SecretName101 (talk | contribs) Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
SecretName101 (talk | contribs) →clear bias shown: Reply Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Advanced mobile edit Reply |
||
Line 108: | Line 108: | ||
:Sounds like you want [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Trump was indicted for his not returning classified documents. Biden cooperated at every step and was not indicted. Trump was indicted for his hush payments to Stormy Daniels. Biden's "corruption investigation" is such a nothingburger that it looks like Republicans are giving up on impeaching him. Hope this helps. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
:Sounds like you want [[WP:FALSEBALANCE]]. Trump was indicted for his not returning classified documents. Biden cooperated at every step and was not indicted. Trump was indicted for his hush payments to Stormy Daniels. Biden's "corruption investigation" is such a nothingburger that it looks like Republicans are giving up on impeaching him. Hope this helps. – [[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]] ([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
:Get back to us when there are indictments/legal consequences attached to Biden’s. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Marianne Williamson withdrawal == |
== Marianne Williamson withdrawal == |
Revision as of 01:29, 7 March 2024
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Other talk page banners | |
RFK qualifying for debates
I'm striking the following from the debate section "Currently, Kennedy has the polling numbers that would allow him to be on the stage, which could mark the first third-party candidate to be on the stage since Ross Perot in 1992 if his polling trends continue." A) We do not know what polls the debate commission will consider, so we cannot conclude whether RFK is on pace. B) RFK is more often than not below 15% in recent polls. C) Discounting its now-dated mention in an unreliable source (NYPost), it's SYNTH to cherry-pick polls and declare him eligible. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:40, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Sonski and American Solidarity Party
I may simply be unaware of a previous discussion, but what is the reason that Peter Sonski and the American Solidarity Party have their own wikitable on this page under the third parties section? The Prohibition Party and Socialism/Liberation Party, as well as the parties without ballot access, are listed in bullet point format immediately below, and I do not see why Sonski and the ASP have been given the extra information that the others do not have. All of them should be under simple bullet points, in my opinion, with Kennedy and West's independent campaigns as exceptions. Kafoxe (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe there was discussion. This candidate was listed in bullet point format until this edit. I prefer the bullet point format for this and similar candidates, and briefly considered reverting that edit. (I can't remember why I retreated; probably to let someone else do it.) --Spiffy sperry (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that Sonski and the ASP should be returned to the bullet point listing format, for the reasons stated above. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Forecast Sources
The five sources for forecasts on this page are CNN, IE, Cook, Sabato, and, bafflingly, CNalysis, whose Wikipedia article describes it as being “launched in 2020 by… a political science student at Virginia Tech” and having “a staff of seven as well as one intern.” It seems to me that there are more established, credible sources to include if the article requires five sources in this section. 2601:42:0:14F:8892:B63C:3675:5E54 (talk) 01:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- This is a fair and reasonable point. CNalysis is respected in the community, has a reasonable successful (if short) track record, and demonstrated lack of bias. The size of the staff or age is not particularly relevant to me. All the big boys are more or less one man shops. I think greater inclusion here is important to show that opinion of these close races is mixed. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:38, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Infobox
Provided there are no objections, I'm going to add Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to the infobox once each candidate obtains a majority of delegates, per precedent.
(I think we should hold off until a majority is officially obtained. Not merely Super Tuesday.) Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
- Who said anything about Super Tuesday..? Sounds like a straw man tactic.. You will not be adding RFKJR anytime soon; there seems to be an early consensus to wait until he gets enough ballot access. We will probably not add any candidates until both the Democratic and Republican races are decided. Prcc27 (talk) 04:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
- Wait until after the RNC and DNC for that. RFK Jr is irrelevant despite what the polls say. Qutlooker (talk) 02:40, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- What is the consensus on presumptive nominees being in the infobox? Trump will become presumptive as soon as Haley drops out, which could happen 24 hrs from now. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Uncommitted draft
In light of recent events I have created a draft for the Uncommitted voting option in Presidential primaries. If anyone wants to assist, that would be greatly appreciated. Draft:Uncommitted (voting option). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esolo5002 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Roe v. Wade in lead
Is mentioning that this is the first presidential election since Roe v. Wade was overturned WP:TRIVIA or WP:DUE? Prcc27 (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- There is considerable coverage that indicates that Dobbs has been driving turnout on the left, and it will have an effect on this race. That said, I really like how this year's article gives a list of issues in the lede (and thus gives them prominence) while leaving the prose to the body. Once you start expanding on one issue in the lede, you will inevitably create questions of balance. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Trump eligibility lead
Now that SCOTUS ruled that states can not disqualify Trump, should we condense the lead about his eligibility or remove it altogether? Seems WP:UNDUE to keep as is. Prcc27 (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it should be removed from the lead, and the paragraph about it in the Republican Party section should be updated.--Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I would argue for condensed. This story is too big a part of the election. Draft: "Courts in several states had initially ruled that Trump was ineligible for office under the Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, but the Supreme Court held that only Congress – and not the states – can enforce Section 3." GreatCaesarsGhost 11:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- I removed it, @Prcc27:. KlayCax (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Why is Donald Trump listed in the first paragraph like he’s the Republican nominee?
The Associated Press has a specific policy NOT to identify presidential candidates as presumptive nominees until they’ve either (1) won the necessary number of delegates to be nominated, or (2) their last remaining challenger drops out. Per WP:CRYSTAL (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), Donald Trump should not be listed there until he’s the presumptive Republican nominee. 2601:642:4C00:D149:EDCC:5DF2:93C4:BAC7 (talk) 19:08, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Where does it say he is the nominee..? Prcc27 (talk) 19:22, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Also, we are not the Associated Press. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
clear bias shown
It shows clear bias to show trump's classified document scandal without showing biden's, and trump's stormy daniels scandal without showing biden's corruption investigation regarding china and russia paying the biden family. 198.184.248.250 (talk) 20:51, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like you want WP:FALSEBALANCE. Trump was indicted for his not returning classified documents. Biden cooperated at every step and was not indicted. Trump was indicted for his hush payments to Stormy Daniels. Biden's "corruption investigation" is such a nothingburger that it looks like Republicans are giving up on impeaching him. Hope this helps. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
- Get back to us when there are indictments/legal consequences attached to Biden’s. SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Marianne Williamson withdrawal
Marianne Williamson had withdrawn from the primaries on 7 Feburary, according to this Politico article: [1]] Is it possible y’all can move her to ‘Withdrew during the primaries’? CallMeVbuck (talk) 00:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- She re-entered the race last week. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Whoops, my bad. CallMeVbuck (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Haley dropping out
With Nikki Haley reportedly dropping out. I think it’s time to add Trump and Biden to the info box with a “(presumptive” tag. I’m still not sure what to do about Kennedy, his polling is clearly above 5% but not consistently above 15% and he is now on the ballot in ~8 states. Esolo5002 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Trump being added/kept on as the presumptive nominee. Agree with Biden as well, unless the done thing would be to wait until their respective parties refer to them as such? Also with RFK Jr, I know with previous elections the Green/Libertarian parties have been in the infobox - maybe wait until a bit closer to see if RFK qualifies for any debates? Open to discussion on this. Cooltrainer Hugh (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agree to add Trump as presumptive nominee when Haley will drop out and disagree to add Biden as presumptive nominee since there is still other major candidates in the race and he haven't won an absolute majority of delegates Punker85 (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Haley hasn't dropped out yet, and neither have Williamson nor Phillips. None have a majority of delegates to win the nomination yet, so they shouldn't be added as presumptive until Haley drops out on the Republican side or Williamson & Phillips do on the Democratic side OR if they get a majority of delegates to be presumptive. --JustAGrook (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Either both parties have a presumptive nominee, or neither do.
Right now, Trump is listed as the presumptive Republican nominee; but the Democrats have no presumptive nominee. I do not know what the Wikipedia standard is, but it's clear the same is not being applied to both. (Generally speaking, an incumbent President serving his first term is the presumptive nominee for that party, unless the President has specifically noted that they either do not intend to run for a second term, or there is a _viable_ challenger for the nomination.
If Haley is not a viable challenger, Trump is the presumptive nominee of the Republican party. But then neither are any of the Democratic challengers. Biden should be pictured (by the same standard) as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.
If Haley is a viable challenger, Trump is not yet the presumptive nominee of the Republican party, and both parties should have no presumptive nominee listed. 2600:8801:FB07:7200:95F:EAE9:D462:19A2 (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- The standard is reliable sources are calling Trump the presumptive nominee (someone should add the citation, but I can see that it is true). I believe that the difference is that there are candidates running campaigns, however hopeless, on the Democratic side. -- Jfhutson (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed, Representative Dean Philips is still challenging President Joe Biden for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I don't believe you'll find a policy to support that. Reuters says a presumptive nominee is one where the nominee has not been officially chosen but is "clear"[2]. The AP says the nominee needs to have "captured the number of delegates needed to win a majority vote"[3]. We can choose both or neither today. Frankly, its illogical to set the standard as one quixotic candidate with zero delegates choosing to nominally continue. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think both are the presumptive nominees and should stand. Trump because he is the last remaining candidate, and Biden because he is only 200 off and has no real opposition since 2nd place in the primary is Uncommitted votes rather than a person. And even that 2nd place is far off. Leave both on there. And at worst we add Biden back in a week when he has the 1900 delegates he will need. SDudley (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Here's an article from the Associated Press explaining why it is not yet calling Biden or Trump the presumptive nominee: [4]. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think both are the presumptive nominees and should stand. Trump because he is the last remaining candidate, and Biden because he is only 200 off and has no real opposition since 2nd place in the primary is Uncommitted votes rather than a person. And even that 2nd place is far off. Leave both on there. And at worst we add Biden back in a week when he has the 1900 delegates he will need. SDudley (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Barring a huge surprise, both Biden & Trump will have won a majority of their respective parties' delegates for their presidential nominations, by next week. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- It’s improbable they won’t secure enough bound and pledged delegates. However, it is not impossible: hence why neither is yet a presumptive nominee. SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Nikki Haley announcing to suspend her campaign today.
This is according to NPR, a US Government source. [5] JrStudios The Wikipedian (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Until she does, my opinion is that we do not add Trump as the presumptive nominee as Trump does not currently have the majority of delegates needed to be the Republican nominee, making Haley still a viable challenger-- even if we know she will not make it at this point in the race. When she does, we can add him back. This is a high frequency article, and while it's common sense to leave him, the facts have not proven her to drop out yet. Feel free to debate me if you disagree, but it just feels up to point of the standard. By the time anyone sees this she might've already announced. Same goes with Biden, Williamson and Phillips haven't dropped out yet, therefore he is not the presumptive nominee yet, as he doesn't have a majority of delegates. --JustAGrook (talk) 15:28, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- She suspended her campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Trump should be listed as presumptive now then. But the same still applies with Phillips and Williamson, Biden still needs delegates. JustAGrook (talk) 17:32, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I believe Williamson has suspended her campaign as of four weeks ago unless something changed. Yoblyblob (Talk) :) 16:14, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hayley has suspended her campaign at this time, so I'd agree it is reasonable at this time to have Trump listed as the presumptive nominee. AstralNomad (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- She suspended her campaign. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Added Joe Biden as presumptive nominee
Hey everyone, I've added Joe Biden to the infobox as the presumptive Democratic nominee. FunIsOptional (talk) (use ping please) 16:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Appreciate the BOLD edit, but we already had a thread open today on this subject. Would be better to consolidate similar topics. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- No objections. But hasn't Williamson re-entered the Democratic race? GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It's too early to describe him as presumptive nominee per AP and other sources as March 19 is the earliest day that Biden can secure a majority of pledged delegates. Even if Florida and Delaware's pledged delegates (which are expected to be ultimately awarded to Biden, but haven't at this point) are added to the total, that wouldn't be the case before March 12. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Others have described the results as "effectively determin(ing) the Republican and Democratic Party nominations" while declaring "the 2024 general election has kicked off in earnest"[6]. This is not to say that either position is more or less valid, but rather that there is no official standard. We are free to apply common sense. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- There's a meaningful difference between that and the actual term "presumptive nominee" – Biden and Trump have been prohibitive favorites for their party nominations before a single vote was cast, but that doesn't mean that they were presumptive nominees at that time, and it makes most sense to defer to the language of other media sources at a time when the term is actually being used. 67.170.42.135 (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Others have described the results as "effectively determin(ing) the Republican and Democratic Party nominations" while declaring "the 2024 general election has kicked off in earnest"[6]. This is not to say that either position is more or less valid, but rather that there is no official standard. We are free to apply common sense. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Too early for either Biden or Trump: Neither Biden nor Trump have secured enough delegates to win their party’s nominations on the first ballot on bound and currently-pledged delegates alone. Other candidates and options appear on enough ballots that either Biden or Trump could possibly fail to secure certainty of a nomination on a first-ballot vote (even if that is not remotely probable to happen) SecretName101 (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Harris is also a presumptive nominee, since she too won't be nominated until the convention. I've tried to make the edit, but the 'pedia server is having trouble. GoodDay (talk) 19:54, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Footnote on Trump's residency
The footnote on Trump's change of residency made since in 2020, as never lived in Florida, and "moved" there during his time actually living in the White House. But he has now literally lived in Florida for over three years, so the clarification seems superfluous. Why would anyone need an explanation of his home state? GreatCaesarsGhost 17:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- It may not need to be a footnote. However, I suggest leaving it in as a hidden note as opposed to removing it altogether, to discourage edits by those unaware, since this happens occasionally. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed IEditPolitics (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Biden and Trump pictures
I think we should make a decision on what pictures we use in the infobox. Using previous rematches as a precedent, there was no change in the pictures used in 1952 & 1956, both images were changed from 1896 & 1900, & only Cleveland's picture was updated from 1888 to 1892. This gives us options of what we think is best for this page. Seeing as Trump's official portrait has already been used twice I think it's best we use an updated photo as it's been 7 years since his portrait was taken. As for Biden I think we should do what we did for Trump and use his official portrait.
However whichever candidate wins we would obviously update their picture to whatever their official portrait is. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:06, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Technically, there is no WP on election pictures, this is basically just an unspoken rule. Lukt64 (talk) 20:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed. He’s not changed physically that much but it’s an obvious need for trump. A 7 year old portrait is odd, especially for someone who is known by nearly if not all people in the USA, and well known around the world. Biden too, a talk page was created below this giving good pictures for Biden. Option 5 personally is best in my opinion. May be 2 yrs old, but it’s still the most official and presidential. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I'd go with the 7-year-old official portrait for Trump. He tends not to photograph well due to his haphazardly applied-bronzer and high maintenance comb-over. The infobox photo need only look representative, and the official is close enough to his current appearance. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:40, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree, considering that the age and cognitive functions of both candidates are a concern among voters, the images should be relatively recent to represent that concern. 7 years is too long ago and Trump's apparently lost a significant amount of weight recently.[7][8] I think there's also an argument to be made against using his official portrait as he will not be the incumbent at the time of the election. GhulamIslam (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- @OCNative, could you please participate in the discussion here instead of making edits on your own accord? If you think the 7 year old photo of Trump should be used then please give your case as to why. Way I see it we've never used the same photo three times in a row for Presidential elections. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- to be fair there hasn’t been a 3 time major candidate for presidency, but u are right. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Image of Joe Biden
This is going to be a topic, so I am choosing 6 candidates :
Which one should be in the Infobox? Lukt64 (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Not opposed to option 4, my vote would be that or his current portrait TheFellaVB (talk) 20:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally 5 is the best. Most presidential plus official. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Option 2: I think Biden picture should the most recent as possible but option 2 looks quite better than option 1, so it have a pass for me Punker85 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Keep current. Best lighting, and not too old to be representative. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I second option 5: though not the most recent, it is the most instantly recognisable, at least to me, he seems to always be smiling/chuckling like that in news reports and photos. GhulamIslam (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- I also second option 5. --150.143.27.147 (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Option 5 is the best, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Current image - It's not broke, so don't fix it. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- that’s like a saying to NOT do. Something being not broken doesn’t mean you don’t change it. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- 5 or the current one both look pretty nice. MisterWat3rm3l0n (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- I think it’s fair to say that since there is 5 there is relative consensus for option 5 from active members as well. Any opposed, please list. I’ll change it in 12 hours if there is no opposition to it above 3 to show an actual mountable opposition to changing to option 5. IEditPolitics (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Low-performing second-place candidates inclusion in primary infoboxes
I'm bringing back the discussion that was archived a month ago after not reaching any consensus. Nevertheless, some users decided to skip the 2017 RfC on the matter and remove all the second-place candidates. It should be the other way around: unless a new policy is decided, the previous consensus applies. Therefore, I'll be WP:BOLD and start restoring the infoboxes. If any user is against, please, don't revert and try to reach a consensus here. Basque mapping (talk) 22:31, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Kennedy in infobox.
I do not believe that Kennedy should be featured in the infobox. He does not have substantial support in the way Trump or Biden do. Is there rules for this? (Aricmfergie (talk) 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Personally I Support him being in the infobox, due to him polling above 5%, which is WP:5%. He is also gaining ballot access very quickly, and now has it in 7-8 states. Lukt64 (talk) 22:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. WP:5% rule should be the end of the discussion. This has already been addressed in previous RFC's. As NYMag notes:
The general election is now projected to be a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and their mutual, Kennedy, with a cluster of less popular third-party candidates filling out the constellation.
. Editors who say that the infobox inclusion requires a substantive (which I'm assuming is 20% or more) chance of winning are violating the rule. - Considering previous consensus, precedent, and the present polling, this shouldn't even be a controversy. The guideline's are clear. KlayCax (talk) 22:49, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Yep. WP:5% rule should be the end of the discussion. This has already been addressed in previous RFC's. As NYMag notes:
I've deleted Kennedy from the infobox, until a consensus is reached to include him. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
- Kennedy consistently polls at 5%+. I don't expect him to win the election (or even a state) but that's not the criteria of inclusion. WP:5% rule is clear here. 1980 United States presidential election, 1992 United States presidential election, 1996 presidential election, and others all show candidates who received 5% of the vote. It's widely expected that Kennedy Jr. will obtain this. I haven't seen an argument against inclusion that doesn't go against precedent and previous RFC's.
- He should be included, as @Lukt64: mentions. It would be a violation of WP: NPOV (and an instance of WP: CRYSTAL and WP: OR to do otherwise). KlayCax (talk) 22:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
My major concern here, is that there's no edit-warring over this. BTW - If it's decided to include Kennedy? Please adjust the images (downsize from 200px to 160px), so that they don't make the infobox too wide & thus squash the written intro into the left side of the page. The 1992 & 1996 prez election pages, are a good guide. GoodDay (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)