Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 2) (bot |
Lostfan333 (talk | contribs) →Bernie Sanders: new section Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
: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? [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 11:54, 24 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? [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk: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. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 13:27, 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. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 13:27, 24 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. [[User:Lostfan333|Lostfan333]] ([[User talk:Lostfan333|talk]]) 07:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC) |
Revision as of 07:12, 5 June 2021
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
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: [1]) 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)
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)
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)
- Mottezen, do you have a second source? We'll need two to add her. ― Tartan357 Talk 22:08, 22 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)
-
CURRENT -
PROPOSAL 1 -
PROPOSAL 2 -
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?
-
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)
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)
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 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)
- 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 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)
Elizabeth Warren
Should we add Elizabeth Warren as a "declared" candidate? [2] 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)
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.[1] --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)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2021
Add Kirsten Gillibrand as a candidate who’s publicly expressed interest based on a recent source [2] 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)
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)
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)