoral votes). You do not need a majority of electoral college votes if a contingent election happens, which is why Evan McMullin was such a big deal in 2016 even though he had ballot access to only 84 votes (albeit he had over 270+ if you include write-in access, which apparently we did in 2016). I do admit that my concerns may be premature, since we do not know if a third party candidate will have low ballot access, with good performance in individual state(s). But yes, usually it would be undue to include a candidate with low ballot access, but not always. Prcc27 (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I would say write-in access generally doesn't count (although there can certainly be exceptions). I have two personal axioms guiding my outlook on this:
 * The infobox should be as succinct and uncontroversial as possible.
 * The infobox should be stable and updated sparingly throughout a campaign season.
 * The problem with counting write-in access towards the ballot access threshold is that every third party and independent candidate (TPIC) could then be included in the infobox at some point so long as they were having a good polling streak. Had Kanye West taken his 2020 campaign more seriously, it's conceivable that he too would've been eligible for infobox inclusion, even though he had nowhere near sufficient ballot access. But what if a TPIC polls nationally at 5% for a while, then the momentum wears off and they fall below the threshold again? Do we add them to infobox for a few weeks, then delete them afterwards? Wash, rinse, and repeat until election night? To me, that kind of fluctuation seems contrary to the intended purpose of the infobox (per my second axiom).
 * Now granted, the scenario I've described above is pretty unlikely, but so is a contingent election. In which case, I'd argue that if a single TPIC garnered enough support to force a contingent election, then I'd have no problem adding them to infobox after the regular election. But including them before the election because we think they might spoil things seems like a crystal ball violation. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If a candidate is polling well and has a theoretical pathway to 270+, even through write-in access, I’d say they should be included. A candidate should have to be at 5% sustained support for a few weeks (maybe 3?) before being added, and a candidate should not be removed unless they have had less than 5% support for 2 weeks straight. This would prevent back and forth. Prcc27 (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess? But that really seems like a solution in search of a problem. Woko Sapien (talk) 15:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We’re going to have to figure out what to do regardless of what we decide on ballot access. We may very well see a candidate that meets the other criteria, teeter tottering around 5%. Prcc27 (talk) 15:57, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I just want to comment that, in my opinion, participation in a presidential debate is not a good metric, since the two major parties basically decide who they want to have on the stage for that. BD2412  T 21:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * My main problem with a ballot access requirement is that there are a bunch of states that have a cutoff in August. So theoretically a candidate could be polling at 40 percent in April but not have access to 270 electoral votes until August. That is a major problem as it would seem that Wikipedia would in that case be attempting to silence a candidate with the support of nearly half the country. 2600:100C:B250:C92:74DC:EFA0:9DDA:4112 (talk) 23:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can wait until late August before adding any candidates to the infobox? That’s when the Democratic convention is held anyways. I doubt many editors are going to want to wait that long before adding candidates to the infobox, but I am okay with it. Prcc27 (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 3-6. If 1-2 were picked. he would already be on and there wouldn't be an argument. I think 3 is the most fair though. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 17:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * To clarify, we do not know who the nominees or presumptive nominees will be, so either way RFKJR stays out of the infobox, for now. Prcc27 (talk) 17:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that would be a good bet. Either that or not having a ballot access requirement at all. Because if we have a ballot access requirement while several states have a ballot access cutoff in August, it is entirely theoretically possible for a candidate to be the front runner in the polls without yet having sure access to 270 votes. If that were to happen, Wikipedia would effectively be leaving the front runner out of the box. 2600:100C:B2AA:428D:4856:35FA:D0F2:AFD1 (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you do not have 270+ ballot access by the Democratic convention (late August), the most electoral votes you could have ballot access to is about 337* (if I did the math correctly). That is a very narrow path to 270, and very unlikely to be the “front runner” if a good portion of the country cannot even vote for you. If we add the Dems and Repubs in late August, I think it is perfectly WP:DUE to wait literally 2.5 weeks or less to add candidates with significantly less ballot access. My only concern would be that some independents/third-party candidates could meet the ballot access requirement at different times and some may qualify for the infobox sooner.
 * Of course there is also write-in access to consider. But write-ins rarely do well. Prcc27 (talk) 22:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was speaking merely theoretically and hypothetically. It is highly unlikely that a candidate with access to only 337 electoral votes would be the front runner, but it is a possibility. If it is even a theoretical possibility, I think that is grounds enough to forego a ballot access requirement. My vote is for option 2 or 3. 2600:100C:B2AA:428D:4856:35FA:D0F2:AFD1 (talk) 02:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s pretty hard to get 5% nationwide if you’re only in the ballot in a few states (or no states at all!) If you are only on the ballot in the 26 smaller states, it is extremely difficult to get 5% nationwide. Prcc27 (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s not my point. My point is that we may not know for sure what states he will be on the ballot in until August, but he could be polling extremely well even before that. It is unfair to keep him out of the info box until then unless we wait until then to include any candidate, either that or forego a ballot access requirement. 2600:1700:1040:4A90:22:64D0:CE50:8ADD (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Should nationalist conservative and progressive opposition to Israeli military aid be included in the article?
This certainly seems like WP: DUE considering the circumstances. objected and claimed that it has nothing to do with the 2024 presidential election: which seems doubtful to anyone reading the news. (imo.)

Reliable sources have identified foreign policy related to Israel and Ukraine as notable. KlayCax (talk) 07:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Transgender-related" issues have also been changed back to "LGBT rights" - which is much more subjective and seems to imply that same-sex marriage is a leading issue of the 2024 presidential election.
 * (As and  have pointed out.) Note that an edit that violated WP: ONUS still remains: as it falsely implies that the election will indisputably be a two-man race. KlayCax (talk) 07:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, those sentences are notable with regards to foreign policy. I just feel you are adding that information to the wrong article. Our article is only meant to discuss foreign policy as it relates to the 2024 campaign. Background information can be added elsewhere. And having an image for Tucker Carlson was definitely bizarre. The LGBT section discusses the “Don’t Say Gay” bill and says same-sex marriage is not expected to be an issue; that’s why we should include the entire community, not just transgender issues. Prcc27 (talk) 18:24, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am in favor of adding some brief words about opposition to military aid, as I think it is just barely notable/relevant enough. I think LGBT rights is a better and more accurate subheading, and if reliable sources no longer consider the Don't Say Gay bill to be relevant later on given how DeSantis' campaign outlook has changed, then I would be in favor of changing the heading (and content) to "Transgender rights". I think in general, "LGBT/Transgender Rights" is a more neutral term than "Transgender-related Issues". Przemysl15 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I never said we can’t say anything about opposition to military aid, but it should be viewpoints coming from the actual candidates themselves, not commentators. Prcc27 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, absolutely we should use viewpoints from the candidates over commentators, apologies if I misunderstood Przemysl15 (talk) 07:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I was expressing opposition to specific edits made by KlayCax in that section. Sorry, if I wasn’t clear about that. Prcc27 (talk) 17:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think a sentence or two would be WP: UNDUE. KlayCax (talk) 08:02, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Breaking one's own records
Perhaps too trivial. But (unless something unexpected occurs) between now & election day. Trump (age 78) & Biden (age nearly 82), will break their own records as their partys' oldest presidential nominees. Let alone, the two oldest major party prez nominees to face each other. Anyways, something we may add, in future. GoodDay (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Age appears to be an important issue in this election to some extent, so I think this might be relevant if reliable sources bring it up in the discussion of age and I think inside an age section it could possibly be relevant in the future. That said, we should be wary of including trivia of this nature as modern U.S. election articles already have a lot of it. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:45, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Should ANY party/candidate be included in the infobox?
The recent RfC concluded that it is simply too early to include RFK Jr. in the infobox. A recent edit took this a step further to remove EVERY party from the infobox:

I don't necessarily disagree with this conclusion, and I think there is a fair argument to be made here. Is this worth discussing? Longestview (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with the infobox as it is now. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not too speculative to say that the race will be between Democrats and Republicans when that is how every source treats it. I've restored the labels. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 20:02, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If I am remembering correctly, I think in the past we had agreed that any party that made the infobox in the previous election would automatically qualify for the infobox the following cycle. For example, if Libertarians got 5% NPV in 2020, there would be a yellow bar for them pre-election 2024. Not sure if I imagined this, or if this has been superseded. Nevertheless, on the one hand, it could be premature to include the red and blue bars given an independent/third party is likely to eventually qualify for the infobox. On the other hand, it wouldn’t necessarily be WP:UNDUE to only include red and blue at this stage. Although I do wonder what we would do if a major independent candidate (like a former president) were to run. Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the general practice for all US elections though I'm not sure exactly where it's documented. For example, in 2020, in states where Johnson got >5% in '16, we included Jorgensen in the infobox (see: North Dakota, New Mexico). Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 22:03, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that exact example shows the flaws in that logic- Jorgensen was very clearly not a major candidate to the extent of Johnson in 2016. I'm not sure what actual advantage having "Democratic" and "Republican" labels in the infobox before we even know their candidates brings to it. It is not certain yet whether the race will be treated as two-way or three-way and it could be either depending on events over the coming months, so including two candidates would be a premature implication of no third-party candidates being relevant (and conversely including RFK and/or West would prematurely imply them being relevant). It's obvious from the lede that the two major parties are going to be running. I don't see any need for having parties in the infobox yet. No benefit, some problems. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 05:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Several reliable sources are saying that it will likely be a three-way race.
 * Per The New Yorker:
 * Should be left out - as it implies that it'll be a two-way race. KlayCax (talk) 06:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s probably the minority viewpoint. Prcc27 (talk) 07:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 1.) How do we know that? Multiple reliable sources have made similar statements.
 * 2.) Even so, it is a violation of WP: NPOV to not include . The opinion clearly meets this criteria.
 * 3.) Including Democrats and Republicans without mentioning Kennedy is thus a violation of WP: DUE and WP: BALANCE. KlayCax (talk) 07:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the crux of it. If there were any significant benefit to including party labels in the infobox at the moment, it would be worth weighing up the pros and cons of doing so and how to do it in a neutral way. But there literally is no benefit, only potential issues like this. If they're not mentioned, nobody is going to be left not knowing which the two big political parties are. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 07:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree, . The additions against WP: ONUS or consensus need reverted. KlayCax (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You only included the minority viewpoint in the polling section, which was absolutely WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any evidence that this is the "minority" viewpoint? Esolo5002 (talk) 19:07, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * For starters, are there other sources that treat RFKJR. like a major candidate? Do most reliable sources view the election as a two-way race or a three-way race? Prcc27 (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, there's multiple sources that treat RFK Jr. as a major candidate. (Albeit most think he'll get 5-20% of the vote instead of winning.) KlayCax (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove. There is no advantage to include the two parties. Once we have a better idea of the ballot access for third party candidates, we can reassess. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Add. There is a tangible benefit to adding the two parties to the information box, as it would show that reliable sources consider this to be a two party race between Republicans and Democrats. While most people are going to know that the two major American political parties are the Democrats and Republicans, this is the page for the closest upcoming election to the highest office in the United States. There are going to be people who would find this article first when looking into the presidential elections in the United States, and so we shouldn't assume that all readers have a solid understanding of American politics. In fact, someone who is not familiar with American politics but wanting to learn is exactly the kind of person who should be able to easily, at first glance, even, obtain a lot of useful information from this article. In addition, not including an independent slot would indicate that the Kennedy campaign is not getting significant enough traction for the race to be generally considered a three way race. I think parties should be included, but whether an independent slot should be included is up to how reliable sources view the Kennedy campaign, which I haven't looked into the sources enough yet to have a strong opinion on. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If we're not sure whether or not a Kennedy nomination is going to be notable or not: then we should leave the "two-party race" framing out of the infobox.
 * I struggle to see why we can't wait for a few months. KlayCax (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that because we are confident that the Democratic and Republican parties will be important in the upcoming election, the infobox should have those parties added to reflect that information. If the consensus on Kennedy's campaign is that he is a major candidate (something I am not convinced of as of yet but don't feel particularly strong about) then I would support an independent slot in the infobox to reflect that information. Whether Kennedy is a major candidate should only affect whether an Independent party label is included in the infobox, not if ANY party should be included in the infobox. Clearly the Democratic and Republican Parties are notable enough, so I think the question of if Kennedy is also notable enough should not have any bearing on whether the Dems and Reps are in the infobox. Przemysl15 (talk) 13:53, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course. I just think we should determine whether Kennedy is a major third-party candidate before adding the two: which, as others have stated, has certain implications. KlayCax (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep To just throw out the two-party system would be wrong. I also do not believe that 3rd party candidates will make a major impact on the election. Qutlooker (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep To just throw out the two-party system would be wrong. I also do not believe that 3rd party candidates will make a major impact on the election. Qutlooker (talk) 12:57, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

RfC: RFK Jr. in the infobox
This has been debated above without an apparent consensus. At this time, should RFK Jr. be included in the infobox? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes,' he should be included in the Infobox. His current polling indicates that his support is significantly higher than the 5% threshold we've used before. His support has attacted significant media attention, see, , , . While it is true that third party candidacies tend to fizzle out, that is all a hypothetical, current polling shows him consistantly above 10%, with outlier polling higher than that. At this present moment, he has sufficient support. Whether that might change is irrelevant. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * After some thought, exclude until Kennedy recieves ballot access in 26 states. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Why 26 states? Ballot access by electoral votes might be a better threshold. Prcc27 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * 26 is a simple majority, electoral votes is more subjective. Just because he can't win the election through the electoral collage doesn't mean he can't effect it signficantly. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ballot access in 270+ electoral votes makes a candidate more likely to win 5% of the popular vote than say if they were only on the ballot in 26 of the smallest states. It absolutely does matter which state you are on the ballot in, if you want to run up your national popular vote total. You’re not gonna pick up many popular votes in Wyoming. Prcc27 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No one who is not in the ballot in all 50 states shouldn’t br sllowed onto this info box, if this were to actually occur, other major independents would have to be added. Hooten Glover (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn’t Be allowed* Hooten Glover (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty of past infoboxes have candidates that had limited ballot access and either received electoral votes or passed 5% (see 1948, 1848, and 1836). PeacockShah (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Exclude. While he is polling over 5%, early polls often overestimate third-party support. The media is not treating him as a serious contender for the office. Elli (talk &#124; contribs) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He doesn't have to be a serious contender for the office. That's not the criteria. He just has to likely achieve 5% of the vote. Beyond this, the media does consider him a serious contender for the office, as his odds of winning the presidency are presently above DeSantis and Haley.
 * 1-5% isn't nothing. Will it happen? Almost certainly not. Yet that's not the discussion this RFC is about. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No/Exclude It is far too early to suggest RFK Jr. will have any impact on this race, in spite of what polls taken now are saying, because it is so early. Note that there were a few polls from the analagous point of the previous cycle where "Other" was scoring 15-20% of the vote without having a potential third party candidate that has the name recognition of RFK Jr. See Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election. As Esolo notes, third party candidates almost never do as well as early polling suggests. Ross Perot's 1992 campaign was the outlier. As a pollster noted, “This far out, especially given the wide gulf between Kennedy’s open-ended (1%) and prompted (9%) support, the former is likely a better measure of those currently planning to vote for Kennedy than the latter,” YouGov pollster Mark Blumenthal told Yahoo News. To put RFK Jr. as the only candidate in the infobox is clearly WP:UNDUE weight to his presidential chances. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * As a comment above states: He has a better chance of winning the presidency according to betting markets than Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley. Pollsters also state that Kennedy will almost certainly reach 5% of the vote. That's the only criteria for being included in the infobox. The large majority of pollsters, forecasters, and betting markets disagree, and state that Kennedy has a substantial chance of winninng the presidency. (1-8%). There's an immense difference between past elections and the 2024 presidential election. Both candidates are deeply unpopular, Kennedy has name ID, has endorsements from powerful influences, and wealth to run a campaign, something that has not happened since Ross Perot. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Kennedy will win. Just that he'll almost certainly get >5% of the vote. Even if the election results are 5% of the vote...he still qualifies. The criteria isn't whether he wins the presidency or not.. it's whether he gets 5% or not. He'll almost certainly achieve the latter. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Betting markets"? Meaningless. All third party candidates have their support overstated compared to the eventual results, except for Perot in 1992. Your speculation about the future doesn't change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not speculating. Kennedy is polling 15%-20% in national polling averages. It *would be speculation* to remove him per . Just take a look at the 1980 United States presidential election article. Candidates only have to get 5% to be included. Frank Luntz and other pollsters are pretty confident Kennedy will get that. The claims aren't limited to betting markets. They're widespread among reliable sources. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not speculation to note that every third party candidate fared worse than they polled, save Perot. What Luntz is saying is speculation. It is ludicrous to insist on putting up a picture of RFK Jr. and no other candidate on the assumption that things somehow won't change in a year in the way that they have changed in every previous presidential election, at least in modern history. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That might be true if Luntz was a distinct minority voice or the only one making the claim. That's simply not the case. Once the Republican and Democrats are announced, of course their names should be included as well, and no one's saying otherwise. What is clear is that he's likely to get 5% of the vote. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is not "likely" to get 5% of the vote. The history of third party candidates for president (other than Perot) should show you that he is unlikely to get 5% of the vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Multiple reliable sources and polls state as such. Unilaterally overriding those based upon a gut feeling shouldn't be part of the criteria. StardustToStardust (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Prediction markets are generally quite bad for estimates of things with low probability. The general principal here for why people believe in prediction markets is that if there's for example an implied probability of 30% for a candidate's success in the market, but a more reasoned estimate would be 50%, there is money to be made placing bets on that candidate, which should lead to a correction. But that's not the same when the market gives a 1/50 chance for candidate; even if you think the actual chance is 1/1000 there's not really money to made in the same way to correct that.
 * Also you mentioned forecasters. What forecasters have predictions for the likelihood of an RFK Jr. winning the presidency, particularly this far out...? Endwise (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet. I think there would be a stronger case to add him only once the party nominees are decided, as it just looks a bit strange to have him as the only portrait in the infobox currently. I would, however, support having an image of Kennedy displayed in the "Independent/third party" candidates section. Kafoxe (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude. It's too early to tell if he has any real support. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I do think He should. I already stated my reasons before so i won't reiterate them here. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at this moment in time is a very strong candidate based on polls so at this moment in time, Kennedy stays in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, as he is one of the most popular 3rd party candidates in many sourced polls. 69.167.206.138 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet as per Kafoxe. dh (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude. It is not yet the time. Adding him this early implies an undue level of confidence in the polling, which at this point is unreliable, as noted above.  The Savage  Norwegian  21:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, per the overwhelming probability that Kennedy gets >5% of the vote - There is an overwhelming probability that Kennedy gets >5% of the vote (per reliable sources). He's leading among youth, independents, and anti-establishment voters, and professional pollsters are saying he will almost certainly meet the criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Opposition provides no good reasons to note include.


 * Per the Guardian: and the New York Times:  Clearly merits inclusion. As others have pointed out: opposition to including him seems to be primarily emotional and based upon his promotion of conspiracy theories.StardustToStardust (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Some people here seemingly think that he has to have a likely chance of winning the presidency. He doesn't. He just has to go past 5%. There's a widespread consensus among sources that he'll likely achieve that. In fact, betting markets and pollsters are giving him a better chance of winning the presidency than either Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley. He qualifies in spades. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with everything you said. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with it all. Everyone thought there was an "overwhelming probability" that the Gary Johnson 2016 presidential campaign would end up with so many votes because Trump and Clinton were so unpopular. He got less than 4%. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * At this point in time Gary Johnson wasn't polling above 20 percent. Kennedy is polling near or above 20 percent in most polls. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election is comprehensive, then Gary Johnson's 2016 campaign wasn't polled at all until May 2016, a much more reasonable timeframe than this. In late September 2016, Johnson's support was placed at 8.6% by the RealClearPolitics average of presidential polls and at 7.9% by the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecasting model. Then he ended up with about half of that in the only poll that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I still stand with the decision of leaving Kennedy in the infobox but when do YOU think it would be "okay" to add Kennedy into the infobox? Lostfan333 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Without giving it too much thought, if he's still polling this high around the conventions. No earlier than the main party nominations being wrapped up, IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Overwhelming probability he gets 5% of the vote? Have you looked at the 3rd party results in 2016 and 2020? Those elections saw similar levels of disillusionment, and saw all sorts of candidates see large polling percentages this early in the cycle, yet in the end, no independent or 3rd party candidate topped 4 percent, let alone 5.  The Savage  Norwegian  22:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You could make a similar argument the other way. Looking back at the talk pages of the 2016 election, editors wanted to remove Donald Trump from the primary infoboxes under the belief that his support was being vastly overstated by polls: he ultimately ended up winning the nomination and then presidency. Frank Luntz and many other top pollsters have gone on record saying they expect Kennedy to surpass >5%. Beyond this, Johnson and third parties only barely missed inclusion. Polling showed that he wouldn't get 5% in most areas by the time of the election. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I find it odd that you are continuing to cite Frank Luntz as though he's not ever wrong about things. He predicted Republicans would end up with 233-240 seats in the House and control of the Senate in the 2022 elections. Republican Pollster Frank Luntz Admits He Got Midterms Wrong and Is Being ‘Deservedly Roasted’ for It – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That argument is just an ad hominem against him. Most pollsters called the 2022 elections wrong. He's not the only one to make the claim that Kennedy will almost certainly get 5%. So even whether he's discredited (he's not) is ultimately irrelevant, regardless. I was just mentioning him as one example of a serious and well-respected pollster predicting Kennedy will very likely get 5%.StardustToStardust (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem attacks are off-topic attacks about someone's character or other irrelevant aspects rather than the substance of the argument. I'm showing you that just one year ago, November 7, 2022, he made a prediction that turned out to be wildly offbase, and now you are justifying your confidence about RFK Jr.'s 2024 results based on that same "expertise". And no, many pollsters got 2022 right. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * One error doesn't mean that he's discredited. Luntz is widely respected across the political spectrum. Even if he wasn't, this would only matter if he was the only one stating it. Many have made similar statements about Kennedy.StardustToStardust (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying he's "discredited". I'm saying that it is insufficient basis for putting RFK Jr in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if reliable sources state as such? Again, it's not like Luntz is a crazy outlier here. StardustToStardust (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * “Respected” does not translate to “authoritative” SecretName101 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we should change the new inclusion criteria to 5% national polls aggregation and ballot access to 270+ electoral votes (with an exception if substantial media coverage is received). It does not make sense to include an independent candidate with minor media coverage all alone in the infobox. I don’t particularly like the way the RfC is worded. This isn’t about whether or not to include RFK Jr., it’s about what the criteria should be. For this reason I won’t be !voting, but I trust that the closer will weigh my comment accordingly. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude: Per WP:CRYSTAL (Biden vs. Kennedy vs. Trump is hypothetical if we do not even know who will win the Dem and GOP nomination [further comments on this below]). Prcc27 (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Follow-up: Cornel West is actually polling higher than 5%, this issue isn’t just about RFKJR. Prcc27 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Barely and within the margin of error. If West clearly and consistently starts exceeding >5% then I wouldn't be opposed, either. StardustToStardust (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The current criteria does not take “margin of error” into account. Not sure how that would be possible with polling aggregation. But margin of error is probably a reason why 5% is too low of a threshold. Regardless, if Cornel West’s polling holds, he would be on track to be added to the infobox under the 2020 RfC criteria, no? Prcc27 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes They meet the inclusion criteria therefore they should be included. TarnishedPathtalk 23:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Inclusion criteria" as determined by Wikipedia editors. WP:Consensus can change. And I think that "5%" consensus originated around results, not polling. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Originated around results, but was extended to polling. What are you proposing to be the new inclusion criteria, if you don’t mind me asking..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude: Too far out to make any definitive statements about how well he will perform.2601:249:9301:D570:8D7B:BDB4:4B96:F25C (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude: I think this case is a good indication of why ">5% of polling for a third party candidate, even a year off from the election" would be a pretty bad criteria. On an article containing results, >5% of the vote makes sense, so I can understand wanting a proxy for "is likely to get more than 5% of the vote next year". But taking polling here as an indication of a third party candidate's success is to be willfully ignorant of the way the US political system works. For the last two elections:
 * In 2016, the best peforming candidate, Gary Johnson, got 3% of the vote. He was far more notable, with far more media attention and prospects for success than RFK Jr.
 * In 2020, the best performing third party candidate (libertarian Jo Jorgensen) got 1% of the vote.
 * It's not even clear at the moment that RFK Jr. will be on the ballot for a lot of states. I can accept the need for an objective criteria which means we won't have to have these kinds of debates, but under anything that's a reasonable proxy for "is likely to get >5% of the national vote", RFK Jr. should be excluded. Endwise (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes the dude's polling at 20% idk what else needs to be discussed when 1 in 5 voters are wanting to vote for him. If that's not "major" then idk what is. I also support adding Cornel West if he starts polling a bit higher too IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What threshold would you support for Cornel West? Prcc27 (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No - It's too early (we're still in 2023) & none of the party primaries & caucuses have been held yet. GoodDay (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No - He could still potentially lose. If someone had the sense to put RFK on their, why don't they just put Biden and Trump on there because "they'd obviously win"? Any independent politician could come in and beat him. Who knows, he's an old man, he could die any time from now. WiinterU (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, for now. His polling average merits inclusion in the infobox, but polling is inexact and we need a more objective metric to answer this question. He should get on the ballot in enough states to win the election before he is included, in addition to maintaining a polling average above 5%. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * No - it's too far out, and he's not even on the ballot in most places. Perhaps in a while if this keeps up
 * AntiDionysius (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment He's also a huge anti-vaccine activist. I don't think that someone who is openly trying to harm people with misinformation will win to be president. He might be able to make it into an Independent candidate. However, he will most likely fail becoming president due to him spreading misinformation (uhh, actually). And it is exceedingly difficult (not impossible) to beat the incumbent president. To add onto this, peoples opinions can change over even a short period of time. RFK could come out and say something that could ruin his career (not like it hasn't happened before).. WiinterU (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No: Not yet, more time will need to pass to show he holds support in order to meet the threshold. TheBritinator (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He may not even continue to run. He said he was going to run as a democrat, now he is an independent. He might change his mind all together and run for something in Massachusetts instead. I'm kind of surprised he ran for president at all when he could have used his name to run as an independent in Massachusetts and get more attention for his whack job ideas. 64.237.115.91 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep your political opinions to yourself please. Lostfan333 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think what IP was getting at is it is too soon to know how this election will play out, and who the candidates will be. Regardless, even assuming Kennedy stays in the race until the end as an independent, we do not know who the major party nominees will be. Prcc27 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I meant his political opinions that Kennedy has "whack job" ideas. I've noticed several others call Kennedy a nut too. Is that even allowed? I don't think I'd be allowed to call AOC crazy during a series discussion about her. I just want the personal insults to the candidate out of this conversation. Lostfan333 (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We should probably keep comments about the candidates to a minimum per WP:NOTFORUM. Prcc27 (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lostfan333 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Include: Polls are reliably showing that he is polling far above 5%, with Siena College asserting his appeal is as high as 24%. I expect this to change as I feel a lot of voters aren't awake of his fringe beliefs, lack of foreign policy breakage (it seems as if many voters are opposing Biden's Middle East policy, but RFK Jr. extremely pro-Israel) and anti-vaccination activism, but at the moment he's as major as a candidate as Biden and Trump as far as the polls go. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not now: It is too early to know for sure if he will actually be a major candidate on election day. Let's wait at least for a month or too to see if he continues to poll well at the earliest. Or until he actually achieves ballot access. KittyTeam (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * i think wait until he gets ballot access in 26 states Setarip (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No: third-party candidates are a hopeless breed of politicking. Perot, the Free Soilers, and the Know Nothings all failed. Even the optimistic and powerful left-wingers can't get into a post-Red Scare party. Robert's no different. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. This also legitimates his fringe candidacy 141.161.133.121 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No, not yet: It isn’t reasonable to list serious independent contenders before the major party candidates are nominated, and probably also have ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions. Additionally, the consensus is that opinion polling (and media banter) are not statistically reliable enough to gauge true notability—especially above all other presidential candidates. Anderson in 1980 was the last independent with an infobox. He had several polls over 20% nationally but his final vote share was only just enough to warrant being in with the other candidates. 2600:1700:FD0:E200:4DA7:E4E1:CFF8:DF51 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Correction. Perot in 1992 and 1996 garnered enough of the vote to be included in the infobox as well. SecretName101 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No. I believe it’s far too early to include him as a serious candidate worthy of the infobox. This would be the first election since 1996 with a third candidate on the respective article, so it would be a big deal. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He meets every single one of Wikipedia’s current criteria for inclusion. The change the criteria in the middle of a campaign season would give off a strong feeling of bias. There is no reason, given Wikipedia’s current criteria, to exclude him. 153.33.109.245 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * "Current criteria" is an irrelevant argument as consensus can and does change. If "current criteria" allows for RFK Jr and no other candidate to be presented in the infobox (which is biased presentation), the criteria need to be changed. When we fix it is irrelevant. I'll note once again that voting hasn't started yet and won't for another two months. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes/include. You can argue all you want that third-party/independents don't typically get a significant block of the vote. You can argue disillusionment is likely as high now than it has been. But the difference between every other election and now is that 2024 is a literal rematch between an 80 year old unpopular president and a 77 year old who's the subject of 4 different trials right now. Not only do people want something new, but according to polling, Kennedy eats away 8-25% of the popular vote. The last time an independent polled that highly - and what you can't argue is that any candidate in 2020 or 2016 did that - was in 1992, when Ross Perot took 19% while polling at 20%. Kennedy deserves to be in the infobox. Until something changes, and he consistently polls below 5%, we should keep him in the infobox. West, who polls rather consistently at 1-2% in recent 4-way polls, should not. GardenCosmos (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We literally do not know who the Democratic and GOP nominees will be. You are assuming Biden and Trump will win, but we do not know that for sure. If one or both of them lose the nomination, it makes the aggregates with those respective candidates moot. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Until we know who the nominees will actually be, I do not think Kennedy qualifies. A Biden vs. Trump vs. Kennedy etc. is a hypothetical match up at this point. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * lacks sufficient ballot access SecretName101 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Still, he's working at it. You think a guy running in Texas - who's pretty up there with those polls - can deadlock the election? We still include the cheeky goober. ManOfDirt (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He should be excluded until he at least gets on the ballot in most states or most EVs SuperGion915 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude until he gets ballot accces in 2/3 of the states UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Media are now treating Kennedy as a serious candidate; Siena and other new polls showing that he's continuing to rise See the polling here.

Independents:

RFK: 39% (+11) Biden: 28% Trump: 25%

Voters under 45:

RFK: 32% (+2) Biden: 30% Trump: 29%

Nevada:


 * Trump: 40% (+6)
 * Biden: 34%
 * RFK: 19%

Pennsylvania:


 * Biden: 36% (=)
 * Trump: 36%
 * RFK: 21%

Arizona:


 * Biden: 34% (=)
 * Trump: 34%
 * RFK: 24%

Georgia:


 * Trump: 38% (+7)
 * Biden: 31%
 * RFK: 23%

Michigan:


 * Biden: 34% (=)
 * Trump: 34%
 * RFK Jr: 25%

Wisconsin:


 * Biden 37% (+2)
 * Trump 35%
 * RFK Jr 21%

Kennedy now surpasses 20% in polling aggregates. Which is far higher than any other third-party candidate within the 21st century. Per: StardustToStardust (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * That's some very interesting information. Kennedy needs to stay in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Exclude for now - unclear if he'll be on enough state ballots to reach 270 electoral votes. Once he has enough ballot access to theoretically win, I have no problem adding him back. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Ballot count is currently not apart of the requirements to be considered a major candidate on the site. 174.230.145.60 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That's mostly because it's presumed that a major candidate will have full ballot access since all the major have full (or almost full) ballot access already. Independent candidates are different in that regard. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not yet Showing only one candidate in the infobox of an election page is nowhere near NPOV. Polling numbers are a red herring; Trump and Biden are polling far higher, but I hope we would never put only Trump's or only Biden's picture in the infobox. This can be revisited later, when it's time to put the other pictures up, but if his poll numbers are similar then, I see no reason not to. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think we will end up putting one picture up before the other, unless consensus changes. Prcc27 (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Has there previously been consensus that it's OK to put only one candidate's picture in the infobox of any (contested) election page? That seems non-neutral on the face of it. The RFC linked below doesn't seem to cover that issue, though I haven't read the whole thing obviously. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not sure about official consensus, but that was the edit consensus. Prcc27 (talk) 21:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have tended to place one candidate in the infobox if one party has a presumptive nominee while the other party is still contesting its nomination without a candidate having secured presumptive status. SecretName101 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude if for no other reason, we don't even have Trump or Biden yet.  GreatCaesarsGhost   22:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Exclude and IMO we shouldn't be displaying the empty Repub/Dem nominee labels either, there were times when they weren't there and I recall some talk page discussions where some of us agreed it's unnecessary or unhelpful to display them.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 23:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. It would be cleaner to just leave that whole section out until after the primaries, and then have a discussion about which third party/non-party candidates are popularly considered viable, if any. Moonreach (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seconded, would sidestep this debate. PeacockShah (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also think we should probably wait until both major parties select a nominee, as Suffusion of Yellow suggested above. Seems WP:UNDUE to only have some but not all “major” candidates in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. I agree 100%. It's far too early to have any candidates in the inbox. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Exclude oh absolutely not. He has polled between 6-22%, that's not a stable support line that would lead us to believe that he is 100% guaranteed to be a major figure in the coming election. Wait until the major party candidates are chosen and then we can make that call, never any harm in waiting. JaacTreee (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Exclude for the time being. It is way too soon to place any candidate in the infobox based solely on polling numbers, as we have no way of knowing to what degree those figures may fluctuate in the months ahead. I also agree with others who have suggested that a prerequisite for inclusion should be having secured ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of attaining the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes He's polling high and is viewed as a major contendenr. ShadZ01 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He is neither polling high or viewed as a major contender. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Exclude It is far too early to tell if RFK Jr. will get more than 5% of the vote or even have a major impact on this election. We could put him back later if he has a very serious chance to do something, but right now, it is just simply too early (remember that we are still a year out from the general election). Evaxooooof25 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes So long as he is polling above 5% there is no reason he should not be included at this stage, especially as he has announced his campaign; were it still in the hypothetical stages that would be something else entirely. --Ariostos (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes He has recently received at least 20% in the polls. This makes him a significant candidate in next year's race. Until his support lessens, he should be kept on here for now. 98.20.147.181 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)


 * We're at 22-9 against by my rough count after three days. Consensus clearly in favor of pulling from the infobox at this time. We can always add back if consensus changes.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Correct me if I am wrong, but there also seems to be a general consensus to re-add ballot access as a criterion for inclusion (in addition to the 5% polling requirement), and to possibly wait until both major parties nominate someone before adding anyone to the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it was a misreading of consensus to remove it in the first place. I reviewed every vote for the 5% threshold, and everyone seems to be ignorant of this outcome. Also, the discussion took place in July, after the ballot access was a foregone conclusion.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Kafoxe's rationale is good enough to remove this individual from the infobox, at least at this point in the election. At the moment, it looks like we are promoting him and that needs to stop. Acalamari 08:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Remove, featuring fringe candidates so prominently like that doesn't seem due. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Remove unless we also add Cornel West, who is polling at 6% according to Newsweek. Nosferattus (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, what's wrong with adding Cornel West to the infobox? 98.20.147.181 (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Everything that's wrong with adding RFK Jr, and then some. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Strongly support: Reliable sources state that he is a leading candidate. Kennedy also seems assured to get over 5% of the vote. Like other editors have said, "this seems more based upon a dislike of Kennedy than an objective accounting of the situation"; whether or not he spreads misinformation is irrelevant. KlayCax (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. Lostfan333 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * We have no obligation to include him at this stage, regardless of what reliable sources say, per WP:ONUS. No, nobody is saying don’t include him because we don’t like him. In fact, some people are saying do not include any candidates until after both parties have a nominee. Prcc27 (talk) 02:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I object to the idea that this is due to a "dislike of Kennedy". We have said that it is UNDUE weight to his candidacy to put him there so early when the major party fields are blank. Plus, RFK isn't "assured" of sufficient ballot access to reach 5% of the vote yet. Focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No candidate can be assured of getting 5%. (Even Republicans or Democrats.) However, CNN says he'll likely get 5% of the vote. We're going to have to eventually pick one nominee in the infobox before the others, regardless. My opinion would change if the RFC leads to a change in criteria. For now, there's no good reason to exclude. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not true. If the Democrats choose a nominee first, we likely will still leave the infobox empty, until the Republicans choose their nominee too. That seems to be the general agreement, but I could be wrong.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Prcc27 that's not how we have done it in the past. My memory is that in 2016 and 2020, Trump was included in the infobox before Hillary and Biden (respectively) due to him becoming the presumptive nominee of his party at an earlier time in each of those years than the aforementioned Democratic Party nominees. SecretName101 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that. But most people in this RfC want to change that. Prcc27 (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You claimed a “general agreement”, implying an existing consensus that has not previously been established as far as I know. Hence my correction. SecretName101 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Unless someone can refute the following reason for removal, I will be moving forward with removing RFKJR from the infobox tomorrow: we do not even know who the nominees will be, so this all seems WP:CRYSTAL. Including Kennedy based on Biden vs. Kennedy vs. Trump aggregates, is almost as absurd as including him based on Nikki Haley vs. Marianne Williamson vs. Kennedy aggregates. Cleary the previous consensus at the 2020 RfC does not apply to hypothetical matchups. Until we actually know who the nominees will be, the aggregates are essentially useless. Per WP:ONUS, the onus is on those seeking inclusion to get consensus, which editors have failed to demonstrate that the previous consensus applies. Prcc27 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Please wait for the RFC to be closed before doing that. Let someone uninvolved make that decision. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Weren't you one of the first users to argue Kennedy should be on the infobox if I'm not mistaken? Lostfan333 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I was indifferent to it, I never said I supported it. But we clearly cannot include him in the infobox based on hypothetical polls. Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless, I too think we should wait. Lostfan333 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think not, per WP:ONUS. Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO the better way to handle this is to ask for closure from an uninvolved editor as the RfC has gone on for more than 7 days and the consensus isn't murky enough to warrant relisting it and waiting another week. If this were an ordinary discussion, boldly removing it due to the apparent consensus would be totally fine, but this is an RfC. Let's just let the process play out, we're at the end of the process anyways.  Vanilla  Wizard  💙 13:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. Did not see your message until after I made my BOLD edit. But I definitely will take your advice and request closure. There is no guarantee an editor will close this RfC soon though. It took forever for the last RfC on this talk page to be closed, even though it was several days after the 30 day automatic end. Given the clear consensus and WP:ONUS, seems bizarre to wait possibly several weeks before we can remove him. Prcc27 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Comment: Summary of debate as of 00:13, Thursday, November 16, 2023 (UTC). Some editors argue for inclusion based on his polling numbers, which are significantly higher than the previously used 5% threshold. They also cite significant media attention and historical precedents where candidates with limited ballot access but considerable electoral support were included. Others argue for exclusion until he achieves ballot access in a majority of states or a number of states that could yield a majority of electoral votes, suggesting that his current support in polls may not be sustained through the election cycle. Another point raised is that early polls often overestimate third-party support and that media is not treating him as a serious contender, hence his inclusion would be undue weight. Some editors also suggest that inclusion based on polls alone is insufficient and speculative, as it does not necessarily translate into actual votes or impact. There is a substantial discussion about the relevance of early polling and historical comparisons to other third-party candidates. Many editors express caution, suggesting it is too early to make a definitive judgment about his candidacy's impact. Some editors also believe that changing Wikipedia's current criteria mid-campaign may reflect bias and that if Kennedy continues to poll above 5%, there should be no reason for exclusion. The use of betting markets as a gauge for candidacy success is also debated, with some editors dismissing them as unreliable. A suggestion to wait for the major party nominees to be decided before including any candidate in the infobox is also being considered, with the idea of preventing undue emphasis on one candidate. The debate also touches on the appropriateness of Wikipedia's role in potentially legitimizing a candidate's campaign. Ultimately, the consensus at the time of the discussion appears to lean towards excluding RFK Jr. from the infobox until more concrete criteria are met, such as ballot access in a significant number of states or the passing of the election cycle to a point where more reliable data can be obtained. This reflects a broader caution among the participants against relying too heavily on early polling data and a desire to maintain neutrality and avoid undue weight on any one candidate. Svenskbygderna (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Great summary! I honestly think we can close this RfC ourselves; when consensus is clear, you do not need an uninvolved editor to close it per WP:RFCCLOSE. Does anyone oppose closure by an involved editor at this stage, given the clear consensus here? Prcc27 (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No objection here. And yes, that is a great summary. Kudos, Svenskbygderna! A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Exclude - there is a 99.9% chance the winner will be a Republican or Democrat. No need to entertain this in a country known for a rigid two-party system. <b style="color: #E2062C ;"> Iamreallygoodatcheckers</b><b style="color: #000000;"> talk</b> 02:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
Should the inclusion criteria for the infobox be changed? If so, what should it be changed to? Please see this RfC on the previous inclusion criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm still recovering from the RFC results at the 45th Canadian federal election page. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Too soon? I figured better now than in the summer.. 😅 Prcc27 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think candidates should be included in the infobox if they meet the polling criterion (which I think should be raised to at least 10%), if and only if they meet an additional criterion. Additional criteria: Ballot access to 270+ electoral votes OR substantial media coverage treating the candidate like a “major contender” that actually has a shot. 5% in actual results as the inclusion criteria is fine, but 5% in polls for inclusion is too low of a threshold. The current polling threshold does not take the margin of error into consideration, which is why I’m proposing we raise it to 10%. Furthermore, regardless of polling, you can’t actually win 5% of the popular vote without ballot access (or at least write-in access). In lieu of meeting the national polling criteria, I think we can add a candidate to the infobox if they have an average lead of 15% in a state (or Maine/Nebraska congressional district). Remember, winning a pledged electoral vote is also a criterion for inclusion, so it you’re polling high enough in a state you should be included as well. I think we included Evan McMullian in 2016 when he was polling well in Utah. Prcc27 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree with any effort to raise the polling criterion. 5% is an arbitrary number, but it is consistent across American election articles. Better not to mess with it.
 * I disagree with the media coverage criterion as framed here, because it is too subjective and will only lead to further debate over what constitutes such treatment.
 * I agree with the ballot access criterion, as I expressed above and below.
 * -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a consistent number for American elections for actual election results. Isn’t the polling criterion relatively new? If a candidate is polling at 5% and the margin of error is 5%, there is a good chance that the candidate will not actually qualify for the infobox after the election. But I digress.
 * The only reason I added it is because let’s say hypothetically Donald Trump dropped out of the GOP race tomorrow, and decided to run as an independent; I think we could add him to the infobox before he has any ballot access. But if users think that adding an independent candidate (even a former president) at this stage is premature, I can live with that.
 * - Question: any thoughts on what to do if a candidate is polling well in a single state (e.g. Evan McMullin Utah 2016)? Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Polling within a single state may affect the infobox for that state's election article (see 2016 United States presidential election in Utah), but should not be a factor for the infobox in the main election article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It does affect the main election article if the third party candidate actually wins the state… If polls indicate a candidate is likely to win electoral college votes, I would argue they should be included in the infobox. Evan McMullin’s showing in the polls was probably too low for inclusion. But if RFKJR was beating the Dems and Repubs by a margin of 15% in Tennessee polls, nationwide polls and ballot access become less relevant. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would you like a side of Ross Perot with that? Western Progressivist (talk) 23:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If you don’t have anything productive to say, please don’t say anything at all. Prcc27 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Disagree: Honestly, for me it's a minimum polling. We ought to include candidates that poll at least 15-25% before they're included in the infobox.
 * For people like Eugene Victor Debs, he got a decent popular vote. Millard Fillmore in 1856 had to get just 4 electoral votes alongside a decent popular vote.
 * Ballot access should play no part in this. Sure, it would be helpful to get all around the Union, but what if they could deadlock the electoral college because of a few states that let them on the ballot? Impact potential rather than ballot reach would be better, at least from my perspective. Western Progressivist (talk) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * . So if a candidate like RFKJR. gets no ballot access, he can remain in the infobox..? Pretty hard to get 15% popular votes if you’re not even on the ballot. I already said that if a candidate polls well in a state, they should be included in the infobox (so long as they meet other requirements), so that argument is moot. Besides, RFKJR. does not have any ballot access currently AFAIK. Prcc27 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Also. Above you said RFKJR. should be removed from the infobox, yet you just said a candidate can be included if they poll at least 15%-25% (which RFKJR. does). I’m not following here… Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Without wide enough ballot access, it is either impossible or near-impossible to either get a large national share of the popular vote. SecretName101 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * No: I've always been of the mind that the minimum requirement for inclusion should exclusively be ballot access, where once you attain access to (270) Electoral votes you should be placed in the infobox, as was the case in for the 2012 Election. (5%) though is also the standard criteria for inclusion that has been adopted for all American election articles, and I don't see any reason increasing the bar for the pre-election period of an article only to lower it again for the post-election period. --Ariostos (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn’t “lowering” it per se. Polling at 5% with a margin of error of +/- 5% means a candidate could get anywhere from 0%-10% of the vote. And that’s even ignoring the phenomenon that third party candidates usually outperform in polls with significantly lower numbers in the actual results. Increasing the threshold reduces the risk that a candidate will be in the margin of error. Also, if you are polling at 5% nationwide, but only on the ballot in 3 states, you’re obviously not going to win 5% nationwide post-election. Ballot access directly determines the likelihood that one will meet the 5% threshold post-election. Completely disregarding ballot access doesn’t make sense to me. Even if you have ballot access to 270 EVs, a candidate will likely need to poll at 10% nationwide to win 5% post-election since half the country can’t even vote for them… Prcc27 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think there is clearly a problem with us applying a standard that allows third party access to the infobox before major parties. Biden and Trump have greater support than Kennedy, but so does DeSantis!  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If RFKJR is in the infobox a couple weeks before the major candidates, I do not really think it is a major problem.. But I agree that at this stage he should not be in the infobox. Last election Trump won his party’s nomination before Biden, so we put Trump in the infobox and did not add Biden until later on. Saying “do not add an independent to the infobox until at least 1 major party candidate is added” doesn’t seem very neutral. Saying do not add anyone to the infobox until both the Democrats and Republicans have nominated a candidate could work I suppose..? So that means under that proposed inclusion criteria, if Biden won his nomination, he would not go in the infobox until after the GOP chooses their nominee. But I don’t think it is fair to remove Kennedy without first establishing what the new inclusion criteria is. And even if then, I think a ballot access criterion is needed, even after the major party candidates have chosen their nominees. Prcc27 (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * In short, a ballot access criterion, and waiting to add Kennedy until we add the major party candidates, are two proposals that are not mutually exclusive. Prcc27 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think this is largely the right point. The prior RFC was about excluding candidates that had ballot access based on their polling. The concept here is that the Democratic Party has ballot access already, and can confer that access to the candidate of their choosing. So perhaps "polling at X% in a state where they have ballot access" would be a good standard that addresses all the concerns noted.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You make a good point. In hindsight, we should not have replaced the ballot access requirement with the polling criterion; we should have added the polling criterion to the ballot access criterion. Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. 100%. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * People dread another match between a neoliberal and Christian democrat.
 * People want someone new. Kennedy's looking to draw votes from conservatives and liberals for his antivax sentiment and "conspiracy theory" anti-corporate activism.
 * Jeez, aside from rightfully hating on corporations, I don't see why excluding him is good. He has a decent polling. Western Progressivist (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * What has Kennedy done to warrant inclusion that no other candidate has? Because he's the only one there.  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * He's made big news. The media has treated him well.
 * Nobody wants a two-party system. People want an independent. That's why they're trendy right now.
 * We should include him. Western Progressivist (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * You said that quote above, right? Can you please explain why you all of a sudden had a change of heart? If you changed your mind, please strike your comments like this . Let’s not confuse the process, thanks. Prcc27 (talk) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I find Robert the most interesting candidate in a while; he's syncretic.
 * Also, we should put a disclaimer next to his infobox that discusses the polling and ballot access criterion (thanks to @Prcc27 for teaching me that new word! I love it!). Western Progressivist (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, we do not add candidates to the infobox based on whether they are interesting or not. Prcc27 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your change of heart. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems less like a change of heart and more like disruptive behavior. If the user changed their mind they need to clarify that, and they should explain why. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * So have Biden and Trump. So I ask again - by what rational criteria should we include RFK and not Trump and Biden?  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Support changing inclusion criteria to equal ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of achieving 270 electoral votes exclusively, or in addition to, the polling average requirement. There's no reader benefit including someone in the infobox who has no actual possibility of election. High-polling, ineligible candidates can be addressed in the body of the article. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is:
 * Many third-parties in the United States have had immense influence in determining the presidential election (or attempted to do so) without obtaining 270. Often, this involves attempts to throw it to the House of Representatives and/or encourage a de facto coalition through bargaining away their electoral votes. (See Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in the 1968 election.)
 * There's a long standing consensus that attaining electoral votes is not required for infobox inclusion. See the 1848, 1912, 1980, 1992, 1996 articles.
 * Due to the way that the American electoral system works: the mathematical possibility of getting 270 is not required to make an impact. KlayCax (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Which is why I already suggested adding a criterion that if polling suggests a third party candidate will win electoral college votes, we should add them even if they do not have ballot access to 270 electoral votes. If Kennedy has a 15%+ lead in Tennessee, but only has ballot access in a few states (including Tennessee of course), we should definitely add him. Regardless, there seems to be a general agreement to wait until all major parties have chosen a nominee, before we add anyone to the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
 * However, it is impossible/improbable to achieve 5%+ of the vote nationwide without ballot access to a large enough share of the population. SecretName101 (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Which is why I support the requirement that a candidate gets 5%+ (ideally 10%+) nationwide polling and ballot access to at least 270 EV. But post-election we include candidates in the infobox if they win 1+ pledged electoral votes, even if their popular vote threshold is below 5%. For this reason, I think candidates polling well in individual state(s) do not need to meet the ballot access requirement, as they are likely to win electoral votes and would be included in the infobox post-election, despite limited ballot access. Prcc27 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Democracy
A section on democracy was added to the campaign issues section, then reverted. Should this be re-added? Would some of the information on recent comments made by Trump be WP:Recentism? Could some/all of the information from the previous democracy section be consolidated into the current election interference section of our article (or vice versa)? Prcc27 (talk) 19:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)


 * American political candidates have often accused the other person in the race of damaging/being a threat to freedom. It's nothing unusual. Claiming that the United States is at risk of democratic collapse is ridiculous. Wikipedia shouldn't sensationalize or scaremonger. I don't think many reputable political scientists think Biden/Trump is a threat to democracy. It's a way for American trash magazines to get clicks.
 * "LGBT rights" is vague. Not sure why you reverted. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not up to us as users to decide if democracy is in danger of collapse; that is irrelevant. Having a section on democracy does not insinuate that democracy is in trouble; all a section does is tell us what the candidates will be campaigning on. We should ask ourselves “is democracy going to be a major campaign issue in 2024?” If yes, it should be included. Prcc27 (talk) 21:20, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And it seems unlikely to meet. Definitely an instance of WP: CRYSTAL. This appears to be an implicit reference to Trump: who isn't the nominee yet. StardustToStardust (talk) 07:25, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * By this line of reasoning healthcare, foreign policy, education, and all other issues should also be removed because they are based on what news sources expect to be big issues in the election. BootsED (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, issues may shift a little depending on the outcome of the primaries, or other news events. But as of now, democracy is a campaign issue. And Trump is not the only candidate that Democrats and others would try to portray is “anti-democratic” (i.e. DeSantis). Prcc27 (talk) 17:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make it an "issue". StardustToStardust (talk) 23:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Anecdotally, the talk about the end of democracy is like nothing I've ever seen before, with the exception of the 2020 election. Sourcing would back that up, I imagine. I would readd it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Do we not remember George W. Bush in 2004? We don't mention anything about democracy on that year's election page. The whole section would be horrendously UNDUE. StardustToStardust (talk) 07:27, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don’t remember Bush 2004, care to elaborate? Did he say he was going to be dictator for a day? Prcc27 (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Concerns over the PATRIOT Act, waterboarding, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, want me to keep going? How is a joke about being dictator for "one day" comparable to that?
 * Editors are acting like Nixon killing brown people isn't a bad thing.
 * Trump said thing on Twitter? Time to panic! StardustToStardust (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * If Trump made one joke and that was it, I'd agree the concern is overstated. You're not accurately representing either Bush 2004 or Trump 2024. Despite what the Bush administration did, there was no fear that he would try to stay in office beyond the end of his term. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd say killing millions in Iraq is far worse for democracy.
 * Were you alive in 2004? It was widespread at the time. StardustToStardust (talk) 23:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the election interference section quite covers it. The partisans in an election get to decide what the issues are, and the left is absolutely angling to make this election a referendum on popular rule. I support readding the section as shown in the diff.  GreatCaesarsGhost   16:56, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I also support re-adding the section. I do worry about WP:recentism, but I would be surprised if Trump’s recent remarks did not have an impact on the 2024 election (arguably it currently is having an impact). Also, if Liz Cheney announces a run, we should probably add her take on it, since Trump was responding to her interview when he made his dictator for a day remarks. Prcc27 (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I re-added the democracy section, then moved some of that content to the Election interference section. A user reverted a paragraph citing “POV”. Is the information WP:POV or WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 22:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling Trump "authoritarian" violates both of those. Is this even a question? StardustToStardust (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Calling Trump "authoritarian" in wikivoice would violate our policies. Showing that there is mainstream press discussing whether or not Trump is "authoritarian" does not. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * George W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, and many other presidents have faced similar claims, that's why it's a violation of POV. StardustToStardust (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not an accurate view of what WP:NPOV says. It tells that we reflect what the sources say neutrally, not that we have to treat subjects "neutrally". So, with all of the available sources (quick smattering from a Google search of "Donald Trump fascist") WP:DUE weight is met. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's not atypical for an American president. George W. Bush was famously labeled a fascist and/or authoritarian during his second election campaign.
 * This seems like historical amnesia. StardustToStardust (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

"LGBT rights" vs "Transgender-related topics"
Why do some editors want to replace the article's focus on "transgender related topics" with "LGBT rights"? Same-sex marriage isn't even an issue anyone; the sources state that it's essentially confined to transgender related topics. It presents massive POV-issues by saying that X or Y is an inherent right. StardustToStardust (talk) 07:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Well, I hope we don't say slavery is okay. Transgender hysteria is the new thing. The prospect of gays marrying is no longer as scary to the Republican base. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 10:33, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We frame it the way the sources frame it, the sources call it an LGBT issue. Also, pretty sad that you all think same-sex marriage is the only issue that affects gay/lesbian/bi people; book banning definitely affects the entire LGBT community. Prcc27 (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Per ABC News, "Here's where the 2024 presidential candidates stand on LGBTQ+ issues", one of the issues is "banning classroom instruction of sexual orientation", which is an LGBT issue generally. The article also addresses the views of Vivek Ramaswamy, Mike Pence, and Tim Scott on gay marriage specifically. BD2412  T 16:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * None of those people are serious candidates. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * All three of them were included in Republican debates. If not that, what's your definition of a "serious candidate"? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Realistic chance of getting the nomination.
 * So Trump and arguably Haley or DeSantis. StardustToStardust (talk) 23:37, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether Pence actually had a shot at winning or not, I would say being a former VP does make you a serious candidate.. Prcc27 (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And that is not a serious response to proof this is an issue in the election. It's true that only Trump is likely to win the nom, but it is extremely common (all over the world) for election issues to be raised via proxy to keep the real candidates' hands clean if a plank does not gain support of the party.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:49, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * They aren't, but it doesn't matter to Wikipedia if reliable sources cover them. Otherwise we would just delete and add Trump as presumptive nominee.  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur as a major candidate
There's an ongoing discussion regarding this issue at Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential candidates, but it needs more participation in order to gather consensus. If you have an opinion please jump in over there. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

"Authoritarian" being used to describe Trump
Multiple editors have attempted to add "authoritarian" to describe Trump. It's well-known at this point that most media stations lean left and don't like President Trump. So I worry that a lot of editors seem to be using this page to advocate for their personal political perspectives. (See the American Thanksgiving article as well.)

I worry that editor's feelings about the man are violating NPOV guidelines. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)


 * "Most media stations lean left" is a major NPOV violation. We summarize what reliable sources say about the issue. Whether or not you think the media sources "lean left", if they are considered reliable by Wikipedia and say Trump is authoritarian then they should be included. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * There's no consensus that Trump is authoritarian. StardustToStardust (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This has already been addressed in the above Democracy section. We give due weight to the sources. Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @StardustToStardust, I concurwith the previous comment. We got by what the reliable sources say, not by editors' personal opinions. If it was just reliable sources saying that, it would be enough. But those reliable sources cite former president Trump's own words in their reports to verify their assessments. Exactly how is that inaccurate and undue? Unless using his own words as reported in reliably-cited sources somehow violates Wikipedia policies (which doesn't appear to be the case), then to what exactly are you objecting? User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 22:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Saying it in the voice of Wikipedia is what is problematic.
 * "Accusations" would be a way to neutrally phrase it. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:47, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * We do not say it in Wiki voice, we specify that it is the viewpoint of the media. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The Associated Press, Reuters, New York Times, and several other news agencies all openly report that Trump is authoritarian, so the previous version of the article remarkably tiptoed the subject if anything. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * , I concur with previous comments about the issues with the premise of your argument, in that you seek to disregard reliable sources and due weight.
 * Now, another issue: Your editing on this article has been questionable at best. Basically all of the major edits you have made to this article have been reverted, and almost entirely by different editors.
 * See here your recent edits:
 * : I'm okay with including accusations of authoritarianism. We shouldn't state Trump is authoritarian in Wikivoice.; reverted by
 * : More NPOV wording. Moving this to democracy section.; reverted by
 * : Massive POV violation.; reverted by
 * : Needs consensus. Please don't edit war.; reverted by
 * : Previous wording is biased and violates [WP: NPOV]]. Check comments section.|undefined; reverted by
 * 10 December: series of edits beginning with Democracy is WP: Crystal. Also clarified that it was referring to transgender-topics rather than predominately bisexual/gay individuals.; reverted by
 * : There's no consensus for this outside of you. Where has climate change been brought up as an issue?; reverted by Prcc27
 * 23 November: series of edits beginning with WP: WEIGHT issues to have abortion. No evidence that climate change will be a major issue from the source.; partially reverted by Prcc27
 * 22 November: series of edits beginning with Better source per objection; reverted by
 * If West goes in the polling then he deserves mention in the lead - since I'm honestly tired about fighting about it (and from talk it doesn't seem like my viewpoint has won out).; reverted by Muboshgu
 * I gave up looking through the edit history at this point, but I think you get the point.
 * And, since you brought it up: You exhibited similar behavior, though to a lesser degree, at Thanksgiving (United States) (talk page discussion).
 * I wrote this before Prcc27 the tag; I recommend you do not re-add it—I ask you to remove the NPOV template you just . Instead, if you want to add a maintenance tag, you should use POV statement, which is an inline tag. If you have neutrality concerns about the entire article, you must address them on the talk page or the template will be rightfully removed.
 * Wracking talk! 23:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think even an inline tag would not be merited. The consensus on this talk page is already clear. Prcc27 (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I added it to the lead. It's a no-brainer that Trump's authoritarianism should be excluded. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to say "should be included"? A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, yes. Lol. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 17:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The question isn't whether Trump is an authoritarian or not. It's whether fascism should be mentioned as well. ShirtNShoesPls (talk) 16:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That's ridiculous. StardustToStardust (talk) 18:15, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Historical background: WP:OR/WP:SYNTH
It looks like we are violating WP:OR in the last paragraph of the historical background section and even WP:SYNTH to try to negate the claim that “generational and racial polarization appear to have significantly decreased”. Even assuming this complies with WP:OR, you cannot use the 2022 midterm results to negate polls on the presidential election conducted in 2023. The midterms and presidential elections often have very different outcomes. Finally, using transitions like “however” in the way we are currently using it seems like EDITORIALIZATION. Prcc27 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Forecast Updates
Cook now labels Nevada and Michigan as tossup states, no longer Lean D, according to their website MoMoChohan (talk) 00:14, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Everything should be updated now. Thank you. Scoutguy138 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

1RR?
I really hoped we could continue to operate under WP:3RR on this article. But the constant edit warring and disruptions (mainly from a small handful of editors) has gotten way out of hand. Should this article switch to WP:1RR? I know for the 2020 article we operated under 1RR. Thoughts? Prcc27 (talk) 22:35, 15 December 2023 (UTC)


 * My thoughts?? I'm simply annoyed. Lostfan333 (talk) 02:49, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I’m thinking 1RR might be a little premature. So I requested extended confirmed protection for now. See here. Prcc27 (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Both have been implemented. Moving forward, please remember to limit yourselves to 1 revert a day. Prcc27 (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You decide to get these implemented because editors were using standards provided through WikiProject Elections? And so because of a Fantasy that says the 2024 Election won't be a two-party race we must ECP the Article? It is safe to say that Robert F. Kennedy Jr is more irrelevant then George Wallace was in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992. Along with that as usual, the race will be the stupid Republican v. Democrat Us vs. Them BS that has been going on since 1860 (WP:IDONTLIKETHIS). Qutlooker (talk) 01:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I couldn’t care less if it is a two-party race or not. There has been edit warring on many different issues, not just the infobox. And the thing about edit warring is you being “right” is not a valid defense. We treat that behavior as disruptive on Wikipedia. Anyways, the deed is done, and this is not a forum, so there is not reason to discuss this any further. FWIW, you were not the user I was referring to as “disruptive” when I requested protections for this page. Prcc27 (talk) 01:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Never said that and never will. Again, never said that. But I'll just stop it here as there is no point in engaging in unnecessary fights that can get me Blocked. Qutlooker (talk) 02:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Immigration
I would've thought immigration will be a major topic, in the 2024 election. GoodDay (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * That section was proposed in the past, but for some reason nobody has created it. Do the sources frequently touch on this issue? Prcc27 (talk) 03:54, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've been reading that lately NYC & Chicago are being overwhelmed by immigrants. GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What are the candidates saying about immigration? Prcc27 (talk) 15:43, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't watched any of the Republican primary debates. The Biden administration though, has (at least partially) continued building Trump's Wall. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Well if it starts becoming a prominent campaign issue, we could certainly add it. Prcc27 (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a prominent issue right now. It should be added along with the other leading campaign issues. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/2024-presidential-candidates-stand-immigration/story?id=103313097 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:8F0:9450:998D:8C71:78EE:B062 (talk) 22:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Florida Democratic primary
Should we mention that the Florida Democratic Party has cancelled their states' primary, via placing only President Biden's name on the primary ballot? It's a move that's currently being challenged on behalf of Phillips. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think so. Maybe in the Democratic Party section. Prcc27 (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've replicated language from the dem primary article that seems neutral. Feel free to tweak.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:32, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Looks neutral to me. PS - Didn't know about the other states. GoodDay (talk) 21:16, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump ineligible in Colorado
Trump is ineligible to run in Colorado. I added this information to the Republican Party section. Should this information be moved and/or added to an additional section? Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, a discussion at Trump's 2024 campaign page, might effect what's to be done on this page & perhaps other related pages, like 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries, etc. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I think this is lede worthy to be honest. Something like "On December 19, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump was ineligible to be on the Colorado presidential ballot because of his participation in the January 6 United States Capitol attack. The ruling was condemened by many members of the Republican party as undemocratic." Probably could pull something out about its unprecedented nature. It's probably lede worthy even if the Supreme Court rules against it. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:07, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I would agree that based on the current level of Trump coverage in the lede, some mention of the ineligibility question should be made. I would prefer something more brief, like "Trump faces legal challenges that he is ineligible due to his participation in the January 6 United States Capitol attack." We don't want to oversell the importance of the CO decision, nor should we care how partisans (predictably) react. We could get into that detail in the article.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:11, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * What about the background section, would it fit there? Prcc27 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the prose at the top of "Republican Party", but I have no strong opinions about it.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:43, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A little confused that you decided to proceed with such a lengthy passage in the lede while it was being discussed here. It seems UNBALANCED given this article covers the entirety of the election and the CO decision is a very small element of that.  GreatCaesarsGhost   03:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed most of that information from the lead. Should we perhaps re-add it to the body, or would it be unbalanced there as well? Prcc27 (talk) 15:17, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
 * No; there is a big difference between the lede and the body. There is certainly a point where excessive coverage could become unbalanced even in the body, but 2-3 sentences is fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Expand Forecasts
I added the forecasts section from this article to the Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election article. Since that article is the main page, I think it would be worth expanding the table to all 50 states+D.C. while keeping this article’s table condensed. Is anyone interested? Prcc27 (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Add Jan 5th Colorado Deadline?
The decision is stayed until Jan 5th when the ballots need to be printed up. Should this be added, or is the deadline too close to really matter? IEditPolitics (talk) 18:33, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Mention it. GoodDay (talk) 03:06, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The stay was extended, and Trump is slated to be on the ballot in Colorado. Prcc27 (talk) 04:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Maine ruling map
Is the stay in Maine “temporary” or “indefinite”? Please join this discussion at Commons. Prcc27 (talk) 05:40, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Trump Ballot Access Inclusion of January 6th in lead
I like the current sentence "Colorado and Maine have ruled that Trump is ineligible to hold office and that he is disqualified from appearing on the ballot, but the rulings are stayed pending appeal" but I think it should include a phrase like "due to Trump's involvement in the January 6 United States Capitol attack" for greater clarity. Thoughts? Esolo5002 (talk) 06:00, 29 December 2023 (UTC)


 * We could mention January 6th, or mention section 3 of the 14th Amendment, or just leave it as is. Prcc27 (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer to leave it as it is because the third section of the 14th Amendment applies to people who have given "aid or comfort" to the Confederate States of America, which "engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against the United States of America during the Civil War. Daniel (talk) 04:05, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Colorado & Maine ruled Trump ineligible for his January 6th involvement per the 14th Amendment. It is not up to us to decide if that interpretation is correct or not. Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment. Our job is to report what's said by reliable sources, not to interpret whether or not the sources are correct or whether the actions reported by the sources are justified. Wikipedia thrives on a neutral point of view, and that's especially important to ensure when it comes to the charged topic of politics. User:Jgstokes (talk)—We can disagree without becoming disagreeable. 05:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * At the very least, a wikilink to the detailed 2024 presidential eligibility of Donald Trump article, as more states may attempt to disqualify him. Zzyzx11 (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and modified the lead to include this this change; nobody here seemed to majorly against it and I think it provides important context. If anyone disagrees and reverts it I'd be happy to have more of a discussion. Loytra (talk) 12:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 January 2024
The CNalysis column in the table of the #Forecasts section is not sorting properly. I think the fix is to use Template:USRaceRating for all the "Very Likely"s. SorghumBean (talk) 02:08, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ The core of the issue seems to be that Template:USRaceRating didn't implement "Very Likely" in its code even though the value is described in its documentation, so the editors to this page decided to manually write out the values. I've added the wording and updated this page (hopefully without breaking anything; this is the first time I've edited a template). Liu1126 (talk) 13:15, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! SorghumBean (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Mirror forecast chart
Can we have the forecast chart on the Statewide opinion polling for the 2024 United States presidential election article mirror the one on our main article? Prcc27 (talk) 03:15, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidate organization: By party vs by candidate status
It seems that it's a suboptimal organization to group candidates by party instead of by candidate status. The most relevant candidates should be closer to the top of the page. When grouped by party, less relevant withdrawn candidates, those who have expressed interest in running, and those who merely have speculation that they might run tend to be listed higher in the page than candidates who are actually running. If we grouped by status instead, Republicans and Democrats that are actually running would both be at the top while withdrawn candidates would be rightly below those running candidates. Should such an ordering change be considered? Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

RFK Jr. photo
I propose to change the photo of RFK Jr. in the independent candidates table from this to this because the latter is more recent and, in my opinion, looks better than the former Punker85 (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would concur it looks better. The current photo has a bit of an ominous aura to it. GreatCaesarsGhost   15:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Libertarian
Please include Ballay, www.Ballay2024.com, under Libertarian candidates. Included in March 5th presidential primary in California and North Carolina CB70072 (talk) 01:04, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the exact standard is here, but we have two candidates here and six on 2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. The standard there is a) meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; b) have participated (or have been invited to participate) in at least two Libertarian Party-sponsored debates or c) have received non-trivial media coverage as a candidate in this election cycle. Ballay doesn't seem to meet any of these, so we should not add him here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:21, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Only third party candidates with a Wikipedia page are included, per the invisible comment on the page. Not sure the history of that, however. You can create a page for Charles Ballay and support it with reliable sources, but I’m not sure if he meets notability guidelines.  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:09, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump and Biden not running for president yet
A less controversial topic. The sentences "Incumbent President Joe Biden, a member of the Democratic Party, is running for re-election. His predecessor Donald Trump, a member of the Republican Party, is running for re-election to a second, nonconsecutive term." is not really accurate. As of today, they're still running for their parties nomination. Once the process is finished and they are selected by their parties, they'll be running for the presidency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsgoyburu (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The primaries are part of the election.  ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 18:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Federal Legalization of Cannabis
In Campaign Issues, this was removed. Background with citations were provided initially to support the fact that while many indicators were given by Joe Biden, it is NOT federally legal (3/4 years into his presidency, and he ran on plenty regarding this topic the first time around). Meanwhile, Republicans don’t have a single candidate that is for it, with Vivek voting as a non-elected official on Ohio’s effort to legalize and gave some silly story about the details of voting against it. So, there is lots of content on this, and I believe it should be re-added. Twillisjr (talk) 14:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If the section is to be re-added, we would want to keep background information extremely brief/to a minimum. The rest of the section would be about the candidates’ campaigning on the issue. I do not really think this issue has received enough attention to meet WP:DUE; we want to avoid a laundry list of issues and stick to the main issues. Also, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Vivek’s views on cannabis legality being “silly”. I personally support marijuana legalization, but I voted “no” when my state voted on the issue, because of preemption concerns (same reasoning as Vivek). It is not up to us to decide whether a candidate’s view is “silly” or “reasonable”, the article should be written in a neutral point of view. Prcc27 (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * It is “silly” because it dismisses the fact that after Election Day, a person can be jailed for small amounts of cannabis but nobody ever talks about that. Did you and Vivek keep receipts of donations or start a bail project to remedy your doings toward them? Food for thought. If you aren’t part of the solution, you are part of the problem. Twillisjr (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Marijuana was already decriminalized in my state and in Ohio prior to legalization. Let’s try to remain on topic, this is not a forum. Prcc27 (talk) 15:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)


 * If this topic reaches consensus to be brought back, consider it a skeleton in advance of what will be balanced with Vivek. I’m confident in the many citizens who seek security clearances, seek expungement, incarcerated for charges relating to, etc, etc, are many and can be equally represented. Twillisjr (talk) 16:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Patchwork State Party Nomination Access (Biden & Trump)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_New_Hampshire_Democratic_presidential_primary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Nevada_Republican_presidential_nominating_contests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_presidential_eligibility_of_Donald_Trump Dsykeswisc (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

RFKJR conspiracy theorist
Should we label RFK Jr. a “conspiracy theorist or does that go against MOS:LABEL? Prcc27 (talk) 04:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * His article repeatedly describes him as a promoter of conspiracy theories. We cannot go far wrong describing him as a conspiracy theorist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would prefer saying he “promotes conspiracy theories” over assigning a contentious label to him. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree. "Promotes..." seems more compliant with MOS:LABEL. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't really see much difference, but would be happy with “promotes conspiracy theories”. It's clearly a major aspect of his persona. HiLo48 (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Inconsistency
Kennedy is first listed as independent and then as a third-party candidate, which are mutually incompatible. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 02:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * He's only listed as an independent there. David O. Johnson (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Photo for Haley in state primary election articles
There seems to be an inconsistency in which photo is used in infoboxes on Republican state primary contests for Haley. There's two photos that different states use. SecretName101 (talk) 21:23, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Withdrew during the primaries
The primaries haven't started yet. Would it be more accurate to call this section, "Withdrew during the primary season" which would include the Iowa Caucus?user:mnw2000 12:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC) user:mnw2000 12:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Good point. I think it would indeed be more accurate to say "primary season". Or perhaps for better clarity, we could say "primary and caucus season." A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Not sure if necessary. Primaries is the common name. Maybe a collapsible footnote could be included? If we do change the wording just “primaries and caucuses” would be better; no need to say “season”. Prcc27 (talk) 07:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I like the footnote idea. Also agree with your point about wording per WP:COMMONAME, not necessary to say "season". A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Ron Desantis suspends campaign
Ron Desantis just dropped out of the race. He made his announcement on twitter. https://twitter.com/RonDeSantis/status/1749159384112845285?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Etweet EdwardElric2016 (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 January 2024
DeSantis Dropped out. Jack-Vidence (talk) 20:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

https://themessenger.com/politics/desantis-plans-to-quit-presidential-race-sources
 * Already done. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 08:14, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Important issues
The border is not at all described as a leading issue in the lede and probably should be placed there, since it is arguably one of the biggest issues in current political discourse. 2600:1000:B157:7A9E:FD81:3427:3215:BC17 (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. As this was the one subtopic of the issues section that was not in the lede, seems like a no-brainer.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:08, 29 January 2024 (UTC)