Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Mixing of apples and oranges in the "polls" section

I saw the new Leger poll has been added to the GoP nationwide polling section. However, there is a small issue, as it takes into account all voters and not only Republicans and their poll from November takes into account only Republcans, leading to a conclusion that fewer people support President Trump than in November, which is also reflected in the graph. If we take into account what the polls actually say, we have the following:

• November (among all voters): Trump 25%, Romney 19%, Pence 14% (excluding the President: Pence 26%, Romney 22%, Cruz 12%, Haley 11%) - November
• November (Republicans only): Trump 45%, Pence 22% and Romney only 8% (excluding the President: Pence 44%, Cruz 14%, Romney 11%, and three candidates with 6%)
• January (among all voters): Trump 29% (+4%), Romney 19% (same), Pence 13% (-1%) (excluding the President: Pence 22% (-4%), Romney 20% (-2%), Trump Jr. 11% (new)) January
• January (Trump voters, which includes some independents, but is closer to "GoP only" poll from November, unless GoP-leaning Independents have radically different opinion): Trump 58% (+13%), Pence 17% (-5%), Cruz 7% (same) and Romney 3% (-5%, but I guess most of his supporters either abstained or voted for Biden) (excluding the President: Pence 32% (-12%), Trump Jr. 22% (new), Cruz 13% (-1%) and Romney 3% (-8%)

I am NOT proposing to include the "Trump voters" poll instead of "all voters", but they should be somehow separated and not only with a small note, as most people looking at the page would miss it. StjepanHR (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2021

it will take place without COVID 98.169.172.42 (talk) 23:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 00:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

I would recommend adding Jimmy Carter to the list of declined democrats. He's made it clear that he doesn't want to run again for a second term, and joked that there should be an age limit to the presidency.

Heres some comments he made about a second term recently: https://edition.cnn.com/videos/politics/2019/09/18/jimmy-carter-presidential-age-sot-nr-vpx.cnn https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=tQR5G3kvfNQ&list=UL0FvktOR0k9s&index=23 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.7.109 (talk) 15:44, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that's really needed. The Declined to be candidates section has people that "have been the subject of speculation about their possible candidacy," yet said they won't be running, and while Jimmy Carter has indeed said he won't be running, I'm pretty sure that there hasn't really been any speculation or interest in the possibility of his candidacy. If there are any sources showing that there were actually speculation of his 2024 candidacy than sure, it would be fine to add it, but otherwise it would be no different than taking literally anyone that has said they're not running in 2024 and putting them in that section. SuperGoldfish (talk) 16:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I am in 100% agreement with SuperGoldfish. No need whatsoever to include Carter on the Declined list. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we should include him for posterity sake, he was a former president and yes, he's incredibly old, but no doubt someone is gonna try and bring him up again so we may as well just demonstrate he's ruled himself out. CaliIndie (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia should include someone for reasons of "posterity", and I also think that the assumption that someone will inevitably bring him up is a violation of WP:Crystal. Either someone seriously entertains him as a possible candidate, he declines, and we include him, or he stays off the list. As no one has seriously considered him, he should stay off the page. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree. He was never seriously asked to run. Bkatcher (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Maybe we could put him in the declined list on April 1st only? EPBeatles (talk) 26 March 2021

Who to include?

Are we going to list every youtuber and minor actor who tweets that they're going to run? Where do we set the limit? Bkatcher (talk) 15:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

WP:Notable persons are able to be included on the page. Major candidates are defined from the consensus to support the proposed criteria from Metropolitan this RFC: Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_1#Request_for_comments_on_which_presidential_candidates_should_be_considered_"major". Przemysl15 (talk) 07:11, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden in polling chart

Is there a way to add Biden to the Democratic primary polling chart? He's listed under publicly expressed interest and he is the incumbent president. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

He has only been included in one poll. --Numberguy6 (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Most polls are taken with the assumption that he would not be running, since primaries of incumbents are rare. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:55, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2021

My requests:

1. Mitt Romney will deny running for President in 2024 since he lost in 2012. 2. Larry Hogan and Mike Pence are publicly interested in running in 2024. 72.83.34.66 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Regarding 1), Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL, that's not something we can know. Regarding 2), I can't really find sources that warrant moving Hogan and Pence up from "potential candidates" to "publicly expressed interest" (e.g. Hogan saying he "won't rule it out" is probably not enough). If you can find a reliable source for their interest, feel free to re-open the request and provide those sources. Volteer1 (talk) 04:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Meghan, Duchess of Sussex

There are rumours that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex (also known as Meghan Markle) may also run as a presidential candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.88.224 (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021

https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P40004459/?cycle=2024&election_full=true

Alander Pulliam Film producer and author and investor will be placing his bid for 2024 as an independent conservative

www.runforwe.com Instagram.com/Alander.pulliam

Article support Alander Pulliam running for office in 2024

https://www.thedailybeast.com/marjorie-taylor-greenes-hollywood-backer-finally-thinks-shes-gone-too-far Abmstreams (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Alander Pulliam is a film producer and made many donations to Congresswoman Majorie Taylor Green Abmstreams (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: doesn't look to be particularly notable. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2021 (2)

Alander Pulliam Independent conservative 2024 Candidate President

File:Alander Pulliam 2024 President Candidate.jpg

Abmstreams (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Abmstreams (talk) 14:36, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Please get consensus for inclusion before requesting an edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Coverage in a non-WP:PRIMARY source is needed. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that Wikipedia is not a promotional tool. Abmstreams, you have credited yourself as the author of this photo, which is clearly a selfie. Your candidacy does not appear particularly notable, and Wikipedia is not the place to make it so. Content on Wikipedia must be verifiable in independent sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2021

69.207.56.161 (talk) 10:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Can I edit the democratic Candidates (declared portion) to make it more organized so when there are more candidates it will be more organized?

Please provide the exact edit you would like to make or request a change of protection level at WP:RFPP. Additionally you could make an account and get auto-confirmed, then be able to edit the article yourself. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Josh Hawley

While Josh Hawley has said he isn't running in 2024 he could be as there are articles saying he is setting himself up for 2024. I would recommend adding him to the list of potential candidates in 2024. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.207.56.161 (talk) 10:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

He is rightly listed under "Declined to be candidates". As you said, although many articles say that he is setting himself up for 2024, he has personally said he isn't running. Until he makes another statement declaring to run or saying he is open to running (or something similar), he shall stay where he is on the list of declined potential candidates. feminist (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden 2024

I'm not so sure that today's presser should be taken as proof that he is definitively running in 2024; all he said was he plans to run for reelection. The CNBC ref notes that "Biden has yet to launch an official reelection campaign." David O. Johnson (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

David O. Johnson, perhaps. The sources do indicate that he definitively intends to run. I guess the issue is whether we consider the "declared" section header to mean a campaign has been incorporated. How has this been treated in the past? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Biden said, "my plan is to run for reelection. That's my expectation." "Planning" to run for reelection is not the same as declaring that you are currently doing so. I feel like saying you "expect" or "plan" to run falls more under the category of "publicly expressed interest" or "announcement pending". But I don't think his comments on March 25 can be taken as declaring his candidacy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benintogo (talk • contribs) 03:41, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

This makes sense to me. I'm fine with it being changed back to "publicly expressed interest". ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:14, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Just to be on the safe side, I have redirect Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign here, and created Draft:Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign (which corresponds neatly with Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign). If either campaign fails to materialize, that draft can be deleted. BD2412 T 19:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Josh Hawley

Josh Hawley hasn't publicly said he won't run in 2024. I suggest taking him off the list of those who have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.92.151.217 (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, he has publicly declined. This cited ref [1], states

"Hawley, a 40-year-old former Missouri attorney general, also threw cold water on a possible 2024 run, telling CNN: "I'm not" considering a White House bid in four years. Asked if a run were in the cards, Hawley said flatly: "It's not." David O. Johnson (talk) 18:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

But that is not declining. Nobody has clearly stated interest yet. Just because he is not publicly considering a run at the moment, that doesn´t mean that all the signs show an interest into a possible run. Him saying "I'm not" could just be another tactical way of teasing. There is lots of evidence and many references of him being very seriously considered. I think it is a bad idea to exclude him from an important list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanP (talk • contribs) 08:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

That makes no sense. I've moved Hawley back to the Declined candidates section. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Hawley was asked if he would run and said no. That's clearly him declining. He belongs in the declined section. Przemysl15 (talk) 13:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"I'm not" equating to "He's not saying he's not" for some people explains a lot, though 2603:9001:6B08:9E6A:4C35:A8C7:3BC7:2429 (talk) 17:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not buying that he won't run in 2024. In 2016, when he was running for Missouri Attorney General, he said he wouldn't use the position to get elected to higher office, but 2 years later, he got elected to the Senate. While I think it's a bunch of BS when he says he won't run, I still think he should be in the declined section for now. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Ben Shapiro publicly showed interest in being a potential 2024 candidate

In a YouTube video popular Jewish Conservative Ben Shapiro also showed interest in running in the 2024 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.161.21.171 (talk) 15:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Link???? DaCashman (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Pictures

Can we get new pictures for Donald Trump and Matt Gaetz. The current pictures are rather... er... ugly. I know some of these people are ugly no matter what, but there are better pictures then what is currently here for those two. Chewie1138 (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Chewie1138, can you provide suggestions here? I don't see anything wrong with the ones currently there. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, De Santis' picture needs to change. Can we use the one on his main page? DaCashman (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

"47th President of the United States" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 47th President of the United States. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 18#47th President of the United States until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Talk 03:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Nikki Haley format

Is there a way to modify how Haley's image caption looks like? It's too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

• 
  Former Ambassador to the United Nations
  Nikki Haley
  from South Carolina

  
  CURRENT
• 
  Former Ambassador
  Nikki Haley
  from South Carolina

  
  PROPOSAL 1
• 
  Former
  United Nations Ambassador
  Nikki Haley
  from South Carolina

  
  PROPOSAL 2
• 
  Former
  Ambassador to the U.N.
  Nikki Haley
  from South Carolina

  
  PROPOSAL 3

I added a new proposal, which keeps the original format of the title, with an abbreviation. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of the four options above, I favor proposals 2 or 3. As an additional idea, maybe the version below?

• 
  Former U.N. Ambassador
  Nikki Haley
  from South Carolina

  
  PROPOSAL 4

Jacoby531 (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I am in favor of Proposal 3, as it keeps as much information as possible in the same format as the original. Przemysl15 (talk) 22:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Chris Christie

@Rexh17: The sources do not support the idea that Christie has publicly expressed interest. They're based on private conversations with his friends. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:20, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Abrams and Harris

The citations for possible Abrams and Harris runs in 2024 are from prior to Biden's announcement that he's likely to run then, and explicitly state that they rest on the assumption of Biden only seeking one term (which we now know is likely an incorrect assumption). While the AOC citation specifically mentions the possibility of her launching a primary challenge against Biden, neither the Abrams nor Harris citations do so- so it feels a bit misleading to include them. Wondering if Abrams and Harris should be removed, and just AOC listed. Thoughts? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Chessrat, that makes sense to me. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 18:09, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

This one is after Biden stating his intention to run: Kamala Harris visit to New Hampshire fuels speculation over 2024 presidential bid. "Biden has signaled his intention to seek reelection, but Merrill said the next election is still “a long time away” for the 78-year-old president." Mottezen (talk) 22:04, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Mottezen, do you have a second source? We'll need two to add her. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I found one. I'll add Harris back in. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:09, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Democratic primary election polling

The one poll used in the article (pdf and news reporting) for the Democratic party asked the question "Should Joe Biden step down after one term as president?" with 74% of Democrats responding yes and 28% responding no. Two things:

• 73.5+27.5=101, what's up with the math there?
• Is this question actually polling for a primary election? It seems the question that's being asked here is kind of different (for clarity: one can think he shouldn't step down but would still not vote for him in the primary), but it's possible this is standard for primary election polling this far out and I'm just unaware.

‑‑Volteer1 (talk) 06:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

2020 census comment

The article currently says that changes in legislative control "will allow the Republican Party to have redistricting control of many seats in New Hampshire and Montana". However, Montana has only one congressional seat, and is not expected to gain another, and New Hampshire has two congressional seats, and is not expected to gain another. Though state legislatures may redistrict themselves, it seems inaccurate to suggest that these legislatures will affect "many seats" relevant to the presidential election. BD2412 T 05:22, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we could remove the word "many", but Montana is in fact projected to gain a second congressional seat, actually even very likely to according to the last projection (from December 2020: [2]) that I've seen. Rogl94 (talk) 10:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, but even so, there is no relevance to the presidential election. BD2412 T 21:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

New Hampshire is considering switching to the Maine/Nebraska rule, as well as drawing a district that Republicans will generally win. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:56, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I have removed the "many". Cheers! BD2412 T 20:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Defining "Publicly Expressed Interest" and "Other Potential Candidates"

So, I've been working on US Pres articles as they happen since the 2012 election, but, to my recollection, I don't think the above terms were ever explicitly defined.

I made a change which moved a few folks (Liz Cheney, Larry Hogan, and Mike Pompeo) from the "Other Potential Candidates" section to "Publicly Expressed Interest." My reasoning is that others in the former section had simply been speculated upon by outside sources/media, whereas those three had explicitly and publicly discussed running in a positive way. Politicians rarely (if ever) express anything beyond "I'm considering it" or "I haven't made up my mind yet" or "never say never," etc. until they announce their candidacy. That's for various reasons. Typically, with Trump as an exception, no one is explicit in their desire to run. Even Candace Owens, the only other non-president listed in the latter section for either major party, only stated in one tweet thinking about running. That hardly seems like a stronger or more enthusiastic comment than those I moved.

My proposal is that anyone who has publicly discussed running in with any sort of affirmation that they are interested/considering/not ruling it out ought to go in the "Publicly Expressed Interest" section. Those who have not commented on it, refused to say anything affirmative (e.g. "I'm not ready to talk/think about that right now"), and have only been the subject of speculation by the media and others go in the "Other Potential Candidates" section. To me, Liz Cheney and the others above certainly belong in a different section than several of the "Others."

I knew my edit was bold, and that I would likely have to WP:BRD to reach consensus, which I am happy to now do. @Tartan357: reverted my edit, which I respect, and I hope we can have a discussion here to finally define what those section headers actually mean, and who belongs in them. PrairieKid (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been on the other side of this before, but reached a conclusion more recently that it would be inappropriate to include the people who refuse to rule out a run because that essentially allows the media to force anyone to publicly express interest. We're taking a response that essentially amounts to "no comment" and reaching a conclusion of interest from that. "No comment" should really be taken to mean just that. I fully agree that anyone who has said they are "interested in" or "considering" a run should be included. I don't think anyone is disputing that. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The terms have been explicitly defined here: Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election

Consensus on the criteria for a potential candidate to be included in the article:

The "Publicly expressed interest" section requires only one source from the last six months where the individual is quoted as being interested in running in 2020. Social media posts do not count as public expressions of interest.

The "Potential candidates" section requires at least two sources speculating that an individual may run or where an individual talks about the 2020 election from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). The sources must not be a list of several potential candidates nor a persuasive article about why a candidate should run.

The "Declined candidates" section requires at least two sources from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). One source must be speculative in the same vein as the "Potential candidates" section, while the second must be a quoted denial from the individual in question.

As such, if Owens' only interest is a tweet, she should be moved back down actually. I agree that someone should have to be quoted being interested, but I don't consider "I haven't made up my mind yet" as a public expression of interest, though I would consider "I'm considering it" to be a public expression of interest. "Never say never" falls into a middle ground for me. I think a good idea would be to have this on a case by case basis and to have a consensus on what specific quote we are going with. In the future, we should include what the expression of interest was in the page, where we found it, and when it was said, so that was users have some idea of how serious the considerations are.

While this does have WP:OTHERSTUFF considerations, I don't think its by any means controversial to carry over 2020 consensuses to 2024. Przemysl15 (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that those consensuses should be carried forward, and that's what we did going from 2016 to 2020. The previous definition of "publicly expressed interest" is what I was trying to adhere to. "Quoted as being interested in running" to me does not include merely failing to rule out a run when it's brought up in an interview. I thought that the social media clause didn't apply to Candace Owens since a NY Post article, rather than the tweet itself, is cited, but I'm fine with moving her down. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:22, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, Owens should stay. In any case, I largely agree with your points. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I respect the fair, thoughtful dialogue which occurred here by all involved. I am satisfied with my edit remaining reverted. I am happy to concede to the consensus. This is probably the healthiest discussion I have been a part of on Wikipedia in years, if not ever. Cheers all! PrairieKid (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2021

add Ben Shapiro Declined to be candidates catogory Brencisn (talk) 17:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 17:54, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Stacey Abrams

Stacey Abhrahms stated her potential interest in the US presidency. I Would suggest adding her to potential candidates, maybe even publically expressed interest. Here's the link to my source: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stacey-abrams-says-it-s-absolutely-her-ambition-to-become-u-s-president/ar-BB1gxKPS?ocid=msedgntp and another one https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/stacey-abrams-says-she-absolutely-hopes-to-be-president-one-day/ar-BB1gz9Dj?ocid=msedgntp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:E7:1712:B00:47E:12F7:EB76:64F2 (talk) 06:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is actually a really interesting case. Abrams definitely wants to be President, but there's nothing that says she wants to be President in 2024. Now, I certainly think it is possible she runs in 2024 based on those articles, but this article is about documented speculation about the 2024 election, and no where in those articles is there documented speculation about her running in 2024 specifically. Therefor, I think it is best not to include her until speculation about her in 2024 is documented in reliable sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Kristi Noem (R-SD)

Fox News has reported that Kristi Noem has ignited more 2024 speculation. I don't think they would be wrong about a Republican in 2024, but I think we should add her to the potential. --General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

(Side note: Since when was the 2024 page un-editable, yes I know that isn't a word)--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

General Dwight David Eisenhower, she's in the declined section. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 20:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice, thanks--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Your account is not autoconfirmed. Once it is you can edit the page. Przemysl15 (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Okay, how do you get it autoconfirmed, I mean it just seemed strange so thats why I asked.

4 days and 10 edits, for more details you can see WP:AUTOCONFIRM. The reason the page is blocked is because of vandals, people attempted to vandalize this page and so it became protected in order to put up a barrier. Most people who vandalize election pages are people who do not use Wikipedia regularly and so the very low threshold of 4 days and 10 edits keeps most people who vandalize out. Przemysl15 (talk) 19:28, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021

Add Kirsten Gillibrand as a candidate who’s publicly expressed interest based on a recent source SwimInAPondInTheRain (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

 Already done It looks like another editor has added Kirsten Gillibrand and the Politico source to the article. Thank you. TimSmit (talk) 16:33, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

References

Polls removed by Reywas92

@Reywas92: You have removed McLaughlin & Associates Democratic primary polls on the basis that they are low-rated pollsters by 538 and that there is no consensus that they need be included. I would point out that there is no consensus that they ought to be excluded, and I think you should seek consensus before mass-removing them.

Currently they are included in opinion polling articles for prior presidential elections, and the ones including Michelle Obama that you so loathe are even relegated to their own section here. And I know, I know, WP:OTHERSTUFF, I'm not using this as an argument for their inclusion, just stating the facts.--Pokelova (talk) 05:48, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should find some consensus on what pollsters are legitimate and apply that across all relevant pages. If we feel that whatever polls are bad, but they're included on another page, we should remove them from that page rather than add bad polls on two pages. Do we have any pollster ratings beyond 538's? We should find some broad source consensus on what is or is not a legit pollster. As for the Michelle Obama bit, yeah it is a bit hysterical to include her at all, but the fact she polls so high does say something important, just perhaps not something important for the purposes of this page. Przemysl15 (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

538's seem fair enough, but I'm open to establishing a new consensus. For whatever it's worth, I've only seen the 538 ratings used to exclude F-rated pollsters, which McLaughlin is not. Even D minus-rated pollsters are regularly included - they might not be of great quality, but they provide valid data points in the way firms faking their data do not (and that is how pollsters get 'F' ratings). Where 538 has marked a firm as partisan (or where we can acquire external confirmation), we qualify that data point with an efn-ua tag to denote this feature. I don't see a particlularly good reason to break with this convention - early data is better than no data at all. Regardless of however unlikely Michelle Obama's entrance is, there is precedent where candidates who have previously refused to enter a race go back on their word. I'm going to reinstate the polls for now, but if users here continue to remain unhappy with the previous convention, a middle ground could be found in moving every poll to a "Hypothetical" section where the poll includes candidates who have said they will not enter the race.--PutItOnAMap (talk) 12:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

When should the primary articles be split out?

The article is approaching 100,000 bytes, which is the usual point at which articles get split. Is it time to put the Democratic and Republican parties into their own articles? Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Do we want to split off the polling as well, or split the polling off before we split the Democratic and Republican parties off into their own articles? Is there enough content to have a polling article? Przemysl15 (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it’d make sense to put the polling for the Democratic and Republican parties’ primaries into their respective articles, and keep the general election polling here for now. That seems consistent with how it’s been done in the past. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 13:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren

Should we add Elizabeth Warren as a "declared" candidate? [3] Prcc27 (talk) 00:49, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Prcc27, that article says she plans to run for re-election to the Senate. It says nothing about a presidential run. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Countryintheworld: You are invited to explain here why you think we should say Warren has declined interest in a 2024 run. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:52, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Because more articles have clarified she is not running for president and running for reelection to the senate in 2024. Elizabeth Warren said "Joe Biden is running for re-election in 2024. My job right now is to help him succeed.". That is why I think Elizabeth Warren should not be considered in the potential as she said that. From Country in the world — Preceding unsigned comment added by Countryintheworld (talk • contribs) 09:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Countryintheworld, the article says she is running for re-election to the Senate. It does not say anything about her not running for president. She could very well run for both president and Senate. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 21:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, based on law yes you are correct, Tartan357 but some states ban that like in Kentucky (i'm pretty sure), remember the Rand Paul thing where he ran for senate and president in 2016. I'm not sure if Massachusetts permits that but if it doesn't permit what the Resign-to-run law says. If Massachusetts does have a law that bans the practice then I think she couldn't run for president and senate at the same time. If MA doesn't then I think it is possible, though it is rare. --PbesartBekteshi (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I think we should keep Elizabeth Warren in the Potential.--General Dwight David Eisenhower (talk) 15:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it's pretty obvious. Warren says she's running for re-election to the Senate in 2024. She literally told the Boston Globe, "I'm not running for President" (https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/05/09/metro/warren-fighting-hard-i-can-nudge-joe-biden-left-wants-help-president-succeed/). She should be in the declined column. BazingaFountain42 (talk) 22:19, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

BazingaFountain42, well, why didn't you say so? The "I'm not running for president" quote is what matters. All the previous edits were only based on her running for Senate. Those aren't the same thing. I'm fine with moving her to "declined" based on the Boston Globe source. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:27, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

I've moved Warren to Declined, based on the Boston Globe ref. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders is currently an Independent and his name in the declined section is currently in the Democratic Party section. I was wondering if Bernie's name should be moved to the Independent section, unless he's still a Democrat and simply considers himself to be an Independent. Lostfan333 (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Lostfan333, both his prior presidential runs were for the Democratic nomination even though he was an independent in the Senate at the time. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:34, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah, okay. Thanks for the information. Lostfan333 (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Republican Primary Polls

Do Convention and Straw Polls count as official Primary Election Polls?? Polls taken at a Colorado Convention show DeSantis ahead of Trump with a 74.12% lead to 71.43% according to Fox News. I was wondering if these polls can be added, at least for Colorado, since I noticed some Primary Polls have been removed every now and then on this page. Lostfan333 (talk) 23:55, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

Keenan Dunham is a currently declared RUNNING Presidential Candidate and also running for US House Seat 7 SC as a Libertarian against Tom Rice (R) Dunham2024.com Kdunham4prez (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.   melecie   t 01:52, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

the reliable source for keenan dunham - his website: https://www.dunham2024.com/--Jimlehrer071278M0S0302 (talk) 13:50, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Jeff Bezos?

should we add him because I saw a few sources saying he might run for president in 2024, maybe as an independent?--Jimlehrer071278M0S0302 (talk) 22:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2021

Ted Cruz in a Newsmax interview said that he is “certainly looking” at a 2024 bid. I think, for now, his name can be added to the “Publicly expressed interest” group alongside Matt Gaetz and Donald Trump. Source: [4] 2603:6010:D307:98CA:11DB:4EE2:522D:3857 (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done by another user. TungstenTime (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Contingent election clarification

It would be beneficial to include clarifying language on exactly how the president is elected during a contingent election. Without such, I fear that the misconception that each Representative has an equal vote in a contingent election will be exacerbated. Many have read the “2020 United States Presidential Election” Wikipedia article. I expect the same from the “2024 United States Presidential Election” Wikipedia article in the next few years.

The following paragraph is copied from the “Contingent Election” Wikipedia article. It accurately and concisely provides the vital clarification needed in the article in question. Something very similar would be appropriate.

During a contingent election in the House, each state's delegation casts one en bloc vote to determine the president, rather than a vote from each representative. Senators, on the other hand, cast votes individually for Vice President. Erik.mcentire (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 July 2021

For potential Republican candidates, I would add Mike Pompeo given this source [5] 2603:6010:D307:98CA:305C:3362:6AEE:FBB7 (talk) 05:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: He's in the declined section, per this source. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Trump in "Announcement Pending"?

Hey guys! I've been looking at the GOP candidates, and this article came up stating that Trump says he's definitely running in 2024 among friends. I'm debating whether to move him into an "Announcement Pending" section with all the news coming around, especially that early-July series of articles reporting that Trump's "made a decision".

Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign is ready whenever this article is. BD2412 T 00:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

"Dave Smith (comedian)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Dave Smith (comedian). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 5#Dave Smith (comedian) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2021

The Hill, Newsweek, and the Aggie all report that Michael Flynn, former National Security Advisor and head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, is behaving like a potential Republican candidate. He should be added to that list. 75.164.37.58 (talk) 21:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:19, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

Adam Calhoun - Singer/Rapper from Illinois - Please put in Independents part of page JCox2002 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 August 2021

Adam Calhoun - Singer/Rapper from Illinois - Please put in Independents part of page JCox2002 (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Donald Trump

Why was Donald Trump removed from the Republican candidates section? Has he announced he ain't gonna run in '24? GoodDay (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks to me like he's still there. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 07:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I must be over-tired. GoodDay (talk) 08:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

2024 Party Primary Articles

It seems like there are twenty polls taken for the 2024 Democratic and Republican primaries and that they should be moved to separate articles about the party's primaries. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 07:31, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

--Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo

Andrew Cuomo is no longer governor of New York, as he has resigned. Please edit this section accordingly Popperman99 (talk) 16:59, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Callanecc:, could you please restore my edit..? Cuomo is no longer the governor. It's pretty ridiculous that you reverted me, and now it says he's currently the governor, even though he isn't! Prcc27 (talk) 17:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, this revert needs to be undone as it went back way too far. I frankly didn't agree that the change for Cuomo needed to wait until today, but it is today. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:46, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Cuomo is no longer Governor so it should say 2011 to 2021. 108.7.187.204 (talk) 19:04, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks like the consensus is clear to restore my edit. Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Mike Pence

He is not currently included among potential Republican candidates, even tho there are numerous articles about his potential candidacy (they mostly don't think he'll do well, but that's not the point). He's also in numerous polls shown in our article and in one of this article's section names (2024_United_States_presidential_election#Kamala_Harris_vs._Mike_Pence).I can't add it myself due to the current Admin-level edit protection,but I've now added a formal edit request in the section below:

• Mike Pence, Vice-President of the United States (2017-2021)

• 
  Former Vice-President
  Mike Pence

References

Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 August 2021

Former Vice-President
Mike Pence

Tlhslobus (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add the following code (that adds Mike Pence) to the Potential Candidates subsection of Candidates - Republican (alphabetically, so after Rand Paul and before Rick Scott).You can already see what it should look like in the Talk Page section that I added above a short while ago (the detailed code to be added can be properly seen when you view this section in edit mode):

• Mike Pence, Vice-President of the United States (2017-2021)

Then please insert the code below (which can be properly seen in edit mode) into the same alphabetic place (after Paul Ryan and before Rick Scott) in the accompanying gallery (the image is taken from his bio article):

File:Mike Pence official portrait.jpg|

Former Vice-President
Mike Pence

(But do not add the hidden line of code below, which is just to confine references to this section):

References

•  Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

should Candace Owens be included?

Here she is expressing interest:

https://nypost.com/2021/02/08/candace-owens-says-she-may-run-for-president-in-2024/

Source is outdated; sources have to be from less than five months ago. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

• Six months Thomascampbell123 (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 September 2021

For potential candidates under Republican, I would add Francis Suarez per this source. 2603:6010:D307:98CA:41D4:75FA:87AC:F0BD (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 01:19, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Elli: Please remove Suarez from "publicly expressed interest" but keep him as a potential candidate. --2603:6010:D307:98CA:41D4:75FA:87AC:F0BD (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Didn't notice he was already there - done. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:04, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Dave Smith for Libertarian Candidate

He has regularly spoken about running for the LP Presidential Candidates position on his podcast, Part of the Problem.

2600:1700:4283:2400:C93B:3FAA:AB05:490B (talk) 21:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Biden vs Trump graph

I see no reason why this should be hidden. I could understand why for other candidates, but there is plenty of polling data for a Biden/Trump competition to justify a graph. --Theimmortalgodemperor (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

2601:244:4F80:5BC0:C7C:4CE2:32B7:DAB6 (talk) 12:35, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Candace Owens has publicly shown interest In a 2024 run

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Party Candidates

Should pages be created for each party of their candidates, like has been done for past elections? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Bit early for that, there aren't even any officially declared candidates. --Pokelova (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Yang and The Forward Party

Andrew Yang, who ran for the Democratic nomination in 2020, is launching a new 3rd party called 'The Forward Party'.

Higilo (talk) 21:56, 23 September 2021 (UTC)higilo

There's no indication he'll be running for president in 2024:[6]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:46, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Should we continue to display empty nominee boxes prior to the primaries?

I'm referring to the "Party" parameter being filled in, generating the blue "Democratic" line and the red "Republican" line. These normally go below the portraits of the candidates, but as of right now, there obviously aren't any candidates to put in the infobox yet, so this isn't conveying any information.

I know that these technically aren't "empty nominee boxes" since it's actually just the party parameter, but it looks a bit clunky since these brightly colored stripes are clearly intended to go below a photograph. It's just a minor aesthetic problem that I have with the current infobox, and I thought other editors might agree.

I boldly removed them myself, but it was undone with the reasoning that the US is a de facto two party state which means that we don't display third parties in the infobox. I don't disagree with that reasoning, I just don't think it's relevant to whether or not the infobox needs to start displaying information about the nominees before they exist.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:45, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

It appears that another editor has removed the party parameter, so this is Y Resolved at this time.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 03:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

General Election Polling

I made a clumsy edit that had a {{hidden begin}} where there should have been a {{hidden end}}, thus nuking the rest of the article. Nonetheless, I don't think any of the General Election polls are any less speculative or hypothetical than the hidden primary ones so I think that my edit should have been fixed, not reverted. Etsnev (talk) 08:29, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

AOC

I think that a few months ago AOC was listed on here. Did she withdraw or something? CyberSecurityGuy (talk) 22:25, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

No. She was listed here in the potential candidates section until October 9, 2021, with references dated April 3 and 20, 2021. There is an internal requirement that potential candidates be covered in "two reliable sources within the past six months." Her entry in the potential candidates section was not deleted, but is currently hidden, presumably awaiting more recent media coverage. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Disparities b/w Democratic and Republican source requirements

Why is it that the Democratic Party section a potential candidate needs two sources, while for the Republican Party section, a potential candidate needs one source? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:09, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@David O. Johnson: I'm not completely sure, but I'd assume it's because Biden is an incumbent who has noted their interest in running for re-election. Usually primarying an incumbent president is unsuccessful, so more media attention would be necessary to show any candidate worthy of note here. The Republican field, on the other hand, is completely open. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:10, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

It's because someone decided to get rid of the "publicly expressed interest" section for the Democrats. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm seeing editors remove potential candidates despite adequate sourcing, sometimes even claiming the source is too old when it is not (6 month criteria, August should've been valid...). I'm not an American, but I think editors need to keep an eye on these changes as I suspect partisan Americans are letting their biases decide who gets to be listed. I don't care about your politics enough to go to war on this, but this is seriously affecting the usefulness of this article. "Candidates of note" does not mean "candidates you personally think are important", we need a clear criteria to be established and *defended* by people willing to check the censors here. Only seems to be being done for potential Democratic candidates, even though similarly 'unserious' speculation is allowed in the Republican/Independent candidates sections. Enough of this politicizing the editing please TrentBrownlee (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

2024 Party Primary Pages

When would be the right time to start working on pages for each of the parties for the 2024 primaries? --Bigboyanimations (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Any time you want. GoodDay (talk) 05:25, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Governor-Beshear Official-Picture (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Hiding the Biden vs Trump graph

Can someone explain the rationale behind this? The hidden note says it's because they aren't the candidates yet, but the polling is already included in another form so I'm not sure what difference it makes. I don't think adding a graph would disrupt the neutrality of the article or constitute a WP:CRYSTALBALL. All current primary polling is just as hypothetical, but their graphs remain. --Pokelova (talk) 09:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• I agree that this should not be hidden. Biden has already expressed his intent to run for reelection, and Trump is widely reported as appearing to be planning to run (if not already actively running, but for a campaign filing), and is the clear GOP frontrunner. The reason this question is so well polled is that the sources perceive this to be the most likely matchup. BD2412 T 17:40, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • If we add a Biden vs. Trump graph, then I feel like we would have to add graphs for the other potential match ups as well. This could result in a lot of graphs being added. With the primary election sections, this isn't as big of an issue since each section only has two graphs. Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

No other match up really has as much data to support a graph at this point, bar maybe Harris vs Trump. --Pokelova (talk) 20:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

• What threshold for including a graph are you proposing? Prcc27 (talk) 05:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I didn't have a specific idea in mind, but maybe something like at least one poll each month over a certain period of time could work for now? idk --Pokelova (talk) 06:01, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I would second that. Perhaps an average of one poll per month over some period of time, like a six month window. BD2412 T 06:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

• @BD2412 It may be helpful to users for you to post your comments on the talk page, not the edit summary.. Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @Prcc27: That was a typo. I accidentally hit a key before saving. There's no need for a snarky response to that, and putting an "@" before a username does nothing. BD2412 T 07:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @BD2412: That comment was not meant to be snarky.. It was supposed to be a constructive suggestion for how to improve discussions here at the talk. Please assume good faith. Thanks!

Also, the "@" was only meant to clarify whom I was directing my comment towards. I decided not to ping you, because I inferred you were already watching this talk page, and would see my comment. Prcc27 (talk) 09:33, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows whether you are being snarky. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

What about 3+ polls within the past 6 months? Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

At the moment that would only include the two match ups discussed but I feel like it could very quickly be a little too broad. --Pokelova (talk) 06:41, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

What would a grammar teacher say?

I know I'm being nitpicky here & yes it's common usage in the real world & thus on this & related articles. But honestly, isn't the terminology "running for re-election for a second term" a tad silly? It should either be "running for re-election" or "running for a second term". GoodDay (talk) 08:21, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

It is being redundant. I'd go with "running for reelection." David O. Johnson (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Democratic Candidates Speculated

I would recommend adding Marianne Williamson under speculated candidates for the Democratic Nominee. In establishment circles definitely not talked about but a good portion of people on the progressive side are thinking if not AOC/Bernie/Warren, then Marianne Williamson may be a candidate to consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:A17:0:0:0:3 (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Find a couple good recent sources talking about it and it will be done. --Pokelova (talk) 01:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Where's AOC?

Also where did AOC go under Democratic candidates speculated? She definitely was there before not sure where she went? I do not believe she said she wouldn't run or anything like that. Here are some sources to hopefully qualify AOC back in the article!

https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/546275-will-ocasio-cortez-challenge-biden-or-harris-in-2024 https://oliverwillis.com/will-aoc-run-for-president-in-2024/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:A17:0:0:0:3 (talk) 01:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Your first source is too old, your second I don't think would be considered reliable. --Pokelova (talk) 01:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Here are better sources, with one of them being used to justify Whitmer and other candidates inclusion in the speculated article! Let me know if these sources are fine or not.

https://nationalinterest.org/feature/how-will-democrats-fare-biden-less-2024-presidential-primary-196746

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/politics/aoc-2024-will-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-run-president-165640?amp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanchostan123 (talk • contribs)

Again, the second one is too old. They need to be from the past 6 months. They also need to be from two different sources. And please remember to sign your comments, especially if you're switching between an IP and an account. --Pokelova (talk) 03:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

lol sorry im new to this, ill get you another second source! Chanchostan123 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

alright here is another one i got, let me know if it's good!

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/583087-restless-progressives-eye-2024

Chanchostan123 (talk) 03:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, seems a little too indirect, but if someone disagrees then they can go ahead and try it. --Pokelova (talk) 03:29, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I have another source let me know if this one is alright

https://www.newsweek.com/no-clear-contenders-2024-opinion-1639039

Chanchostan123 (talk) 22:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Who's the incumbent White House party?

Biden's already indicated that he's gonna run for re-election in 2024. Yet the Democratic potential candidates list is bigger then the Republican potential candidates list. GoodDay (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Your point being? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:21, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing conflicts

When one of the two sources is inadequate it would be better practice to replace it rather than delete if possible. I understand not doing this for minor or fringe potential candidates but speculation around figures like Hillary Clinton was not hard to update. It's not a huge deal but it certainly gets tedious if we have to restart because one of the two sources is disputed. Isn't there a system to flag it already, I'm not an expert at editing so perhaps I'm mistaken. TrentBrownlee (talk) 17:33, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

In this case, an alternative to deleting and re-adding is to change the entry to an invisible comment until another source can be found. See MOS:COMMENT. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

When is the right time to publish primary articles?

I've been working on a draft for an article on the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries. I know President Biden hasn't officially stated he's running for reelection in 2024, but in the past few days, there's been more speculation on potential Democratic candidates running if he decides not to. Is this enough information or is it still just too early? Bigboyanimations (talk) 20:08, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I reckon the best time to to create 2024 Democratic & Republican primaries, would be sometime in 2023. As for Biden? US presidents usually don't announce their re-election bids until well into their third year in office. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

For now, I would simply update this page with the information on that one, assuming it meets all the usual criteria, and split off the page around 2023/2024 when this page gets too large. It's what we did last election and I see no reason to change from the system prior given there was no issues with it. Przemysl15 (talk) 11:23, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for your feedback! In that case, I will leave the draft abandoned. Bigboyanimations (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

This page needs to be updated

Clearly this does not list all the electoral candidates, just career politicians and actors. The official list of candidates is around 129 people long as of the other day on the fec.gov website. 2600:387:F:4830:0:0:0:6 (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi! This article is intended to document the notable aspects of the election using reliable sources. The list of candidates on this page reflects the fact that each listed candidate has received significant coverage or speculation in reliable sources (see WP:RS), and that each candidate is considered notable (see WP:NOTE). The entire list of 129 people includes individuals who either are not notable enough to be included in this article, or are notable enough but have not received enough coverage in reliable sources to warrant inclusion. I imagine the entire list falls under the first category, as I can't imagine someone notable would file and no one would report it, but I haven't actually looked. As a result, if you can find someone on the list of 129 who has received coverage in reliable sources and is notable, or can find something about the fact that there are 129 people on the list somewhere in a few reliable sources, that would warrant inclusion on the page. Hope this helps! Przemysl15 (talk) 11:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is apparently a tabloid. 2600:387:F:4830:0:0:0:6 (talk) 12:32, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

If it were up to me. I'd have no potential candidates mentioned on this article, until at least January 2023. GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

In future, concerning the 22nd amendment

I reckon it's because of President Biden's age, that there's so much speculation about whether he'll run for re-election or not. Anyways, if he announces that he won't be. When/if the time comes, we should add that he would be the first US president 'not' to seek re-election (who wasn't barred by the 22nd amendment), since Lyndon B. Johnson. GoodDay (talk) 23:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I would follow WP:DUE on this one. If Reliable Sources view the fact that Biden is the first US Pres to not seek reelection since LBJ with any sort of significance, we should include it. Until then, it shouldn't be included. There shouldn't be a timetable for inclusion of a particular fact, simply being true does not make something prominent in the view of reliable sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 11:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

TBH, this article is putting too much into the he may not run story, then is really necessary. I'd be content to leave the entire speculation (and potential Democratic candidates) out of the article, until he actually announces he ain't gonna run again. GoodDay (talk) 20:50, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

This is becoming a problem, partisan Democratic Biden supporters are finding any excuse to remove valid additions to lists like "potential candidates" because they personally feel that he shouldn't be challenged. This may not be you GoodDay, but it's been a noticeable problem of senior Democratic figures who meet requirements being removed on shaky grounds. Documenting for Wikipedia is not about how you feel, it is about facts. If they fit the criteria, they go on the page. This stuff needs to stop. Signed, a Canadian who doesn't care about your partisan approach to creating a factual resource. TrentBrownlee (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I haven't been deleting anybody from the 'potential candidates' sections of any of the political parties. But (even with sources provided), I do find something crystal ballish about their additions. Would recommend waiting until after January 2023, before adding potential candidates. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I actually think this warrants major changes to the page, but I'm going to open a new header because I wanna make sure it isn't buried in a thread only tangentially related. Przemysl15 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Phil Murphy

I'm unsure how you would get a source but Phil Murphy just told a fox News host he is glued to New Jersey and the host went "I'll take that as a no for now" could that move him to declined? 2600:387:F:815:0:0:0:9 (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I find it strange to have anybody in the potential candidates section of the Democratic party, TBH. GoodDay (talk) 00:18, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: My friend, take this into consideration, He is the oldest person to assume the office, at age 78, and would be 82 at the end of his first term and 86 at the end of his second term, if re-elected. During late 2021, as President Biden was suffering from low approval ratings in the polls, there was speculation that he would not seek re-election. Joe Biden himself said, if he stays in good health he would run again. Still, it is confusing. Mommmyy (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I still think we're over doing it, with the Democratic 'potential' candidates. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

This page should be changed to reflect WP:NTEMP

In many of the recent threads on this talk page, there have been significant concerns raised about how candidates are listed in the Democratic Potential candidates section (Ill link these once they are archived, but currently theyre all on the main talk page). I was looking over the page and the thought occurred to me that the way we currently are doing this page could be a violation of WP:NTEMP and some other rules.

To determine who is notable enough to be on this page, we require speculation in 2 reliable sources in the last 6 months. It is such a massive part of the page, than in recent edits, editors refer to the '6 month rule', removing candidates who's sources have expired and returning candidates that were removed due to the 6 month rule if new and better sources were found. The removal of legitimate candidates has become such an issue that people were talking about whether or not we should simply comment out candidates who have expired sources until new ones can be found so we don't have to go digging through the edit history to find them.

This violates WP:NTEMP, which states that "[n]otability is not temporary: once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage". There is an exception for "a reassessment of the evidence of notability", but as stated above, the policy of removing and adding candidates to the page is not a reassessment, but simply the way notability is dealt with on the page. In the past, reassessment has occurred, as early versions of the 2020 Presidential election page] have potential candidates that are not currently anywhere on the current page for the 2020 candidates, but there never was a 6 month rule to my knowledge. Candidates on this page should not be able to be added or unadded for any reason other than reassessment of notability; a candidate is either notably speculated about or not notably speculated about. If they were notably speculated about for a few months in 2021, then we should say that candidate was notably speculated about in 2021, and only remove the candidate if it is determined that level of speculation was not notable, not if the speculation stops.

In addition, this is dangerous because we are giving readers the wrong ideas, particularly those who are not familiar with American politics. We list Cooper, Landrieu, Murphy, Raimondo, and Whitmer as potential candidates, all with portraits actually larger than Biden's. These candidates are not considered to be more likely to be contesting the Presidency in 2024 than Biden, and the fact that the section for Biden is much smaller than the potential candidates section is, in my opinion, a violation of WP:DUE, as reliable sources do not contend that they are more likely to be running for President in 2024, or at least not a majority of reliable sources.

However, it is not enough to say "we shouldn't have a 6 month rule" because there has to be some way to establish boundaries for notability. To return to the last point, I think it is true that there are more articles about potential challenges to Biden than there are articles about Biden's willingness to run for reelection, but only because these are news articles, and articles about Biden challengers are more interesting than articles about why Biden wants to run, as it is standard for Presidents to run for reelection. In my opinion, we should look at WP:NOTNEWS, as simply reporting on candidates does not constitute notability. Instead, we should have a section on Biden, how Presidents generally run for the second term, how there is significantly more speculation that Biden will not run than normal, how Harris is a likely candidate if Biden does not seek reelection, and how there are a handful of candidates who may challenge Biden. The section of challengers should be smaller than Biden's and not contain portraits.

We should do something similar for the Republican Party candidate section as well. Przemysl15 (talk) 15:24, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

You raise some very good points here. Perhaps going forward, the portraits could be shown only for candidates who have publicly expressed interest, whereas speculated candidates would merely be listed. I'm divided on whether it would make sense to restore candidates whose sources have expired under the six-month rule, if only because the list could become very long and full of candidates who were only tangentially speculated upon. I think that if we remove the six-month time limit, we should raise the number of sources required to be listed. Jacoby531 (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with your last bit on raising the number of sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this has not received much attention, perhaps because per WP:TPYES "long posts risk being ignored or misunderstood", but given the importance of the changes I felt I did "really need to make a detailed, point-by-point post". I don't think the page in it's current form should be allowed to stand, so I am going to be WP:BOLD. Jacoby makes an incredibly great point that reinstating all speculated candidates would bloat the list, so I am going to attempt to institute a poll based criteria. This has precedent on the 2020 page here, for example. So, until a better consensus than one 2 editors come up with can be reached, I am going to simply remove the 6 month rule and tack on a 5 poll requirement (except for the independent/third party candidates). Hopefully a BOLD edit will attract enough attention to the page, if not I can open an RFC or do something on WP:publicising_discussions. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:26, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Przemysl15: WP:NTEMP is irrelevant here. Notability, as used in that page, refers to whether we should have an article on something. Notability does not apply to content within articles. Our separate guideline for whether candidates should be listed here might also be referred to by editors as "notability" but it is a separate concept to which WP:NTEMP simply does not apply. Elli (talk | contribs) 09:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah. That's a fair and valid point. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Eric Adams

@Tartan357: WP:NYPOST only states that the New York Post is unreliable for factual reporting. For opinion pieces, such as my cited article, we look to the author. Rich Lowry is a subject-matter expert for American political commentary. feminist (talk) 16:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 19:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding! feminist (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West

Kanye West is listed in both the Republican Party and independent party sections. Can somebody please fix this? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:16, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Kanye is a registered Republican, given there is no incumbent Republican that prevents him seeking that nomination in 2024...why are we assuming he is an independent instead of defaulting to his party registration? Technically anyone *could* run independent until they declare for a party. See this reference for his registration TrentBrownlee (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

References

Fix or Delete

Can we please stop auto-deleting when there is a disagreement on source quality without even trying to replace the source with a better one? Like bloody hell, the two sources thing is already a new and arbitrary standard we don't use in any other election. It really feels like most of you are more annoyed that we're discussing it for arbitrary partisan political reasons and not real editorial standards. See the comments above this one where an editor outright states they're annoyed that people are listed to challenge the incumbent. WHO CARES ABOUT HOW YOU FEEL PEOPLE! This is a factual resource, not your personal list of candidates you like. Stop it, this is infuriating for anyone trying to keep an accurate tally of speculative candidates.

TL;DR If someone makes a mistake, or doesn't cite enough sources, we should try to replace rather than immediately delete where possible. We also need to stop letting partisan Americans damage the list with their own personal opinions on whether someone *should* be running. TrentBrownlee (talk) 02:34, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

What happened to matt gaetz?

He said he would run if trump did not 92.18.241.47 (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Six month rule for this article. Last I checked, he said it in May 2021, i.e. more than six months ago. feminist (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Green Party being hidden

I'm trying to establish here & at the related Template, that the Green Party will be participating in the 2024 US presidential election. But I'm being reverted in both places, each time I un-hide the party's inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

A single, secondary reliable source for any candidate interested in running for their nomination would do. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Krysten Sinema

Amy Siskind tweeted a thread analysis of Sen. Sinemas actions as posturing to run in 2024 https://twitter.com/Amy_Siskind/status/1481731676669632516?s=20(204.126.3.206 (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2022 (UTC))

Social media shouldn't be used as a source for candidates. Bigboyanimations (talk) 23:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

2 sources for independent candidates

Hello everyone. So recently, I added a candidate to the independent section. One of the rules in that section stated I only needed to add "one source", which I did. However, that candidate was removed because I only had one source and I needed two sources. Adding two sources to that same candidate later didn't cause any problems. So does that mean we should change the rules that an independent candidate needs 2 reliable sources in the past 6 months to be on the Wikipedia article? Bigboyanimations (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Two sources are needed for potential candidates, one source is needed for candidates that have publicly expressed interest. This is the same for any party affiliation. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah I see. Thank you! Bigboyanimations (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Forward Party

If Andrew Yang might be seeking the Forward Party's presidential nomination. Then the Forward Party should have it's own entry, like the Democratic, Republican, Libertarian (and 'hidden' Green) parties. GoodDay (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's not a registered political party yet? Then perhaps it shouldn't be mentioned 'at all'. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

That section is named Independents, other third parties, or party unknown. Not every tiny upstart party with only one candidate needs its own section. Whether it is a registered party yet is not important, RS are speculating about his candidacy in the context of the Forward Party, so we include it. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is Sinema on here for 2024?

Both sources say it is for her 2024 senate run, and makes no indication of her running as a president in 2024. As they both pertain to democrats trying to primary sinema's senate race. So why exactly is she up there still? Both sources do not support the claim nor do they state anything about her and a prospective presidential run, so what gives? Borifjiufchu (talk) 10:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Jikybebna has removed Sinema from the page for the reasons you stated. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 14:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Right! Jikybebna (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

President Biden & Trump Declared?

Why is President Biden and Fmr. President Trump marked as “expressed interest”? They have said that they plan on running. GamingJam (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

My guess would be that neither of them have filed their 2024 election paperwork with the FEC yet. That seems to be the standard by which Wikipedia determines that a potential candidate is now an official candidate. Zander251 (talk) 18:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps there should be some separate level of categorization between "expressed interest" and "filed paperwork". BD2412 T 20:08, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

That's correct. I agree with User:BD2412 Mommmyy (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Neither Biden or Trump have announced they're gonna run in 2024. Until & if they do? best leave them listed the way they are. Unless either or both of them announce they're not gonna run. Another option for now, would be to put all those 'publicly expressed interest' candidates into the potential candidates sections. GoodDay (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Biden has stated that he "plans to" run in 2024, and "expects to" have Harris as his running mate again (see sources in Draft:Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign). This certainly goes beyond having merely expressed interest, and is consistent with over a century of history of elected U.S. Presidents seeking a second term. BD2412 T 15:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

After the President’s news conference today, is it safe to say he will 100% run in 2024, or should we wait for an official statement? Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Marjorie Taylor Greene

Her sources are from August which is 6 months ago I think. So she should be removed. Also one of Marco Rubios is from August but it's just one. 2600:8807:6400:C1F0:D42D:1632:96CE:C3B7 (talk) 23:53, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The August sources are valid until February.

See here:

[7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Formatting suggestions

Hey everyone. I was looking through the page today and I noticed how much clutter there was amongst listing all the positions each candidate listed occupied. This is just a suggestion, but I think things would look much more organized if we just list the candidate's current or more notable position(s). For example, listing Gretchen Whitmer as just the Governor of Michigan is more significant that listing all the minor positions she has. Again, just a suggestion, but I think it's a good organization tool. Cheers! Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 23:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Guam which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:06, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

2021 US Capitol Attack

The 2021 US Capitol attack will be an issue used by the Democratic candidate against the Republican candidate. I think it is necessary to put it in the article. Garyjones027 (talk) 22:32, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can find some reliable sources speculating about it then I'd be up to see how relevant it is to the page. Przemysl15 (talk) 00:51, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

New Rasmussen poll

There’s a new Rasmussen Poll that just came out. It’s results are actually quite surprising, it should be added to the list of polls for the Republican Primary. KingAlAyaan (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

2022 Invasion of Ukraine

The 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine and anything that happens subsequently will most likely be discussed in 2024. Potential Republican candidate and former president Donald Trump already heavily critisized potential Democratic candidate incumbent president Joe Biden for his actions in Ukraine. Especially since the next Russian presidential elections are scheduled to take place in 2024 too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRC Fan99 (talk • contribs) 16:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Kanye

Kanye said back in 2020 that he'd run again in 2024 Toonsip (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

We have Draft:Kanye West 2024 presidential campaign at the ready in case he does. BD2412 T 18:53, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ro Khanna

There's a Politico article discussing the possibility of Ro Khanna running in 2024, I think he should be added to the list of Democratic candidates. https://www.politico.com/news/2022/03/17/sanders-khanna-presidential-bid-2024-00018017 TheRiver04 01:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Separate Primary Articles

When are we going to separate the primaries into their separate articles. This time 4 years ago, in February 2018, each primary had its own article. (Aricmfergie (talk) 23:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

2028 election

When can we add 2028 election hyperlink?

2028 United States presidential election — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40:5:E61:8D44:5277:7FF0:43C2 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2022

Another potential campaign issue could be the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 2603:6081:7943:279C:8DB:1793:5C09:DFED (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Potential candidates images

Should the potential candidates have their own image galley? It's ludicrously long. Curbon7 (talk) 23:34, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Why is Donald Trump listed as Florida instead of New York?

I dont understand this does it depend on where the candidate is runnning from? I always thought we based it on home state on here for articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHeartVeronica (talk • contribs) 20:43, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that during his presidency, he changed his legal residence from Trump Tower Manhattan to Mar-a-lago in Florida. So his home state in 2016 was New York, but in 2020 and going forward it is Florida. Jacoby531 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe this is indeed correct. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 18:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2022

Change in this article Mike Pence being in the "Potential 2024 Republican Candidates" section to "Publicly Expressed Interest" section. He teased a 2024 run in a speech. Here is my source; https://denvergazette.com/news/nation-world/ill-keep-you-posted-pence-teases-2024-run/article_0ee55969-30da-5606-99c7-715b582e0caa.html Kammi Totally Politics (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: The reporting source doesn't actually note him publicly expressing interest in running. Closing this for now, feel free to re-open if you have additional sources where he directly expresses interest. I'll subscribe to this request so feel free to answer here. ★Ama ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 18:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

My change is move Mike Pence from the "Potential 2024 Candidates" section to the "Publicly Expressed Interest" section. My source is https://denvergazette.com/news/nation-world/ill-keep-you-posted-pence-teases-2024-run/article_0ee55969-30da-5606-99c7-715b582e0caa.html Kammi Totally Politics (talk) 04:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. This was answered above. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Yang

He will probably run and he formed a new party, which typically means there are presidential aspirations involved Futureelectionsandcurrentevents (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

We would need a source indicating that he is considering running for president. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Kanye West

Kanye West has publicly shown interest in running for president in 2024 on the Drink Champs Podcast. YeFor2024 (talk) 22:14, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

You'll need to show a link, and it needs to be in the past six months. Bkatcher (talk) 02:08, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity-news/news/kanye-west-hints-at-running-in-2024-election-wants-kims-support/ Here is a recent article of him hinting that he wants to run for president Haris920 (talk) 18:14, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Nina Turner

Nina Turner has expressed interest in running for President as an independent on video. What more is needed for her to be listed as "Publicly expressed interest" as an independent? This isn't berniebro420 writing a blog post, this is her on video, covered by a journalist with a Wikipedia page for that matter. Though the latter point is admittedly less relevant than this being a "from the horse's mouth" citation. https://twitter.com/StatusCoup/status/1521855188323155968 NDACFan (talk) 14:25, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the issue here is "I would consider that" is a hair short of "I am considering that." There is a lot of hedging in her comments. I've been critical in the past about the lack of clarity between potential candidates and publicly expressed interest, but to the extent that there is one, I think the consensus is her words are not a clear enough expression of intention to push her into the latter category. --Vrivasfl (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2022

Move Eric Adams (NYC mayor) from potential 2024 candidates to publicly expressed interest. My sources: https://www.businessinsider.com/eric-adams-platform-to-win-a-2024-presidential-run-2022-5 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/mayor-eric-adams-president-biden-b2084412.html Kammi Totally Politics (talk) 04:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done. This is from "unnamed sources", not Adams himself. --Pokelova (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Potential campaign issues

what is the standard for adding new issues to the potential campaign issues ? or is it one of those things that we all simply talk about and try to reach consensus on ? Ayyydoc (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Buttigieg's residence

Drdpw has changed Buttigieg's residence back from Michigan to Indiana, after Thomascampbell123 had initially changed it with edit summary Buttigieg has moved to Michigan. @Thomascampbell, where did you get that? I'm not seeing that anywhere. This tabloid-y coverage says that he spends most of his time in MI when he isn't in D.C., but that isn't necessarily the same thing as him legally residing in MI. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

New Hampshire Republican poll

I don't know how to edit the table, but if someone else has time to take care of it, here's a New Hampshire poll showing DeSantis beating Trump. It could be added to this section: Primary election -> Republican Party -> Statewide polling A CNN article links to the poll's PDF. The poll asks to be referred to as "the Granite State Poll, conducted by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center." Tuckerlieberman (talk) 12:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

As the election nears and more information is available, each state will have its own article for this election and the statewide polling data will be placed in those articles. Since NH is one of the earlier primary states, there is already enough information for a separate article for NH. The poll referred to here has been added to 2024 United States presidential election in New Hampshire. Cheers. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2022

For Joe Biden's description, change "47th Vice President of the United States" to "44th Vice President of the United States". Kingsburyew (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Not done: List_of_vice_presidents_of_the_United_States says he was 47th. Please clarify why you are asking to change to 44th. RudolfRed (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

RudolfRed is correct. I imagine the confusion is that Biden (47th VP) served with Obama (44th POTUS). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Reversion

Hello David O. Johnson; I'm curious why you reverted my recent edit to this page? I feel that my wording was more accurate with no perceivable POV or other violations, and you reverted it without giving any reason. Hppavilion1 (talk) 12:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't the economy be one of the issues alongside COVID 19 and abortion?

with the price of gas skyrocketing in most areas, and people noticing increasing prices, I'd think the economy is a notable enough issue to be in this article, along with possibly inflation. we could cover the economy and inflation in the same section. what would you think? 2189 is out of order (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I would think the first question is whether there are sources discussing how the economy will affect the race. That said, it is very hard to predict what the economy will be like in 2024. It could be in a continued slump, or it could rebound into a boom, as it did with Reagan. BD2412 T 03:28, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Democrat candidates

I'd put Tulsi Gabbard as a potential candidate over some of the names listed as potential candidates for the Dems, even Joe Cunningham seems more likely to run than some of the listed ones! Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 22:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

I would like to add something please, I would love to add a potential Presidential candidate. Remp567 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Bears (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep for possible Trump announcement

Multiple sources are now reporting that Trump plans to announce his 2024 election bid this month. Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign is ready to be moved to mainspace as soon as such an announcement is made. BD2412 T 00:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Reports are now saying Trump is backing off announcing a campaign this month. Looks like the announcement pending section can be removed. Alexjjj (talk) 21:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Report maybe, but I can't find any other reports that say this and I don't have much confidence in the reliability of rawstory given I've never heard of it and it's not on WP:RSP. Przemysl15 (talk) 04:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022

Regarding the "Announcement expected" section, it appears that Trump isn't expected to announce this month per this article. 96.28.84.250 (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done ― Tartan357 ^Talk 05:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism, accidental or intentional

It appears the entire Dem candidate section has been vandalized, whether intentionally or not, by an account called "Clinton 2024". I don't have the editing skills to fix what they did, perhaps setting up a formatting bot to protect the page may be in order. Even accidental vandalism here is a problem as many new editors will jump in here as it's a hot topic TrentBrownlee (talk) 16:15, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Fixed. The person they were trying to add didn't have any sources anyway. --Pokelova (talk) 16:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2022 (2)

Move Nikki Haley from "Potential 2024 candidates" to "Publicly expressed interest" My sources: https://people.com/politics/nikki-haley-teases-2024-presidential-run-in-iowa/ https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2022/06/30/iowa-caucus-2024-nikki-haley-will-run-president-if-theres-place-me/7747121001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/07/01/nikki-haley-previews-2024-presidential-run-iowa/7787394001/ Kammi Totally Politics (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Aaron Liu (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Youngkin moved to denied

The source given for the Youngkin denial just states that he has not made a decision yet, not that he has stated he is not running. I do not think this warrants the move to the denied section, and that he should be moved back up to the potential candidates section. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Should Gavin Newsom be added as a potential Democratic candidate?

Several news articles have talked about how Newsom's recent activities may indicate a possible 2024 presidential run. In addition Newsom is mentioned 13 times in the Notes section because he has appeared in primary polls. Is this sufficient evidence for Newsom to be added to the potential Democratic candidates section? Intcreator (talk) 02:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Trump's made up his mind?

I've seen sources stating that President's Trump biggest decision about running in 2024 comes down to whether he announces his candidacy before or after the midterms. Does this mean that Trump should be moved to "announcement impending" or is he still "publicly expressing interest" for the time being? Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 22:02, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Endorsements page?

When is a good time to make an endorsements section? A bunch of the hypothetical candidates have been endorses (I.E, Joe Rogan and Elon Musk backing Ron Desantis, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren backing Joe Biden) Futureelectionsandcurrentevents (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No endorsements are official yet until candidates start runnning. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 11:08, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:CrystalBall speculation is fair game if it comes from notable sources, so I don't think that the endorsements not being official is grounds for exclusion. If there are reliable sources speculating about endorsements, that should be reflected in the article. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I have moved Joe Biden 2024 presidential campaign to mainspace

Biden and his proxies have repeatedly said that he is running, which I think is enough to have a live article on the campaign. Basically, every appearance, trip, or event by a sitting president who intends to seek reelection has a dimension of being towards winning that reelection. Even if Biden were to decide not to run at this point, that would be more like a declared candidate dropping out (which we cover) than a possible candidate never declaring. BD2412 T 06:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I disagree on the basis that Biden and his proxies have repeatedly stated that he is going to run, which is very different from actually running. Clearly there is speculation about his campaign, but to claim that it is current and ongoing I think is not supported by the consensus of reliable sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I put this in the category of Star Trek: Planet of the Titans—an unproduced film about which so much was reported that it is still notable despite never passing the writing stage. Biden's unequivocally stated re-election aspirations have had an effect on the political field equivalent to a declaration of candidacy, and this has been the subject of coverage in reliable sources. Also, I think it is hard to say that there really is not a current and ongoing campaign. Once the sitting president says that he "is going to run", what can he do in office that would not be seen as promoting his re-election? BD2412 T 06:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I am shocked and surprised that such an experienced Wikipedian doesn't know better and thinks he can get away with this. I put your "Planet of the Titans" argument in the category of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As far as what a sitting president can do that is not seen as promoting re-election, how about Lyndon Johnson's statement on May 31, 1968? Would you have such a passionate view about a president you didn't like?

As Przemysl15 says, saying he "is going to run" is not saying he will run. And I agree there is no perceivable consensus of reliable sources; Biden's public approval, mental faculties, and chances of reelection are seen as controversial and rated differently by different sources; this is a matter of opinion. You can't just dismiss sources you don't like

Here are some reminders of the pertinent "crystal ball" policy:

1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even otherwise-notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident. (For example, it has just been disclosed that Biden has contracted Covid for the second time.) If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented.
2. Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it.
3. Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist of only product announcement information and rumors are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable.

JustinTime55 (talk) 13:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I can see this going either way, but I have returned the article to draft for the time being. BD2412 T 17:45, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Would likely be better to wait, until he declares he's gonna seek re-election. That'll probably happen sometime in the spring of 2023. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Corey Stapleton

Why is Corey Stapleton being presented in his own table as though he was a major candidate? He has been included in zero national polls as far as I know, nor he has ever held an office which would be high enough to qualify him as a major candidate automatically. I thought we were trying to avoid overhyping minor candidates. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Automatic inclusion as a major candidate should be current or former president, vice president, governor, senator, U.S. representative or cabinet secretary. I think that covers the vast majority of serious potential candidates. Anyone else would be on a case-by-case basis, and Stapleton falls short. --Vrivasfl (talk) 17:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed. RS for this article means a national media outlet. His candidacy was cited to local news where he lives, and we would have way too many joke candidates if that was the bar we set. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:34, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Former West Virginia State Senator Richard Ojeda was classified as a major candidate in the 2020 election, I see little reason not to include Stapleton as well. {{u|Squeeps10}} {Talk} Please ping when replying. 01:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I gave a reason. Local media is not enough. Find a national, reliable media outlet covering his candidacy (like Ojeda had, I'm not sure why you think there's a contradiction there). Wikipedia is based on sources, not criteria arbitrarily set by editors. If local media were acceptable, we'd get an entry for every random person from such-and-such town declaring they're running, since these candidacies often produce human interest stories. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:53, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

That's kind of my point. Richard Ojeda probably should not have been classified as a major candidate in the 2020 election. Not only had he not held a major office, he was only included in two national polls before he dropped out in January 2019, having been a candidate for less than three months. (FiveThirtyEight.com also said that Ojeda did not meet their criteria to be a major candidate.) Some of the most prominent candidates for the nomination, such as Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, hadn't even entered the race before Ojeda withdrew; we shouldn't over-promote minor candidates just because they enter the race at a time when few others have done so and we don't have much else to write about in this article. But whether you follow the media coverage guideline or the criteria I have suggested, Stapleton doesn't satisfy the requirements either way yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Michelle Obama

Michelle Obama Should be listed in the denied candidacy section, sources say so, she was a popular candidate and said she wasn't going to, she sould be listed as a rejected candidate. 156.34.212.247 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

She already is. --Pokelova (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

Should he continue to be listed in the Candidate eligibility subsection of the Background section? David O. Johnson (talk) 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for posting the question. My answer of course is: Definitely not, per WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Has anyone, including Jimmy Carter, suggested even the remotest possibility that Carter would or should run for a second term now? His age is probably the strongest argument against him running (he's going to break 100 years old, and no president has left the office older than Biden who will be 82), but the point is that Wikipedia is not to speculate on things like this, when they have not been published by a reliable source. Of course we should not say "He's too old to run"; that would be just as bad OR. Hence, there is no reason to mention him at all.

I just am bothered by what I perceive as an "antsy-ness" on the part of Wikipedians to load up this article early with every Tom, Dick, and Harriet who might run or who has "expressed interest". It's still way too early in the 2024 season for this; look at the number of potential candidates in this article (42 are pictured) and take a step back; you know all these names are not going to appear on ballots as the time draws near and money runs out. I guess this "antsy-ness" is caused by the public interest in the political controversies of our current times. I can't remember it being like this the last few election seasons with incumbents running for a second term (2004 G.W.Bush; 2012 Obama, "the good old days"). JustinTime55 (talk) 19:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This antsiness is not that unusual for Wikipedia. See, for example, how 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries looked on July 29, 2010, before any candidates had declared. The 2020 election article was even worse at this stage, as Wikipedia was giving prominence to people such as Jack Fellure, Jonathon Sharkey, and Brad Thor as challengers to Trump. (In answer to the OP's question, I agree with Justin that Carter should not need to be mentioned there, since Carter is eligible to run only in the same way that ~200 million other Americans who have not been elected president twice are eligible, and there has been no speculation that he would, could, or should run in 2024.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If we include Carter, we should also include me. I haven't completely ruled out a run yet. BD2412 T 21:57, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

There's a difference: Carter already served one term as president. If you had served one term as president and were constitutionally eligible to run again, we could mention that using the same wording as the current reference to Carter. The fact that he's unlikely to run is irrelevant. He is constitutionally eligible, and that is the material point. Any other one-term president would be similarly eligible and worthy of mention under the same parameters. If that constitutes antsiness on my part, I'll wear that badge proudly. The fact is that, going back to other articles about presidential elections since Carter, mention is made of his status as a one-term president eligible to run again.° Should that be excluded here simply because he's unlikely/too old/too unwell to run or function as president? I think not. But if I'm the only one who sees this issue that way, so be it. I will support any consensus decision, even if I happen to disagree with it, because that is how Wikipedia works. --Jgstokes (talk) 23:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If that constitutes antsiness on my part, I'll wear that badge proudly. You totally miss the point about my "antsiness" comment, which has absolutely nothing to do with keeping Carter in, but was given to explain my general feeling that this article reaching the size and complexity it has already this far in advance of the election is out of order. My comment has been taken care of by myself and Metropolitan90; please stop mentioning it going forward in the Carter topic.

Now back to your pro-Carter argument: you miss the point of "no original research". "All material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not clearly stated by the sources themselves." It's totally out of order to add to the clutter of this article with unpublished speculation (WP:SYNTHESIS: Carter = one-term + constitutional limits = "he could run again"). It doesn't belong here unless/until someone brings it up publicly. JustinTime55 (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

He should be excluded because not a single reliable source has speculated about him having anything to do with the 2024 election. The reason there aren't sources is because he's unlikely/too old/too unwell to run, but that's not why we exclude. We exclude because there aren't sources. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 02:44, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, my objection is not about speculation, as even reliably-sourced speculation may in some cases not be admissable. My point is that the article specifically mentions that Trump is eligible to run again in addition to listing sources about his intent to do so. My point is that Carter is also eligible according to the same metric of having served one term. That's been specifically mentioned in articles about every presidential election since Carter's one term. The same was true for George H.W. Bush when he was still living. So the notion that Carter's one term should suddenly not warrant a mention here because no reliable sources speculate on his run is a faulty premise, unless we want to go back and remove the information about Carter's one term from every previous election page where there's no reliably-sourced speculation about him running. It's either relevant for every election article since his one term or it isn't and shouldn't be included in any of those articles. I don't mean to be difficult here, but we are trying to keep articles about presidential elections stylistically consistent across the board, aren't we? And if it doesn't apply here, it shouldn't apply anywhere else where there isn't reliably-sourced speculation about a second run for Carter. It seems weird to raise objections about mentioning Carter's one term here when that hasn't been a problematic mention in any previous presidential election article. And somehow my pointing this out makes me the nitpicker? Again, I'll wear that label proudly if the consensus this time is to exclude the mention of Carter's one term, but I've never encountered a rationale like that on a Wikipedia project article series before. Jgstokes (talk) 05:50, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Now you are saying WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is recognized as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. And if you have never encountered objections based on the WP:SYNTHESIS policy before, your Wikipedia experience is deficient in an important respect. JustinTime55 (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Carter's having served only one term and being eligible to run is "either relevant for every election article since his one term or it isn't and shouldn't be included in any of those articles." That's fine with me. I don't know if Carter was even being discussed significantly as a presidential candidate in 1984, when he had been out of office for only four years. If there isn't reliably-sourced speculation about a second run for him in 2020, 2016, 2012, etc., I think it makes sense to remove mention of him from those articles. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

No is my short answer to the OP's question, per WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:DUE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. The arguments of JustinTime55, Metropolitan90, and Tartan357 sum it up quite well, no need to rehash. I also agree with Metropolitan90 that mention of Carter should be removed from the aforementioned previous election articles. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Neutral - He is eligible to seek a second (non-consecutive) term, but then so is anyone else eligible to run, if they meet the US Constitutional requirements. If we did include Carter, we'd also have to include all nautural-born American citizens, over the age of 35 (by inauguration day) & U.S. citizens who've lived in the U.S. for 14 years, who weren't already twice elected U.S. president. GoodDay (talk) 13:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW - We should be listing only declared candidates, for the party presidential nominations, IMHO. Through out all the US presidential election pages. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW: Who ever added the collapse plate to the major candidates sections in some of the other US presidential election pages? Thumbs up. GoodDay (talk) 13:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Jerome Segal as major Dem candidate?

Should Jerome Segal be listed right next to Biden as the other declared candidate for the Democratic Party based on this article in Newsweek? I removed the addition because Newsweek is considered not generally reliable post-2013 per WP:NEWSWEEK. The RSP entry says to evaluate its use on a case-by-case basis. Since I can't find any major publication repeating information on Segal's candidacy, it seems that WP:EXCEPTIONAL applies, the media is not taking his candidacy seriously, and he should not be given equal prominence to Joe Biden. My removal was reverted by Zeddawg, who used Newsweek and did not address my point, saying only Jerome Segal has announced his candidacy. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:44, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

He definitely shouldn't be listed next to Biden, if at all. He's not a major candidate. He doesn't meet the automatic criteria, and he doesn't have the sustained media attention or inclusion in national polls for major status. Maybe we can add another subsection for minor, but notable candidates, but I think that would just needlessly crowd the page right now. No one is coming to this page to see what which randos have announced a candidacy. When the candidates section is eventually spun off into its own article, the randos can have a section. Right now, delete him. --Vrivasfl (talk) 02:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that Segal should not be listed at this time. As I've said elsewhere on this page, we should avoid overhyping minor candidates just because they enter the race at at time when few others have. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't like deciding who is on this page by what reason people come to the page, who should be on the page should be based on Wikipedia policy. I agree with Tartan's points. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2022

Include Jerome Michael Segal as a declared candidate for the democratic party. Gottlos (talk) 23:12, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)