Woko Sapien (talk | contribs) |
-A-M-B-1996- (talk | contribs) →Religious Right?: Reply Tag: Reply |
||
Line 96: | Line 96: | ||
: Most of the prose in the "religious right" section is totally off-topic from the 2024 election. In fact, I don't see any written connection between the 2024 election and the talk about the religious right and integralism. Most of the sources do not mention 2024 at all, some even predate the midterm primaries. It reads more like just explaining far-right political theory than anything relevant to 2024. This includes an overlong block quote, and paragraphs about ''one'' person's views (Adrian Vermeule). I would argue for the removal of this section. [[User:Kafoxe|Kafoxe]] ([[User talk:Kafoxe|talk]]) 20:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
: Most of the prose in the "religious right" section is totally off-topic from the 2024 election. In fact, I don't see any written connection between the 2024 election and the talk about the religious right and integralism. Most of the sources do not mention 2024 at all, some even predate the midterm primaries. It reads more like just explaining far-right political theory than anything relevant to 2024. This includes an overlong block quote, and paragraphs about ''one'' person's views (Adrian Vermeule). I would argue for the removal of this section. [[User:Kafoxe|Kafoxe]] ([[User talk:Kafoxe|talk]]) 20:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
::I agree with Kafoxe. I thought about removing it when I first saw it, but did not have the time to wade through the citations to confirm the suspicion that it is off-topic. The block quote is definitely undue. -- [[User:Spiffy sperry|Spiffy sperry]] ([[User talk:Spiffy sperry|talk]]) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
::I agree with Kafoxe. I thought about removing it when I first saw it, but did not have the time to wade through the citations to confirm the suspicion that it is off-topic. The block quote is definitely undue. -- [[User:Spiffy sperry|Spiffy sperry]] ([[User talk:Spiffy sperry|talk]]) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC) |
||
:Rather, the entire "potential issues" section should be eliminated per [[WP:CRYSTAL]]. [[User:-A-M-B-1996-|-A-M-B-1996-]] ([[User talk:-A-M-B-1996-|talk]]) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC) |
|||
== Sub-section on Biden viability == |
== Sub-section on Biden viability == |
Revision as of 17:44, 4 April 2023
![]() | This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Other talk page banners |
Larry Hogan has declared he might run for president as an independent
Moderate Republican and former Governor of Maryland Larry Hogan has told the media that he while he has ruled out running as a Republican in the presidential election, he might run as an independent but only if the election is a rematch between Trump and Biden. No Labels, a bi-partisan political organization that has Hogan as a national co-chair, has raised funds to allow an independent candidate to run in all 50 states. ABC News speculates that Hogan might be at least one of the choices for a independent candidate backed by No Labels. Please add Larry Hogan's name into the list of "Potential candidates" in the part of the page about "Independents, other third parties, or party unknown". Here are some sources for everything in this message https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/15/us/larry-hogan-no-labels.html https://www.boston25news.com/news/politics/ex-maryland-gov/H36AP7YMBPP2OIW6VUKCSRYVPA/ https://www.npr.org/2023/03/07/1161570053/larry-hogan-republican-party https://www.npr.org/2020/12/15/946819531/maryland-gov-larry-hogan-named-co-chair-of-bipartisan-group-no-labels https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/01/opinion/third-presidential-candidate-2024.html https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/larry-hogan-close-door-party-presidential-bid-2024/story?id=97691294. Thanks in advance! 109.76.97.207 (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the last link you had; that was what I used when I made an edit placing Larry Hogan in the potential independent candidates section. I just saw Hogan was moved to the "declined" section; so there's a possibility someone else found another source that I haven't read yet where Hogan states that he was not a candidate. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe you can put back Hogan into the "Potential candidates" list? If he has indeed declined, just add the source to the page and let that be done. Thanks. --109.76.97.207 (talk) 19:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Already done . Snowmanonahoe (talk) 16:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
potential campaign issues - mental faculty and age
I really think someone should add a paragraph or two on this. A lot has been made of Biden's age and Trump's to a lesser extent, Nikki Haley calling for mental capacity tests for over 75's. There are definitely similarities to Reagan's re-election in 1984 in which age was a big campaign issue, the 1984 election Wikipedia page has a lengthy segment on it. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
- This recent footage of Biden in a US factory can also be taken into account. --Mhhossein talk 07:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely, millions of views, there's also a viral video of him shaking hands with an invisible person, and a video of him calling for a dead politician to come up on stage.
- I see this being the biggest issue of the election.
- Reports he wont be attending the UK Kings coronation because he is too old and would be too tired to perform his domestic duties.
- [1]https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/04/01/joe-biden-too-old-to-travel-over-atlantic-for-coronation/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr 79.78.91.188 (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2023
is same-sex marriage specifically an issue in this election because i don't think it is 2.102.42.98 (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2023 (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. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- remove the part where it says "lgbt issues such as same sex marriage" and replace it with just LGBT issues because the LGBT issues part is true but same sex marriage isn't much of a contentious issue these days2.102.42.98 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
- It kind of is. [2] [3] [4] Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- remove the part where it says "lgbt issues such as same sex marriage" and replace it with just LGBT issues because the LGBT issues part is true but same sex marriage isn't much of a contentious issue these days2.102.42.98 (talk) 19:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{Edit semi-protected}}
template. Actualcpscm (talk) 16:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
- Support - Exactly zero presidential candidates are running on opposition to same-sex marriage (though some, such as Joe Biden, opposed it earlier in their careers). No state is trying to ban it, and Congress just decisively voted it into federal law. A couple media articles fearmongering about something doesn't make it one of the top election issues. Additionally, abortion is the #1 issue for about 5% of voters and most of them voted for Trump in 2020 [5] (a reversal from the post-Dobbs trend of Democrats caring more about the issue). And "democratic backsliding" is just code for Democrats not winning every election; there is no evidence it will be a top issue for 2024. The section is mainly speculation and should be rewritten or removed (the article about the 2016 presidential election did not discuss potential campaign issues at this point in 2015 [6]). 2620:101:F000:700:3F9C:3DB3:4714:30AE (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
"No state is trying to ban it"
That's not true. The Republican platform explicitly opposes same-sex marriage, Republican legislatives have passed/blocked measures surrounding it, and many have talked about their desire to repeal recongition of same-sex marriages. Presently, a majority of states have constitutions/legislation forbidding same-sex marriage. (Inactive due to Obergefell)"Congress just decisively voted it into federal law"
Predominately upon the votes of Democrats. Just 20% of Republicans supported the Respect for Marriage Act in the Senate. Even then, states will be free to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples if Obergefell is overturned. To this day, it is very much a present issue.And "democratic backsliding" is just code for Democrats not winning every election
V-Dem Democracy indices, Freedom House, and The Economist's Democracy Index all report substantial democratic backsliding within the United States since the early 2010s.there is no evidence it will be a top issue for 2024
Polling shows it is an important issue for voters. The most recent poll ranked it 2nd. KlayCax (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
'Hot mic' moment
A footage which went viral, led the viewers cast doubt over Biden's ability to be a president. Not sure if it can be used. --Mhhossein talk 07:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
- I see no particular reason why it would be relevant. It's the same tired argument, and ignores that presidents regularly have aides telling them who they're supposed to make contact with in a rope line. Selethor (talk) 07:04, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Joe Manchin
Manchin is not ruling out a third party bid Maybe add him? 2001:1C00:A16:7F00:0:0:0:83FF (talk) 18:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Religious Right?
I dont think this needs to be added as an issue as nobody cares about it. 2600:8805:C980:9400:C5A3:B01F:AAAA:51E7 (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- Most of the prose in the "religious right" section is totally off-topic from the 2024 election. In fact, I don't see any written connection between the 2024 election and the talk about the religious right and integralism. Most of the sources do not mention 2024 at all, some even predate the midterm primaries. It reads more like just explaining far-right political theory than anything relevant to 2024. This includes an overlong block quote, and paragraphs about one person's views (Adrian Vermeule). I would argue for the removal of this section. Kafoxe (talk) 20:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- I agree with Kafoxe. I thought about removing it when I first saw it, but did not have the time to wade through the citations to confirm the suspicion that it is off-topic. The block quote is definitely undue. -- Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Rather, the entire "potential issues" section should be eliminated per WP:CRYSTAL. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 17:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Sub-section on Biden viability
The section Biden viability was merged into other sections with the user saying we don't know for sure if Biden is going to run in 2024. I don't think the section should be merged since he announced on 2 April (two days ago) he will run for the reelection. --Mhhossein talk 05:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
- Technically, the source you cite says he's all but announced, meaning it's not official yet (although very likely to happen). I still think this fits better in the Democratic Party section considering that issues surrounding Trump's liabilities are in the Republican Party section, not the campaign issues section. Also, the campaign issues section has gotten rather long, so I'm not sure we need to be adding more to it that could otherwise be elsewhere. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)