Talk:2024 United States presidential election
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2024 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2024 United States presidential election. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2024 United States presidential election at the Reference desk. |
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
|
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. |
Kennedy appears to now have 270 electoral votes
Kennedy appears now has enough ballot access through certification or getting on third-party ballots to get 270. (Which you can see on the visualization I made on the left.) @GreatCaesarsGhost:.
This graphic shows which have been certified by the state or official bid on third-party ballot (yellow) and counties (red). You can see it here.
- California (through American Independent Party)
- Florida (through Reform Party of the United States of America)
- Utah
- Arizona
- Colorado (through state Libertarian party)
- New Mexico
- Mississippi (through state Reform Party)
- Texas (Certified by counties. Hasn't been certified by state yet officially. Seems de facto, however.)
- Georgia (through both signatures and a fusion ticket of third-parties; but challenged.)
- Iowa (through fusion ticket of third-parties)
- South Carolina (through Alliance Party nomination)
- North Carolina
- Tennessee
- Delaware (through Independent Party of Delaware)
- Michigan (through Natural Law Party)
- Indiana
- Minnesota
- Hawaii
He's still at 10% and rising as well. He qualifies at this point. We could "wait"... but he has approximately ~270 electoral votes at this point and is polling at 2x the RFC criteria. (He easily meets >270 if you include states with write-in voting.)
As @GreatCaesarsGhost: noted above: this is a foregone conclusion at this point. KlayCax (talk) 02:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Kennedy doesn't isn't counted in NYT's representation of Colorado, Mississippi, Georgia, Texas, Arizona, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida because they apparently don't count "party" access as access. But I think that's wrong.
- For all intents and purposes the requirements of the RFC are passed or it's WP: WIKILAWYERING at this point. Since all we're waiting for in many of these states is a fait accompli certification. KlayCax (talk) 02:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- What's an RFC? A "Request for comment" or "Robert Fried Chicken?" Or is it "Robert F**kin' Chennedy?" —SquidHomme (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first. The RfC referenced is RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1) which closed with the following criteria:
Having ballot access in states that comprise 270 electoral votes
and[a] candidate who generally polls at 5% or above in major polling aggregators. (RealClearPolitics, FiveThirtyEight, et al.)
Super Goku V (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- The first. The RfC referenced is RFC: What should the criteria of inclusion be for the infobox? (Question 1) which closed with the following criteria:
I continue to oppose including Kennedy in the top infobox & believe it's time to place a six-month moratorium on this topic. GoodDay (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- A six-month moratorium places it past the election. The agreed upon criteria was ballot access in states with a combined 270 electoral votes and polling above 5%. Both appear to be now met. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- We've been through this multiple times. RFK won't have a chance of qualifying until he's certified. End of story. Consistently bringing this up seems to qualify under Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.
- Write-in access does not count! David O. Johnson (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @David O. Johnson:. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- He doesn't.
- The Arizona ref you linked says,
- "Kennedy is running as an independent. The group supporting him, America Values 2024, said it collected enough signatures for Kennedy Jr. to make the ballot. The group still needs to submit the signatures to the state's election office for approval."
- They haven't even been certified yet. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The counties have certified. The same in Indiana. Meaning it's just a formality at this point. Unless something like a lawsuit occurs... but I highly doubt it'll prevent 270 from happening. KlayCax (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- And that was an error citation on my part because there were so many states to cite. That was a fault on my end. Apologies. KlayCax (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- He now meets the criteria for inclusion. KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Your constant push to put Kennedy into the top infobox, is becoming worrisome. GoodDay (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- In, California, Utah, Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Hawaii, Oklahoma, Texas, Mississippi, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Mississippi, Indiana, Delaware, Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Delaware, which add up to 270 electoral votes, he has either ballot access through a certified independent run or a nomination or a party that has given access to the state. KlayCax (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop? GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- That's my longstanding personal opinion, yes, and once he meets the RFC requirement (w/Indiana & Arizona certifying) I'd support editors adding it. We're a week or two away at most. KlayCax (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Going to wait until it's indisputable but qualification under the RFC guidelines is definitely imminent. KlayCax (talk) 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- So you're not going to stop pushing for Kennedy's inclusion, ever. GoodDay (talk) 03:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Per the RFC he qualifies. I think, as GreatCaesarsGhost noted above, I think the time to add has come once we're past the RFC requirements, which appears either now or immediately. He's met the ballot access requirement and met the polling requirement. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop? GoodDay (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- This isn't write-in access. This is certified ballot access or a nomination on a ticket that has access within the state, @David O. Johnson:. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- I disagree that we have met the RFC's standard for "ballot access to 270." In addition to the issues you note with TX, GA, and IA, I cannot find good sources for CA, AZ, MI, & TN. The links you provided are largely claims, not confirmations. You did omit one though: Oklahoma. - - I separately believe that we should read the tone of the comments in that RFC, rather than just its closing comment. In my estimation, the majority of opposition centered on the expectation that RFK would fade into irrelevance. That has not occurred, and I think it makes sense to reevaluate. I also think we are going to have a hard time citing ballot access; there are some funky ways it gets reported. HOWEVER, we have now raised the issue and given opportunity for editors to come to our way of thinking. They have not, so the issue should be dropped. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1
- The campaign article should obviously not be used as a source of verification. ~ I see now on the CA SoS site where AIP does have ballot access, so that one is good. TN presents a problem because we don't know the state will come back and say YES or NO, or that anyone will write an article about it. I'm trying to avoid WP:OR, but I think we need to acknowledge that our standard is going to be complicated to enact. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yep, it is going to be a problem. Though, some of it might be resolvable by the Secretary of State in those locations where they show who is on the ballot. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think it's best to wait on SOS certifications, as those would be hard evidence, rather than claims of ballot access. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, I did some more searching and CBS News also lists him as qualifying in Tennessee, so it seems to check out. --Super Goku V (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Hi, could you update the ref on the page where the CA SOS has certified the AIP?
- I found an LA Times source here [1] that stated that it still had to be certified, but that was back in April.
- I changed RFK's status in California to pending certification based on that, but if you find otherwise, please feel free to revert.
- Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 23:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It should be noted though that the campaign article only lists Kennedy as certified for 184 out of 538 electors. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The Kennedy campaign article does list California, Michigan, and Tennessee with the following sources: CA: 1, 2; MI: A cite error and 2; TN: 1
- Kennedy has fulfilled the requirements necessary to be eligible for over 400 electoral votes, and there is absolutely no basis for believing that he will have access to less than 270 votes. Thus, there is no sufficient reason to exclude him at the present time apart from personal bias.
- To be clear, I will not be voting for Kennedy. However, the media has shown that he is absolutely a major candidate (along with the Secret Service who, themselves saying that they only provide protection to major candidates, have now provided protection to Kennedy). To exclude him at this time would be grossly negligent and biased. 2600:100C:B237:2882:79C7:ECFA:C30E:7A01 (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not accurate and who you vote for isn't relevant in any way. We don't care. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I do care! 86.31.178.164 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is not accurate and who you vote for isn't relevant in any way. We don't care. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Putting Harris in the infobox as presumed Democratic nominee
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Harris has the endorsement of President Biden, and multiple big names in the party. On top of this, she has also secured pledged delegates, furthermore, nobody has challenged her and its unlikely they will. I am aware some of these factors I have listed can change within a second, but I am proposing that if no challenge appears within the coming days, she is listed in the infobox as presumed nominee, just as Biden was before his withdrawal. Obviously feel free to give your input and start a discussion. Cheers. Aryan Persaud (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Harris Should Be Considered Presumptive Nominee WHEN the AP Delegate Tracker Shows Her Earning a MajorityHere is the link to the AP delegate support tracker. She should be considered the presumptive nominee when she inevitably surpasses the required 1,976 delegates needed. https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ap-dnc-delegate-survey/ Trajan1 (talk) 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm an uninvolved administrator and have reviewed this discussion. At this point I perceive sufficient consensus, by both numbers and quality of argument, to warrant listing Harris in the box as the presumptive nominee. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
Trump's current potrait
The image is over a year old and has him facing at an angle, which makes it look akward against Harris' straight looking potrait, I suggest we replace it with a more recent image 72.183.112.131 (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- On a slightly humorous note the yellow tie on Trump really throws me off. I support whatever picture for Trump so long as it includes a red tie for my sanity. BootsED (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the yellow tie pic was an improvement. The current Trump pic is just awful (slanted pose, weird facial expression, etc.) Prcc27 (talk) 02:20, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that the yellow tie image is an improvement. It has him looking directly at the camera to match Harris' pose, and is a more recent image. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 02:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC) - File:Donald Trump (53807946692) (cropped).jpg is a much better option then either of the above, giving Trump is facing the camera, is also from June 2024, but is wearing a red tie like usual. Hopefully that suffices concerns! --MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I really think we should look at more options beyond the one MarioProtIV changed it too, there are certainly many more pictures of Trump that are public domain and would suit the article better. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree on the first part, but I think this photo is much better than the other one. I support the change. Dingers5Days (talk) 04:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I support this option, though I can understand if someone doesn't like the uneven shoulders, the facial expression or the lighting. Have read a bunch of similar talks and seen these points considered too. Nursultan Malik(talk) 08:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- He's not looking directly at the camera in that image, he's looking off to the left. File:Donald Trump (53787934031) (double cropped).jpg is the most recent image of him looking straight ahead (or as close to it as we can get) with squared shoulders. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- I like that image on principle, but seeing Trump with a yellow tie really feels weird. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- His facial expression is quite odd, can't tell if he's smirking or bemused. I prefer this image from the same day with a neutral expression. GhulamIslam (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- You did not allow anyone to give a second opinion before making the change. Trump's image should be discussed more thoroughly instead of you alone changing the picture because you think it looks better. For example had you put it up for discussion I would be rather opposed to the image you changed it to as his facial expression is rather awkward, as well as him looking quite sweaty in the photo. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:36, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Trump's portrait should just be his from 2017 as president. It's not THAT old, and it's quite official, unlike the other ones that have been used Trajan1 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- 7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Contrariwise, I don't think a 7-year-old is even old enough to run for President in the first place. jp×g🗯️ 18:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- There is consensus to use a more recent image. Main reason being what Prcc27 said. GhulamIslam (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- 7 years is old. Anyone that's 11 years old in 2017 can legally copulate by now. —SquidHomme (talk) 21:52, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- 7 years is quite old, actually. Prcc27 (talk) 05:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree and I am supporting the upmost shown image in the discussion because it is one of the more recent ones and it have a relatively neutral expression Punker85 (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- This is a much better image due to his even more neutral facial expression (when compared to any of his previously proposed images) and his eyes are pointed more to the center. —SquidHomme (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Personally, this is why I was against the argument of not using his official portrait because it was going to open a can of worms about updating the pic every year/few months whereas his official portrait would've remained. Yet, here we are. If I had to support a picture, I'd go for option A as it has a better angle and expression of Trump. He's facing more forward than the other option.
On Multiple States RFK is listed to be part of Multiple parties
Multiple states such as California, North Carolina, Illinois, Colorado and more have RFK listed as different parties such as The American Independent Party, Natural Law, which dissolved in 2004, We The people and more. Makhnoid (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Natural Law:
[...] [T]he national headquarters of the Natural Law Party closed effective on April 30, 2004 [...] Entities using the name are still active in some states. [...] Only the Michigan and Mississippi Natural Law parties remained as ballot-qualified parties.
As noted in a discussion above, Kennedy is the candidate for the Michigan Natural Law party. It also covers the other six or so parties that Kennedy is a candidate for. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)- Oh Ok thank for clarifying. Makhnoid (talk) 19:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Republican efforts to disrupt election"
Where did that section go? soibangla (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
1RR reminder
Just an FYI, this article is under the WP:1RR restriction. David O. Johnson (talk) 03:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
restore Republican efforts to disrupt election
XavierGreen, you mentioned only one paragraph but removed three.
Please restore all the content. Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1236136875 soibangla (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mentioning the activities of Republican county party officers is entirely undue there are literally thousands of counties and nearly all of them have a republican committee made up of multiple officers adding over 10,000 bytes prose on a minor topic without gaining any consensus to do so is also undue.XavierGreen (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- you mention only one element of a broader topic that encompasses several aspects, yet you remove the entire section. this is improper. restore all of it. soibangla (talk) 03:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- If coverage of a topic is too lengthy, we truncated it. Removing it all together is highly inappropriate. GreatCaesarsGhost 15:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- That is two users who want the content restored, and I will add myself as a third pending discussion. Can you please restore it, XavierGreen? --Super Goku V (talk) 22:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Looks pretty undue for this article. I'm okay with the see also mention, but not here. PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Mentioning the activities of Republican county party officers is entirely undue there are literally thousands of counties and nearly all of them have a republican committee made up of multiple officers adding over 10,000 bytes prose on a minor topic without gaining any consensus to do so is also undue.XavierGreen (talk) 03:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia's left-wing bias on abortion
WP:NOTAFORUM. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
On almost every page that I read on Wikipedia, abortion is framed as "abortion rights", while pro-life topics like personhood of an unborn child are minimized or absent. To me, this is clearly a bias from Wikipedia, and I notice this with many left-wing topics. It is almost a carbon copy of left-wing legacy media. If Wikipedia cares about balance, there should be two photos in this article, one for and one against abortion. Also, any politician talking about personhood or related topics should be properly cited, instead of using terms such as "against abortion rights" or "anti-women". It was easier when "pro-life" and "pro-choice" were the common terms. In any event, please present the topic fairly. LABcrabs (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
|
Picture of Nicole Shanahan, RFK's VP has been added to Wikipedia
I noticed that a picture of RFK Jr.'s running mate, Nicole Shanahan has been added to Wikipedia. You can then add it to the ticket under their campaign: [[File:Nicole Shanahan in March 2024.png]] Leikstjórinn (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not done I do not see any indication on the image source that it is actually under the claimed license. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think that's been the main issue; Shanahan images keep getting uploaded that don't meet Wikipedia standards. I'm certain one of them in the past did have a CC license... David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see any creative commons licensing on that file, so I have proposed it for deletion as a copyright violation. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Nevada should be characterized as Grey/Gray on the Election Map
Nevada is a swing state, and giving it to democrats as a 50-55% (expected) is not true.
Source: https://elections2024.thehill.com/forecast/2024/president/nevada/
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2024-election-forecast/nevada/
I couldn't find any sources for Kamala Harris, but it should be expected that it would be relatively similar or slightly beneficial to Democrats. Even with this taken into account it should still be characterized as a swing state.
108.20.37.25 (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- The legend indicates that the "shading of each state denotes the winner's two-party vote share, averaged between the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections." It is not a rendering of any pundit's predictions for 2024. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
"Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860."
@RaySwifty18 "Biden is also the first incumbent president to not seek reelection after only one term since 1880 and the first Democrat to do so since 1860." You mean one full term right? Alexysun (talk) 23:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- So what? He and Trump are both so old they should not be running at all. It's good he dropped out. Now Trump should do it. Maybe there should be a constitutional amendment to prevent running after 70. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 04:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Theoretically speaking
Theoretically speaking there is no way to know whether Kamala Harris is the presumptive nominee, because she said she got enough delegates to agree to vote for her at the convention, but that's her own words. She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her. So essentially Biden's old delegates don't need to vote for her, and there's no way to know if her own claims are fully true. Alexysun (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It's still an open nomination at the convention at the end of the day. Alexysun (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st.
However, Ohio Democrats were pushing their party to pick a candidate sooner via a virtual roll call vote. That’s because Ohio voted to move the deadline for candidates to make the ballot from Aug. 7 to Sept. 1 to accommodate Democrats’ mid-August convention in Chicago. That law takes effect on Sept. 1.
So the DNC will be doing a virtual roll call with all the delegates sometime in the next two weeks. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It will not be a nomination at the convention. “We will deliver a presidential nominee by Aug. 7 of this year,” The problem is an Ohio law that only takes effect on September 1st.
- "But that's her own words" There are sources corroborating Harris' claims; media organizations have pages to track her delegates. Here's one from The Hill, for example: [6]. There are more that are sourced in the 2024 Democratic National Convention#Pre-convention delegate count subsection of that article, as well. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh interesting. Alexysun (talk) 04:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
She never went through the primaries so the delegates are not locked in to vote for her.
How is that different from Biden? They were not locked in for him either. Biden could have won all 50 states and still have not gotten the nomination due to delegates voting for someone else. In both cases, the delegates are unpledged. So I am still baffled why this is a major issue for Harris, but didn't seem to be an issue for Biden.- Additionally, it isn't her claims. The delegates have made statements to endorse Harris that have added up to her having enough to win the first round vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- I mean, presumptive is a more than good term, so far it is deeply expected all or most of Biden's delegates go to Kamala Harris, and the definition of presumptive is "presumed in the absence of further information", and in my opinion holds the same nature as a primary with a lone candidate and a write-in option, in all theory, voters can just write-in someone else, and the lone registered candidate can be defeated as it has happened in the past (most notably Vermont where write-in candidates have defeated nominees), this is key reason why it is put as "presumptive nominee" and not outright as nominee, as all expectations and metrics indicate Harris being nominated, such as no formal opposition being in, multiple endorsements from notable figures, and Biden having gotten almost an absolute amount of delegates who has endorsed Harris, so even if some decided to vote someone else, it is expected most of them will be indirectly pledged to harris.
- Presumptive nominee for Harris is a correct term, as almost everything indicates she will be the nominee after the primary and roll call, if she wasn't the nominee it would be an extremely big upset and a 360° flip, and absolutely no one expects it to change, and if it happened we can just remove Harris and put the final nominee, but putting Harris as presumptive nominee is very well fundamented.
- Other story is for the VP, who at the current time is completely unknown and there is no going behind someone like last time. SuperGion915 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Edit warring
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
@Magical Golden Whip despite the presence of a comment right above the infobox asking for discussion to finish before adding a candidate to the infobox, you have decided to reinstate an edit that has been opposed twice now. Fantastic Mr. Fox (talk) 12:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Please see my comment above. Thank you, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC) |
Trivial superlatives in the lede
We are continuing to see trivial superlatives added to the lede. The latest notes this is the first election since 1976 to not feature one of the members of three entirely distinct families. Biden appearing on a ballot is not connected to George Bush appearing on a ballot in any way, such that the absence of both is not worthy of note. Trivia in general does not belong in an encyclopedia. Superlatives are fine, but when you start adding multiple qualifiers, the relevance drops off very quickly. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Are Swing States trivia?
I added swing states to the lead, someone with a potential conflict of interest in the article removed it, saying the matter of swing states is 'trivia'. Are swing states a key aspect of the election or are they trivia? Tom B (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is my understanding that they are key. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was unsourced content; all claims on Wikipedia need to be verifiable. There is general agreement on some states being “swing”, but also some disagreement. For example, some forecasts say Arizona, Georgia, and Nevada are tossups, while others say they are lean R. Regardless, it is common practice on Wikipedia to add information to the body before we even consider adding it to the lead per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Prcc27 (talk) 18:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Wordiness
Any good editor knows that “led to a series of events that resulted in” means “led to”. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- You are correct, and I deleted those seven unnecessary words. Brevity is the soul of wit. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
- Tell me about it! I have a 130k word manuscript that I need to reduce to 100k! =o) --SFandLogicReader (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Harris portrait
For the picture of Harris in the infobox and elsewhere, should we use a more recent picture of her or her official vice-presidential portrait? Punker85 (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think a more recent picture of her should be used since it would be more representative of her current appearance than the 3 year old vice-presidential portrait Punker85 (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I'm strongly opposed to this. There needs to be some consistency. We were fine with Joe's portrait being used (which is the same year Harris's portrait was taken). If we were fine with Joe, we should be fine for Kamala's official portrait. Plus, her appearance did not change that drastically between 2021 to today IMO. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:07, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree completely, Her Vice Presidential portrait is the best representation of her. It's the same as how Trump's 2017 portrait is used for the 2020 election. And should she win it'll be changed to her official Presidential Portrait, same as Trump. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Exactly. If Trump's 2017 portrait was good enough for 2020, then there's no reason why Kamala's 2021 portrait isn't good enough for 2024. Three years isn't enough to warrant a change. Plus, the argument that Joe's portrait should be kept because he's the incumbent president (see Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries), but not Kamala's doesn't make sense since she's the incumbent VP and the portraits were taken in the same year. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:37, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- (+ @Punker85:) So the way I understand it, some of this comes down to copyright. The Vice-Presidential and Presidential portraits are government created, making them Public Domain. (At least in this case.) Public Domain images are wonderful on Wikipedia as they allow us to have an image that we should not be sued over. In the case of Trump, that image was taken in 2023. Thanks to the photographer's licensing, we have been able to use it as a suitable image that complies with copyright issues. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:21, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree completely, Her Vice Presidential portrait is the best representation of her. It's the same as how Trump's 2017 portrait is used for the 2020 election. And should she win it'll be changed to her official Presidential Portrait, same as Trump. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Last sentence should be stricken. (47th president)
We don't actually know if the 2024 election will result in the 47th president and 50th Vice-President, a lot can happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Biden is the 46th president who is no longer in the running. No matter who wins, it'll result in the 47th president and 50th vice president being elected. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again not true, until Biden officially leaves office on January 20th 2025, at the swearing in of the next president, we won't know who the 47th president and 50th vice president will be. A lot can still happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is indeed theoretically possible that, e.g., Biden resigns or dies, making Harris the 47th president before January, and then Harris loses the election and the winner becomes the 48th president. BD2412 T 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, it's like saying the winner of the 2028 election will result in the 48th president, we don't know that. Especially with how crazy America politics can get. ~~
- 68.189.2.14 (talk) 23:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh now I get it. I thought you were questioning the order in the event if it's Biden leaving office on 1/20/2025. Well, I support with your sentiment that anything could happen from this point until 1/20/2025. I'm inclined to keep the sentence as it's based of what we know now, but I could understand the opposing arguments. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- We could add some qualifying language, then, e.g., "assuming Biden and Harris serve in their current offices until the end of their current terms". BD2412 T 23:09, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Oh now I get it. I thought you were questioning the order in the event if it's Biden leaving office on 1/20/2025. Well, I support with your sentiment that anything could happen from this point until 1/20/2025. I'm inclined to keep the sentence as it's based of what we know now, but I could understand the opposing arguments. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:04, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is indeed theoretically possible that, e.g., Biden resigns or dies, making Harris the 47th president before January, and then Harris loses the election and the winner becomes the 48th president. BD2412 T 22:59, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- Not necessarily. 86.31.178.164 (talk) 23:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- As I'm aware on Wikipedia it is procedure not to be presumptive about future events, as an example the winner of the 2024 election being sworn in as the 47th President. We don't know for sure if that will happen, although it is likely, just like it is likely that the 2028 election will result in the 48th president being sworn in(Although much less so). Regardless 6 months is an eternity in American politics. Given the fact that Biden is of advanced age, and we're in a very tumultuous political time, where both political leaders seem to be in danger of political violence, it's definitely not set in stone. Hell Biden might even resign just to guarantee the first female president, we really don't know. Just like in 2020, there was a real chance that Trump could have gotten Impeached and removed from office, making Biden the 47th president.~~
- 68.189.2.14 (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- If I were to say the Opening Ceremonies of the Olympic Games will occur later today, that would be predicting the future. There may be a terrorist attack or alien invasion in the intervening period that causes a delay or cancellation (or the end of all life on Earth). WP has a policy that specifically says that we can presume certain future events that are "almost certain to take place." The likelihood of an 80 year old man dying in the next year is about 7%. Inauguration day is in just 6 months, and Biden will have access to the best care in the meantime. And being that he is no longer an active politician and of an advanced age, his exposure to risky events like public rallies will be quite low. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:30, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Again not true, until Biden officially leaves office on January 20th 2025, at the swearing in of the next president, we won't know who the 47th president and 50th vice president will be. A lot can still happen until then. 68.189.2.14 (talk) 22:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Left leaning Bias in the article
There are a large number of things which I find to be left leaning.
1. The hateful rhetoric of both sides is not represented equally. While the heated aggressive rhetoric of Trump is mentioned, the rhetoric of the Democrats ,who have referred to Trump as a dictator or Hitler is not present in the article , is not mentioned in the article at all. The heated rhetoric from the right alone is mentioned in the article.
2. The change in the number of illegal immigrants during both presidencies should be shown. In this article, the reduction of immigration during Joe Biden's presidency alone is shown while in comparison to Trump's immigration rate, Biden's rate would be very high.
There are many other left leaning biases which I will leave up to the discussion. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 23:37, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- It is late July in the year of the election, so it seems pretty obvious that people have already come up with "the article is too biased against Biden/Harris/Trump/Kennedy/etc", e.g. I don't think this is a particularly actionable complaint without some reason why previous discussions on the subject have been inadequate. jp×g🗯️ 23:51, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would also observe that, being illegal, it is clearly going to be impossible to know how many illegal immigrants have crossed the border at any time, (even though Trump supporters seem to be 100% certain) so any claims on that front must surely be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @User:HiLo48 The official number of immigrants noted by the government can be used or cited. Or the number of immigrants observed by each side can be mentioned which will introduce neutrality as currently only the fact that the Biden administration has reduced the number of immigrants crossing the border compared to last three years has been mentioned while the immigration rate of this administration compared to the Trump's administration is high which is not mentioned in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- How can a number of illegals possibly be known? HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HiLo48 The illegal immigrants are counted when the border patrol agents encounter them at the southern border and US customs and border protection (CBP) releases the data annually or sometimes monthly. Obviously the real number will be higher than the official count but still the official numbers are required to give the readers a perspective about it. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a perfect example of synthesis to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Prove it with facts JohseTheUnknown (talk) 03:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here is US CBP's Enforcement statistics.
- https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/cbp-enforcement-statistics JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Seems like a perfect example of synthesis to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @HiLo48 The illegal immigrants are counted when the border patrol agents encounter them at the southern border and US customs and border protection (CBP) releases the data annually or sometimes monthly. Obviously the real number will be higher than the official count but still the official numbers are required to give the readers a perspective about it. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- How can a number of illegals possibly be known? HiLo48 (talk) 00:24, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @User:HiLo48 The official number of immigrants noted by the government can be used or cited. Or the number of immigrants observed by each side can be mentioned which will introduce neutrality as currently only the fact that the Biden administration has reduced the number of immigrants crossing the border compared to last three years has been mentioned while the immigration rate of this administration compared to the Trump's administration is high which is not mentioned in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG If there were previous discussions on this subject, then it appears to me that they were ineffective in achieving neutrality by showing all views of the subject. As I have mentioned using some examples which indicate the bias towards left, I think that the previous discussions on the subject are inadequate. I have made credible reasons as to why the subject is biased and does not show all views. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @JPxG If there were previous discussions on this subject, then it appears to me that they were ineffective in achieving neutrality by showing all views of the subject. As I have mentioned using some examples which indicate the bias towards left, I think that the previous discussions on the subject are inadequate. I have made credible reasons as to why the subject is biased and does not show all views. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 00:10, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was Trump who said he would be a "dictator on day one", which this article includes. What Democrats are calling him "Hitler"? Doing a Google search for that, all I come up with is JD Vance calling him "America's Hitler". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu That's true and should be included but there are also Democratic officials who also claimed that Trump is Hitler and they should also be included. In the case of JD Vance, he has retracted that statement but the others have not yet done it. This information should be included to provide neutrality in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which Democrats? Provide sources please. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a list of Democrats/democrat supporting organization which compares Trumps's rhetoric to Hitler.
- https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/20/politics/james-clyburn-trump-hitler-comparison/index.html
- https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/-that-s-hitler-s-language-biden-and-harris-slam-trump-over-unified-reich-ad-211392069957
- https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/trump-immigrant-comments-hitler-mein-kampf-poisoning-blood-rcna130251
- https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/4774363-democratic-campaigns-trump-hitler/
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slGr9UEv5hw
- My original goal was to point out that Trump's rhetoric is displayed, while all other's rhetoric is not. Both sides have made hateful rhetoric of the other and both should be displayed. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:07, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Here is a prominent one few days before the assassination attempt.
- https://newrepublic.com/series/37/trump-2024-american-fascism-series JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- You seem to be comparing things Trump has said to what "any person opposed to Trump" says. It would certainly be appropriate to include comments made by Harris, but if we get into the comments of proxies and advocates, that would violate WP:UNDUE. Also, this would not benefit your side; see for example the MAGA candidate for governor in North Carolina advocating to kill political opponents.[8] GreatCaesarsGhost 12:16, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- Which Democrats? Provide sources please. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Muboshgu That's true and should be included but there are also Democratic officials who also claimed that Trump is Hitler and they should also be included. In the case of JD Vance, he has retracted that statement but the others have not yet done it. This information should be included to provide neutrality in the article. JohseTheUnknown (talk) 01:52, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was Trump who said he would be a "dictator on day one", which this article includes. What Democrats are calling him "Hitler"? Doing a Google search for that, all I come up with is JD Vance calling him "America's Hitler". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I would also observe that, being illegal, it is clearly going to be impossible to know how many illegal immigrants have crossed the border at any time, (even though Trump supporters seem to be 100% certain) so any claims on that front must surely be ignored. HiLo48 (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- See WP:NOTAFORUM Qutlooker (talk) 03:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- I am fairly certain that I have a neutral point of view. If you found anything that is not neutral, could you reply with appropriate sources JohseTheUnknown (talk) 04:15, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
"Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page" should also be another Arbitration Remedy
Seeing the recent talk page discussions on edits, I believe this is something that should be implemented as another restriction. Comments? Qutlooker (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
- We have multiple different ways on how we achieve consensus, whether it be through editing, which may include reversions (on this article by different editors due to the 1RR restriction in place), or discussion.
- Forcing any editing disagreement to become a talk page discussion can sometimes needlessly slow things down, which is why instead we have WP:1RR which avoids the same editor making multiple reversions (or face a block from the page/Wikipedia).
- This works quite well across Wikipedia, but if you want to propose changes to AE remedies, you should ask for feedback at WP:Villagepump or start an WP:RfC instead more centrally, rather than on this talk page here per WP:NOTFORUM. Raladic (talk) 02:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)