Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Minor Candidate Article Tally

With this lengthy ongoing debate about Johnson, I felt that it would be helpful if we had a ongoing count of the minor candidates and their inclusion in major media stories.

Starting with Corey Stapleton we have:

1) Yahoo!

Now Steve Laffey

1) The Hill

2) ABC

3) Newsweek Per WP:RSN#Newsweek Article this counts as a notable source.

4) Washington Examiner, there is no consensus to examiner articles so it could be omitted

5) The Forward Per WP:RSN#The Forward this counts as a notable source.

6) The Boston Globe Per conversation on WP:RSN Archive 283 this counts as a notable source.

The contentious Perry Johnson debate

1) AP

2) ABC

3) NBC

4) Washington Times Not omitted due to lack of other sources.

The Last candidate is John Anthony Castro

1) Bloomberg

I politely ask users refrain from arguing if any of these candidates deserve to be included in the major candidate list on this section or what the criteria number for being listed as a major candidate should be. We should keep this section solely as a running tally for their notable news stories. If you find a news story that is about their candidacy that is published by a green listed publisher on WP:RSP, or by a yellow listed publisher with no consensus then reply here and I'll update the list. Scu ba (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Washington Examiner is not consensus, so I'm not sure, but we seem to have only been including articles that have a consensus. The Boston Globe looks like a local source so it may not meet the criteria for "national source." Perryj1622 (talk) 03:31, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Boston globe isn't a regional affiliate of any news publisher and has a nationwide audience. And again, I said the examiner article could be omitted. Scu ba (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"The Boston Globe" is, from their own website, "New England's best source for news, sports, opinion and entertainment." This seems to imply this is a regional outlet. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:48, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It is worthy of note that the standard we have been applying for other candidates is to not include any source that does not have consensus (See HuffPost Politics on WP:RSP, which has no consensus, yet was discounted for the candidate "Perry Johnson" on that basis). This would involve The Washington Examiner not being counted as a source, as well as "The Boston Globe," even if it were a national outlet, because it is not on WP:RSP and therefore does not have consensus. I think it is important to use consistent standards when evaluating the sources of all candidates. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Check The Boston Globe Wikipedia page. It has 27 Pulitzer Prizes (5 under the current publisher). Looking through the WP:RSP archives (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 283#Boston Globe) its also been considered reliable. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

It seems—via WP:RSP—that the Washington Examiner should be allowed for Johnson’s tally. This is due to

The Washington Times is probably suitable for its mundane political coverage, although better sources should be preferred when available.

<meta />

BuiltByBromine (talk) 06:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll add the Times article to the tally. Scu ba (talk) 18:12, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

6 for Johnson.

Politico

Newsweek (each Newsweek article is determined for notability on a case by case basis but I think that this passes) 79.78.91.188 (talk) 19:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The Politico ”article” is an ad, it’s not even an article.

The Newsweek article isn’t focused on Johnson’s candidacy specifically, it merely mentions it. Neither count. BuiltByBromine (talk) 21:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry that is the wrong Politico article I linked to, there are two, this earlier dated one is awesome.

Politico Johnson launches campaign 79.78.91.188 (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Now this is interesting because I don't know what exactly to do with this. Politico just clipped a video from CPAC and uploaded it. There is no accompanying article, no commentary, nothing, just Johnson talking at CPAC. It would be like citing a youtube video and I'm not exactly sure if that counts as a reliable source. However, I don't know the exact syntax to putting a video like this as a source. So for now ill omit it until a power that be (someone who knows how this works) tells me otherwise, but it has been noted. The reason for my omission is because I have a feeling this should be treated like C-SPAN footage. It can be used for information in an article like Perry Johnson's own page, but it wouldn't pass as a notable source since it fails WP:SPS. It can only be used as a primary source on the entity in question as long as other sources exist to make the entity notable.Scu ba (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe this, although just a video and a title, still may count as a reliable source under WP:RSP because it is from Politico and formatted as an article and thus should be treated as such. There is also no indication this is an ad. I am unaware of any threshold of text amount that would constitute any particular source as an article or exclude it from being an article. Anyone familiar with an page that deals with this matter please advise. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

It is not formatted as an article, it is a video. Scu ba (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Also a feature in this article [1]https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/

I think it's fair to say that Politico are covering Perry Johnson and consider him amongst the major candidates in the article, rather than the minor candidates which he currently resides. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

that article talks about all the candidates. for a source to count as a notable source it has to be about Johnson specifically. A good sign the source is notable is having his name in the title. Scu ba (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Fake DeSantis Filing

The FEC filing here https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/P40011991/1696616/ is fake https://flvoicenews.com/fake-desantis-2024-filing-appears-on-fec-website/ there has been no official word from him. Thus, he should not be a declared candidate. (Aricmfergie (talk) 04:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Tim Scott

Tim Scott has said on his Instagram that he intends to make an announcement regarding his final decision on running on May 22nd. 71.241.216.16 (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Christie

Chris Christie told the Daily Beast that he “intends to be the nominee”, I recognize that this is not an official declaration of candidacy, but that should at least be used as the newest source for Christie under “decision pending” 208.117.89.228 (talk) 18:40, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

As per WP:DAILYBEAST, we should try to omit them as a source. We should wait until there is more news on this. Scu ba (talk) 14:16, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Why are there *any* candidates in the infobox now?

I don't think we had candidates shown in the infobox at this time during the last election (on either the Democratic or Republican sides). We should not have them shown now, either. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

You are right, and they have been removed in the past. I have hidden them for now. --Pokelova (talk) 16:16, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

elections in wikipedia have had candidates in the infoboxes as early as possible on other elections such as the 45th Canadian federal election, I believe the 2020 primaries did not have one as there was such a large list of candidates whereas this time we have a much smaller field of major candidates on both sides, having the infobox allows users who click on the page know exactly who the candidates are as the first thing that catches their eye without them having to scroll down Matthew McMullin (talk) 16:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Parliamentary elections differ from US presidential primaries in crucial ways that make that a bad comparison. --Pokelova (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Pokelova. Yes, the eventual field of major candidates is likely to be smaller than in the 2020 Democratic race or the 2016 Republican race, but more candidates are expected to join beyond those already in the race now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:57, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

the field of major republican candidates is not expected to grow by much, we are expecting at most DeSantis, Tim Scott, Chris Sununu & a longshot of Mike Pence. that leaves us with 7 (possibly 8) candidates which is within the standard 9 max for a wikipedia infobox.

I don't see also why canada being a parliamentary system disqualifies it being used as precedent because it has it's own form of "primaries" in leadership contests such as the 2022 Conservative Party of Canada leadership election which for months before the results had multiple candidates in it's infobox, we should use precedent of primary/primary equivalent systems which means the infobox should be filled in. Matthew McMullin (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, as we've seen in recent elections, candidates whom we don't expect can still enter the race. The 2020 Democratic field had its last candidates enter in November of the year before the election. It's only April now. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

the nature of the 2020 democratic primary is far different than the current 2024 republican primary, in 2020 there was no clear frontrunning democrat whereas right now it's indisputable that Trump is the frontrunner, he's been racking up endorsements from GOP members of congress and it's clear there's only enough major republicans left to likely run that you could count them on 1 hand, I stand by having the infobox visible Matthew McMullin (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've yet to receive a rebuttal from user:Metropolitan90 and as I've been blocked from editing this page for 2 weeks now I'm requesting through WP:CONTENTDISPUTE that other editors join this discussion so we can finally end this, it's frustrating as is that I've been subjected to talking in only the talk page until may 8th and until something is done this will never be resolved.

I've already had multiple appeals fail to even lift my ban Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Include or exclude, I'll leave that for others to decide. I do believe though, that all the US party primaries pages should be consistent & at the moment (Apr 23, 2023) they're not. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

@Matthew McMullin: I had not known that you had been blocked from editing the page for two weeks until just now and I thought I had made my point clearly enough. The fact that Trump is the frontrunner and has a number of endorsements doesn't seem to bear on the issue of whether we need to start putting candidates in the infobox yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, I've reverted back to the infobox being full multiple times though it's been consistently reverted, I shall try again so it aligns with the democratic primary infobox Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

"It seems like the consensus is to not include any candidates, though you keep reverting." User:David O. Johnson please correctly identify yourself and your comments when using the talk page, as to your comment there is no consensus yet as so far the debate is still ongoing and wiki tradition is to keep the original edit which caused the debate to remain in place Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the consensus is to not include any candidates, though you keep reverting.David O. Johnson (talk) 00:59, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the candidates from the infobox as the full field has not yet been formed. However, BGreene98 has reverted me, arguing my edits were vandalism. BGreene98, can you explain why you believe it is vandalism? 25stargeneral (talk) 21:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps, it's time to open a discussion at a page, which covers all US political parties, concerning primarie & infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

@Matthew McMullin: your likely best 'next' step, would be to open an WP:RFC on the matter. If you do, it should be for all US political parties primaries pages. GoodDay (talk) 01:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The Current State of Perry Johnson

To avoid the cluttered comments of the other five talk pages, I have created a sixth page to summarize so far what it seems Johnson's standing is as a reported candidate in the media. So far, it seems Johnson has been reported sufficiently in the following articles:

• AP News
• ABC News
• NBC News
• Washington Times

Johnson neither has any sufficient polling, his only poll is the CPAC straw poll, and does not make even the five article minimum. He should not be included by any metric we have chosen. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

If we regard HuffPost as a 0.5 or even a 1, we have that 3.5 < 5, and 4 < 5, so clearly Johnson fails the test. BuiltByBromine (talk) 15:45, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

It would be stupid to assign a part of a point to any source. It is either counted or not at all. I believe more sources count. Refer to the initial catalog in the earlier topic. I believe the Fox page to be valid. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Also the Washington Times article and Newsbreak articles seem fine by Wikapedia's WP:RSP. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I also believe this is a continuation of a previous discussion so it should have been added to "Perry Johnson media attention" instead of being a new topic. Perryj1622 (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but those are Ramaswamy articles, not Johnson articles. BuiltByBromine (talk) 18:08, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm referring to the Perry Johnson articles, not the Ramaswamy articles. Refer back to "Perry Johnson media attention," which is really where this entire topic page should be because it is the exact same discussion. If you are amenable to it, I propose we copy this topic page and continue it on the former topic page. Perryj1622 (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I feel like I should start a counter for how many times we say that Fox, for political articles, doesn't pass notability due to WP:FOXNEWSPOLITICS. Scu ba (talk) 19:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we should. Honestly, there should be a dedicated Wikipedia page specifically for counting that. I'd bet, among all talk pages, it is in the millions. BuiltByBromine (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

The noted exception to WP:HUFFPO are political articles, as such this Huffington Post article should not be counted. Scu ba (talk) 21:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I feel as if it seems for basic facts such as a presidency, it should be OK, but it seems we should just ignore them entirely. I don't really understand what @Perryj1622's issues are. BuiltByBromine (talk) 00:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I did verify that this is correct but you also advocated that it was a possibility HUFFPO is allowable. I do not think this slander is very productive. Perryj1622 (talk) 03:34, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

He is in one poll on FiveThirtyEight. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we should keep all comments relevant and pertaining to the discussion. This comment has no bearing on the discussion at hand nor has this recently been disputed. Perryj1622 (talk) 21:47, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Polling is a way to establish notability and relevant to a discussion of Johnson's inclusion. Plus, I was replying to @BuiltByBromine who said his only poll was the CPAC poll so they knew of the other poll. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 22:38, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind. Perryj1622 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Up to three polls. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:11, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I would like to point out Perry was included in this updated Republican Primary Candidate Field. Another site putting him in on the Vikek/Asa tier. 35.20.243.130 (talk) 02:43, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Just wanted to note Johnson hit 5 polls on Fivethirtyeight on April 14th. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Excellent! BuiltByBromine (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Debates

Donald Trump posted on his Truth Social account that networks and anchors were biased against him and he should not subject himself to “being libeled and abused”. I think there should be information added under the ‘Debates’ section related to this post. It seems relevant and Trump’s possible absence from the debate stage is noteworthy. Maddoxmckay (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Have the debates even started yet? I don't think they've even been scheduled--republican contenders are still slowly entering the race. So the debates are probably something to look out for during the latter half of this year and early 2024. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The first debate is to be held in August, but the specific date hasn't been identified yet. At this point, with the RNC having started to plan debates but without a proper schedule yet, Trump's attitude toward debates could go in Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign but not in the main article about the primaries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @Metropolitan90, unless circumstances change. It may be worth a mention once debates are officially announced if a candidate officially refuses to participate, but until that actually happens its probably WP:UNDUE or WP:CRYSTAL to speculate here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Larry elder

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is Larry Elder not a notable candidate? His announcement was featured in multiple prominent news publications including the New York Times, The Washington Post, Politico, CNN, and Fox News. He was also previously listed as notable on this page before announcing. Whakerdo (talk) 13:10, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I think he is a major candidate and should be included in the list. Scu ba (talk) 13:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Definitely a major candidate. He is a notable person, more notable than Ramaswamy. And the fact he's been in THREE polls before he even declared shows this. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He is for sure a major candidate, his announcement has received coverage on major news outlets, if I see no objections by the end of the day I will move him to the major candidates. Blake675 (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Larry Elder is definitely a major candidate, hands down. 98.20.132.112 (talk) 18:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

He has definitely crossed the "significant media coverage" barrier. Virtually every major media outlet is covering his candidacy in lengthy and detailed articles. So, yeah, let's move him to the major candidates section. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree, Elder should be considered a major candidate. Not only does he currently have significant media coverage, but he previously placed first in the 2021 California gubernatorial recall election. Should indicate he's a notable political candidate. Ageofultron 06:03, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Larry Elder should qualify — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.135.168.87 (talk) 21:00, April 21, 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Bolton

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

 I still fail to understand how Bolton isn't a declared major candidate, let alone a "declared intent to run' candidate. He literally announced his campaign on January the 6th of this year and I would argue he is very major. Jimmyy68 (talk) 06:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

• John Bolton would probably count as a major candidate if he actually was a candidate; however, it seems that a British newspaper (The Independent) misinterpreted his comments in January to mean that he was definitely entering the race. [2] Bolton said that if he got in the race he would be trying to win; he didn't actually declare his candidacy then, nor has he filed a declaration of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission yet. At this point, I don't think we can say that he has gone beyond "publicly expressing interest" in becoming a candidate. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

He hasn't filed with the FEC, he isn't a candidate yet. We can update the list when things change. Scu ba (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Declined to be candidates.

We must be very careful in this section, many times candidates will say they are not running, only to avoid being crushed by the media. Hillary Clinton in 2013 is a perfect example. I think this section should be removed and the candidates placed in the "Potential candidates" section. 2806:103E:D:5659:ACEF:68BB:34E4:96FA (talk) 19:56, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No. Most, if not all, of the candidates in the Declined to be candidates did just that, Declined to be candidates. They aren't potential, they said no to running. If they change their mind then we can move them to a different category, but removing the whole Declined to be candidates section doesn't make sense to me. Scu ba (talk) 02:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

• I don't think it's that much of a problem. We have a reasonable criterion for inclusion, "Please only include people who have at least one source that speculates primarily on the candidate, and one additional source where the candidate states he/she is not running". It's true that a candidate might change their mind along the way and go from declining to run to actually being a candidate. But all we can be expected to do is report what is true now. If circumstances change in the future, we just change the article to conform to what has happened. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not to include being CEO, host, author, etc under Experience

I've started a discussion regarding this at Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has more troublesome entries. Aaron Liu (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you that on the Democratic article it's mostly padding for space since RFK and Williamson don't really have political experience. But in regards to this, I think experience should constitute elected office, or failed bids for elected office, and then one line of what the person is known for. So like Ramaswamy is known for being a CEO, or Larry Elder for being a talk show host. RFK is known for his activism, and Williamson is known for her... uh crystals (I guess that's spiritual healing?) Scu ba (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Sourcing Consistency

I feel there has been a bit of ambiguity around when a candidate declines to be a candidate. Often times it is someone from their staff saying the person isn't going to run, as is the case with Abbott or Youngkin. Other times the candidate beats around the bush and says they aren't thinking about it, also Abbott, but also Rubio too. I believe that we should only have the candidate listed as a declined candidate if they themselves decline to being a candidate. Having the source come straight from the horses mouth would clear up a lot of confusion, at the price of having a longer potential candidate section. Feel free to weigh in on if this would be a good idea or not. Scu ba (talk) 02:41, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

It is difficult to draw the distinction between candidates beating around the bush as you say, or being honest in that they haven't thought about running and have no plans to. If these candidates still have recent sources saying they're potential candidates I have no problem with them being listed as potential. The more forthright statements of declining to be a candidate are likely to come from those that have been actively considering it, Pompeo, Hogan, Cotton etc. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Kim Reynolds?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think Reynolds should be included in Potential candidates. 200.68.167.223 (talk) 19:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@200.68.167.223 If there are reliable sources describing her as one, she can be added. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I've found the following source [3] it's an article about her leading the Republican governors group but it mentions how past governors have used this role to their advantage as they planned presidential campaigns. Something stronger and more recent would be better though. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 18:33, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Reynolds has been covered sufficently, in my opinion over the past couple of months to cosnider her as a potential candidate. 189.135.168.87 (talk) 00:25, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

There have been 0 articles talking about how she would even consider running for president. The only news I could see even relating her to the 2024 election is how she is going to be the opening speaker for the Iowa Caucus. Scu ba (talk) 14:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rick Perry

https://twitter.com/Acosta/status/1657879231500632064

"Former TX @GovernorPerry just told us he is looking at another run for president in 2024. He declined to throw his support behind Trump."

I've added Rick Perry to the Publicly expressed interest section, with a reliable source. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:25, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkin

I do not think Glenn Youngkin should have been moved from "Potential candidates" to "Declined". The sources cited do not have him explicitly declining anywhere, just him dodging the question. The NYT article even ends with speculation about him waiting until November to get in the race. Does anyone agree he should be moved back to "Potential candidates"? Kevingates4462 (talk) 04:44, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Maybe he shouldn’t have been put in the decline list, but instead just hidden on the potential list? It doesn’t seem like he’s real interested or would be for the next few months to run. If the Virginia elections turn out negative for his party in November, even more unlikely he would run and generally candidates announce much sooner than November. I can see him not being on the declined list yet, but he’s not a potential candidate really at this time either. Alexjjj (talk) 05:29, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

agreed! 2806:103E:D:A1AD:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree he isn't done yet. In the last few days he has dodged questions on a 2024 run and it has been reported he has received a big donation from a former DeSantis backer. He is also doing a foreign tour which is generating speculation. I agree he never really declined anyway , just paused to focus on state elections. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 12:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Youngkin should be moved back to Potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:5659:ACEF:68BB:34E4:96FA (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Are we happy he is done now? A lot of sources are emphasising his use of the words 'this year', suggesting he may join the race next year. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Youngkin should definetely be moved back to the potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:9BA5:E50B:7317:E744:9F48 (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have two sources calling him a potential candidate? Preferably after May 1st, when our current source said he wouldn't run "this year." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:43, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

https://apnews.com/article/youngkin-2024-presidential-campaign-5aa045cf99dca7c41c697857a2b3ceeb

https://www.wsj.com/articles/glenn-youngkin-isnt-running-but-he-could-change-his-mind-virginia-2024-moderate-culture-df42e186

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meetthepressblog/eyes-2024-youngkin-camp-cleans-presidential-answer-rcna82389

Perhaps something like (ruled out entering the race in 2023) next to his name would be helpful. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:24, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

Youngkin moved back to potential per sourcing. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

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

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

• Tim Scott at CPAC 2016 (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ted Cruz 2024

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/which-republicans-are-running-for-president-against-trump-biden-2022-11?r=MX&IR=T#sen-ted-cruz-of-texas-5 In this article it states that Cruz has not specifically mention he will not seek the nomination. I believe that he should be put back in the "potential candidates box" 2806:103E:D:66AF:6987:C1B9:41FE:880C (talk) 21:04, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

This again floats back to the "from the horse's mouth" debate that didn't really go anywhere. Sure Ted himself hasn't said that he isn't going to run, but his campaign and his advisors have said he has no plans on running. Scu ba (talk) 02:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes and again, although sources close to him have said that he is not running, we should wait for he himself to make that clear. Sources close to Desantis have said he is running for president but he isn't a declared candidate as of today. Cruz should be moved back to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:B892:DD13:558:4045:B496 (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

We need two sources from the past 6 months to list a potential candidate, do you have a second source? Preferably one, like the Business Insider one you linked, that is post his senate re-election announcement. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3863222-ranking-the-gops-top-10-presidential-candidates/

This is from a few days after his senate re-election announcement. I personally don't credibly consider him as a potential candidate, but he could be listed to allow others to form their own view, as its clear from here that some see him as a potential candidate. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:50, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

z should be moved back to potential candidates. I'll move him back, if someone can help me with the picture and references. 2806:103E:D:9BA5:E50B:7317:E744:9F48 (talk) 17:15, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Added him to potential with the two sources in this thread and added a footnote explaining he can run for the nomination and his senate seat. If anyone disagrees, feel free to revert me and post here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

, Cruz is still for sure a potential candidate, while I doubt he will actually take the step of declaring a run, I think he is still subject to speculation and should remain in potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:48B:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:36, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Resolved

TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:46, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Corey Stapleton is a MAJOR candidate.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He has been elected Secretary of State in Montana, in a statewide election.

Please include him in the table of major candidates. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 11:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't have significant media coverage or inclusion in polls. Also Secretary of State of a state isn't a major enough statewide office to be considered. Scu ba (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

That's not true: Secretary of State is one of the most important statewide offices, because they oversee elections and voting, among others. Secretary of States were very important during 2020 and 2022 elections, see Georgia and Brad Raffensperger. Also, Ramaswamsi and Elder have no elected statewide political office at all and virtually no media coverage either and Elder doesn't show up in national polling, yet they are included as "major" candidates ... that doesn't make sense. You need to be fair and include Stapleton, if you include the other 2. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Im aware of what the secretary of state does. But again, executive tier positions that aren't governor, such as treasurer, attorney general, and yes, the secretary of state, aren't major enough positions to be listed. If he where a governor or senator than yes. Also the ONLY article about him and him alone is from Yahoo! finance. Elder was added because he declared less than a week ago, stapleton declared months ago and has never been included in any polls. Scu ba (talk) 14:15, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

You are being unfair: Stapleton has been mentioned in several articles, check Google News. For example when he visited New Hampshire, WMUR TV and other NH newspapers reported about it. Elder is included, because he announced this week ? Are you kidding me ? Is this a criteria ? He is also not included in any national or state poll. Please add Stapleton now, your reasoning makes no sense. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I have been checking the news. articles like this and this fail to pass WP:RS due to them being local news stations and local subsidiaries of news stations. Check the WP:RSP list for some example of articles that meet requirements to be counted as major news. Sources such as ABC, BBC, CNN, AP, Reuters. Major news publicans. Not the Helena Independent Record or WMUR-TV. Even then he would need five articles talking specifically about him and his campaign, im not even seeing 5 minor local papers reporting on him, let alone national reliable sources. Scu ba (talk) 15:30, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Local news articles do pass WP:RS, they just don't really establish "substantial media coverage." Other than that, I agree with @Scu ba TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I meant reliable major source, sorry for the confusion. Scu ba (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Elder has been in 5 polls, despite announcing this month. Stapleton has been in 0 and announced last year. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Cory Stapleton is not a major candidate since he has not been featured in any major polls, or has been mentioned in any major news outlets (ABC, AP, CBS, Fox, NBC, NY Times, Politico, etc) Blake675 (talk) 19:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarify Tim Scott consensus

So despite the hill reporting and FEC filing, we're waiting to list Scott until his formal announcement Monday? He's shifted between the two today so we might want to clear this up to prevent a weekend of edit warring. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

An FEC filing is as official as you can get. If he changes his mind between today and Monday, it will be, maybe, the quickest presidential campaign in history, but as it stands, he is filed to be a candidate. Scu ba (talk) 21:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We just have to be wary of fake filings. Pence and Biden have seen fake filings recently. But with many reliable sources reporting on it and no denials from Tim Scott's campaign team, it's right he is included in declared candidates. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:30, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Ryan Binkley - Major or Minor candidate?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

As reported in The Hill, The Daily Beast and BuisnessWire, Ryan Binkley has announced his presidential run. Just gathering the sources but I think he belongs in the major candidate section. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

• Considering that Ryan Binkley as of this writing is a redlink (it may change in the future, in which case this sentence can be disregarded), I don't even think he qualifies as a minor candidate yet, much less a major one. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I second him not being included in even the minor candidate list due to his lack of an article on wikipedia Scu ba (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I will knock out an article for him ASAP. In the mean time I'm noting 'The Independent' are also covering him, that's another reliable source and he has only just announced, momentum building. 79.78.91.188 (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Make sure you have articles actually talking about him as a person dated before his announcement to run for president.Scu ba (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Photos

Have we discussed the photos? I'm not a fan of those for Haley or Hutchison. There are certainly better ones out there for Haley. This photo her has her looking to the left with her head tilted up and kinda squinting, and it was hard for me to even recognize while scrolling that that was Nikki Haley's face I was scrolling past. I also don't love the angle we are seeing Hutchison from in his photo. SecretName101 (talk) 02:02, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not like Wikicommons is overflowing with images of these guys. As far as I can tell, besides from the ones currently being used, these are the images that could be used for them.

Nikki Haley

• 
  2020
• 
  2017
• 
  2017 - previously used and switched out

Asa Hutchison

• 
  2019
• 
  2019 - previously used and switched out

I'm hesitant to use anything from before 2016 since that would defeat the purpose of having a recent and relevant image of them. I think that the images used in the article are sufficient. Scu ba (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2023

Can someone edit reference #103 to be correct it shows missing title so please add |title=The Rules of the Republican Party and on reference #107 please fix the date to spelled out month date 4 digit year. Thanks.

2600:8801:CA05:EF00:EDD0:1731:CBFF:D3DD (talk) 03:28, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done – Callmemirela 🍁 03:58, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Splitting the Major Candidates section

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think we should split this up into major candidates and significant candidates, and then the minor candidates section left as is. It is taking up too much space to list Hutchinson, Elder and potentially others with Trump, Haley and Ramaswamy. I propose we add a polling threshold of 2% in at least 5 polls to be included as a major candidate. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

no, if there are a lot of major candidates then we just have to deal with that. the list is going to be getting shorter as the primaries go on as candidates drop out. I think we should keep the system we've been using in place. Scu ba (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's fine as it is. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:47, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Scu ba and David that things are fine as they are. At this point four years ago, 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries had 21 major candidates listed. The current list with only 5 major Republican candidates hardly can be said to be "taking up too much space". --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, if people are really concerned that the candidates list is "taking up too much space", then we could reduce the size of the candidates' photos and their campaign logos, which in turn would reduce the size of the table rows. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:35, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Some fair points, I didn't know the 2020 Democratic primary had that many candidates listed. I think it is a bit overkill and uninformative for the casual reader to group so many together, but it looks like I'm in the minority. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Marco Rubio

Robio never actually said he would not run for president, his staff only stated that he was still considering it and it was not a final no. I think he should be moved back to the "potential candidates" 2806:103E:D:5659:65C3:3781:CEBA:D420 (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

He was in potential candidates when I checked, I added his image to the gallery too, along with youngkin. Scu ba (talk) 02:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

When did his staff say he was considering it? I must admit I can't find anything recent that speculates on Rubio being a candidate. The interview with Rubio listed as a source in the article is pretty definitive. “I don’t have any plans to run for anything this year...he continued, noting that a presidential run isn’t something that can be decided quickly. “You’ve got to prepare yourself for that and have all the infrastructure in place. So I have no plans and intentions to do anything, run for anything over the next couple of years.” 79.78.91.188 (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

I still say that Rubio should be back in Potential candidates. He has said that it is not a complete no. And that he is still considering it. 2806:103E:D:66AF:6987:C1B9:41FE:880C (talk) 22:24, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Source? Twentytwenty4 (talk) 19:46, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

I Completely agree. Rubio has still to decline. 2806:103E:D:9361:AD05:2DC3:674A:9099 (talk) 22:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone help me move Rubio back to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:9BA5:E50B:7317:E744:9F48 (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have two sources saying he will run from after he declined to run in March? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:45, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Announcement/Decision pending

I feel like the announcement and decision pending sections should be consolidated. The difference between making an announcement and making a decision is somewhat insignificant. The wording for the decision pending section says “the following notable individuals are expected to make an announcement regarding their official candidacy within a set timeline.” How is that not the same thing as an announcement pending? We should consolidate the sections, or at the very least change the decision pending wording to clarify what counts as “decision pending” but not “announcement pending”. Prcc27 (talk) 19:35, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with consolidating the sections as "Announcement/Decision pending". It would simplify things for readers and editors alike, IMO. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that there is a clear difference between announcement pending, which means a specific date on which there will be an announcement, confirmed by the candidate or someone authorized to speak on their behalf like an official campaign spokesperson, versus decision pending, which means nonbinding comments, sometimes not even from the candidate, that a decision is likely by a certain point, sometimes a specific date, but could as much as a whole month (e.g. "by June"), and prospective candidates occasionally pass those dates without decision. If anything should be merged, it should be "decision pending" and "publicly expressed interest".Vrivasfl (talk) 22:58, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson Major Candidate Discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

A new large push by people has taken place to add him to the major candidate section. Let's stop edit warring over this and reach a consensus here. DragonLegit04 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Formal or Informal Dates for Announced Candidates?

I noticed that Asa Hutchinson's campaign launch date keeps getting moved between the informal (April 2) and the formal date (April 26). If we're going by formal dates, then Nikki Haley's would need to be moved to February 15th as that's when she formally declared at her rally in Charleston, South Carolina. February 14th was the day she announced via video online. DeSantis is scheduled to announce his run next week, but articles say he won't have a formal rally launch until the week after. Personally, I think the informal dates are fine as the candidates have donation pages on their established websites. Would like some feedback so we can settle on which date to use for each candidate. Alexjjj (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

The simplest and most objective option is to go by the FEC filing date, but I think the most accurate option is to go with the earliest date, so I say stick with the informal announcement dates Vrivasfl (talk) 03:01, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should pick one to list (probably the formal announcement), then add a footnote explaining the dating discrepancy in sources if there is one. Instead of trying to pick a date and ignore the rest, just explain to the reader why there's different dates in different sources. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we should go with when the candidate submitted FEC paperwork. That is legally when their campaign starts. Scu ba (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Is Robert O'Brien a potential candidate?

Former National Security Advisor under Trump, Robert O'brien has been subject to speculation about his higher ambitions (2024 presidential run), even as recently as the 2022 midterms. He has not denied interest in running and has yet to endorse anyone in the race, so it woulld be safe to add O'Brien in the "potential candidates" category. 2806:103E:D:1F28:F509:FDBF:7A0C:4D0F (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Potential candidates require two two separate references from reliable sources within the past six months. The 2022 midterms are now more than six months ago. The references should provide substantive discussion focusing on them as a potential candidate for this race, not a brief mention or just a list of numerous people. Hope this helps. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

do you have sources? Scu ba (talk) 20:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I do not believe anyone should be debating whether or not O'Brien should be considered a potential candidate. He has previously held significant office, had substantial media coverage and has expressed interest about running for president. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That expression of interest has to be from within the past six months. See the introduction to the Potential candidates section:

"As of May 2023, the following notable individuals have expressed an interest in running for president within the previous six months." David O. Johnson (talk) 01:51, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Doug Ducey in potential candidates?

I believe that Ducey qualifies to be in the "potential candidates" department, he has had various articles talking about him as a potential candidate. Mister Conservative (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe he does. In the year 2023, there has been no articles talking about him potentially being a candidate. Alexjjj (talk) 04:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I found a single WSJ article in their opinion section speculating on how he might be a good candidate. The consensus is, to be listed as a potential candidate, they would need two separate major and reliable news sources publishing articles on them and the prospect of running. So if you can find another than we might be able to add him to the list.

That being said, there is a lot more speculation that he is going to run for the 2024 United States Senate election in Arizona, despite him directly saying he wont. There is a multitude of articles still speculating on a possible run.

[4] [5] [6]

So in short. No. He needs another source. Scu ba (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Announcement pending Burgum

Is there a source that says Burgum explicitly stated he will be announcing? Shouldn’t we only add a candidate if they directly say they will make an announcement? We had a similar issue with Youngkin, albeit a significant difference being he had already declined before. Prcc27 (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I can't see any source in which he explicitly states he will be announcing, but there are probably a dozen reliable sources now reporting that he will, and he hasn't come out and disputed that. So, I think he should remain in announcement pending. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Chris Christie in Announcement pending

Is Chris actually gonna announce I only found one source that said he was? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:E401:C464:72A2:86AD (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

It said he will announce June 6th, so yes, announcement pending is the place to put him. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Experience

Should being in the military be listed as “experience”? Also, why do some candidates have long lists of experience listed? Was there a consensus on the limit of occupations we should list in the table, or do we have to discuss this further? Anything over 3 is an eyesore, IMO. Prcc27 (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Being in the military has never been in the list of experience if they are in the major candidates area. It should be removed Blake675 (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I mean, being in the military has been in the list of experience in other articles, but usually only when the person's last notable experience was their military experience. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

How many notable experiences should we list? I think we can drop it down to 2. Prcc27 (talk) 19:38, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Who changed the colors in the candidate box?

Can they please be reverted to what they were on 5/25/2023? WorldMappings (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks like an IP editor made the changes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&diff=next&oldid=1157444274 David O. Johnson (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I support changing the colors back, we need to be consistent, and there does not seem to be a good reason to change the colors. Prcc27 (talk) 20:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I changed the colors back. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After our last discussion, have we came to the conclusion that Perry Johnson qualifies for major canidate status 2603:8080:4D01:6516:15E2:B8B9:4C09:440D (talk) 02:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

He doesn't have any of the qualifiers to be a major candidate. Not enough media coverage. Not enough inclusion in polls. No prior significant office. Scu ba (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Larry Elder as a Major Declared Candidate

I think Larry Elder may not meet the requirements for being a Major Declared Candidate. Elder has never served in office nor has he appeared in five major national polls, so the only other requirement that he could meet to be on this page is to have appeared in five articles that meet the outlined consensus requirements which are that the articles are each 1. National 2. Unique, as in no syndicated articles 3. Reputable by WP:RSP 4. The article is not paid for by the candidate or any associated party 5. The main purpose of the article is to describe or announce the candidate's candidacy

I think we should review whether Elder meets this criterion. Perryj1622 (talk) 20:14, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

He got significant media coverage, so I would assume he qualifies. Prcc27 (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see the two previous discussions: 1 2. If consensus has changed, we can move him, but previous discussions were pretty in favor of listing him as a major candidate for having significant coverage. Also, as of now, Elder has appeared in at least 7 national polls (6 if you don't count FOX per the pending RFC on their politics reliability) on 538. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 20:32, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the sources and most of them look like they do not count, at least 4 for syndication, 2 for videos being cited as articles and a few others for the sources being unreliable per WP:RSP, but I do think he has at least 5 sources and I checked FiveThirtyEight and he does meet the standard for polling as well by appearing in at 7 national polls. Perryj1622 (talk) 05:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason for him to be removed, he has significant media coverage Scu ba (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. He is getting a lot of media coverage, has been in a few polls and is a notable person. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 18:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I had been getting skeptical of Elder as a major candidate, but he now has more than the 5 national polls needed to satisfy that criterion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

John Bolton

Since the six month deadline as stated in the publicly expressed interest section is approaching, should we consider moving John Bolton to potential candidates, espeically since there hasn't been much media speculation/further remarks from Bolton about a potential bid. 38.106.246.197 (talk) 21:18, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah I agree I think he should go in potential candidates 2603:6080:2105:AA26:70E9:D2B5:6EF8:E8A0 (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, the six month deadline is 8 weeks away. If so, that is not "approaching". --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

No, the 6 month rule also applies to potential candidates. 2A00:23EE:2500:91C0:964E:2740:4989:8297 (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

He said he hasn't ruled it out: https://grabien.com/story.php?id=425657 Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

I think he is clearly considering a run, but not sure if it is safe to say he has expressed “interest” in running. Prcc27 (talk) 16:49, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Steve Laffey in Declared Major Candidates

I think Steve Laffey should be in Declared Major Candidates because he did have office as Mayor of Cranston Rhode Island but what do you think? 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

I’m person who made this yes I made an account so reply to me instead. WONKAKlD (talk) 12:44, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree. There's been articles about him since he announced his campaign and remember for the 2020 Democratic primaries, Wayne Messam was considered a major candidate. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 13:02, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Messam was included in many polls though. So far, Laffey hasn't even been included in one national or state poll listed on FiveThirtyEight's website. Alexjjj (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Mayor of Cranston isn't a notable political office. He also doesn't have poll or media presence. Scu ba (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

I think Rogers should be moved to Publicly expressed interest. He's been decision pending since early April and just keeps blowing by the listed announcement dates Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 03:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Francis X. Suarez and Mike Rogers

If they run will they be Declared Major Candidates or not? WONKAKlD (talk) 10:39, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Rogers, as a former U.S. Representative, meets the current or former major officeholder criteria. Suarez meets the polling criteria. Vrivasfl (talk) 11:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Will Hurd Placement

Since Will Hurd's decision timeframe has passed and he hasn't given any indication on a new timeframe, does it make sense to move him from 'decision pending' to the 'publicly expressed interest' section? Alexjjj (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Vrivasfl (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

It’s past Memorial Day I don’t think he is gonna run. WONKAKlD (talk) 01:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Probably not, but we'll give him the benefit of waiting until he specifically says he isn't running, or the six-month rule takes effect, whichever comes first. Vrivasfl (talk) 14:32, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Liz Cheney mistakenly added to Declined candidates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Cheney was moved to decline candidates from potential candidates. The article that was the cause of this stated that Cheney had not "ruled out a presidential bid", it never said a thing about her declining to run. In fact, she has more than 5 articles all talking about her considering a presidential run. 2806:103E:D:D866:E918:230E:1ED1:9873 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that. I moved her to publicly expressed interest, from the articles currently circulating, that is the most fair thing to do. 2806:103E:D:D866:E918:230E:1ED1:9873 (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Cheney only discussed a third party run in the article:

"Speaking at the 2023 Mackinac Policy Conference in Detroit, Michigan, the three-term conservative was asked if she would consider a third-party campaign." David O. Johnson (talk) 00:35, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Were do you keep getting this stuff that Cheney won't run as a Republican, she was in potential candidates until last week, when she publicly expressed interest in running. I must admit, I couldn't find a thing where she has said she will not run as a Republican. Plus, unless she has left the Republican Party, then that would make no sense. 2806:103E:D:A84A:388F:FDAB:FC1D:C516 (talk) 22:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

It's in the same article: "Cheney said last year that she would not be a Republican on the ballot if she ran for the White House in the future." David O. Johnson (talk) 23:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Will not run as a Republican = declined for all intents and purposes for this article. Prcc27 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Colors for the remaining "Decision Pending" candidate (Francis X. Suarez)

Revised: Drawing inspiration from the 2016 Republican primary colors, much like Mathew McCullin, I have incorporated the unused color brown into Francis X. Saurez's potential campaign. In order to maintain a cohesive visual theme similar to McCullin's, I have ensured that Saurez's hues align with those of the other candidates.

Francis X. Saurez

Hex code	Percentage
#FDF5ED	<30%
#FCECDD	30–40%
#EED0B2	40–50%
#E4B78A	50–60%
#DA9F64	60–70%
#D1873D	70–80%
#A56B30	80–90%
#7C4F21	>90%

Expoe34 (talk) 20:16, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• I could get behind this. What color with Doug Burgum be? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits

User:Veganoregano, in your recent edit you:

• Added the candidacy of someone not deemed a "major candidate" per the criteria (Secretary of State is not a major office) to the lede - Elder and Ramaswamy are deemed notable by virtue of meeting the classifications in the "major candidates" section.
• Added candidates who have not declared yet and said that they have announced (one of which purportedly announced on a date that has not arrived yet!)
• Changed the "denied" section requirements to something you have no consensus to change it to, and something grammatically incorrect ("about a potential candidacy of them" is not grammatically correct).

Per WP:3RR, you're on the precipice of breaking the three-revert rule and are actively edit-warring to reinstate your preferred version. I invite you to self-revert. — ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:49, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If you find grammatical errors, modify them!? Say they "will " announce a campaign, change it to "about potentially being candidates." Why would you erase it? State Secretary of State is a significant office, but we have a disagreement there I suppose. To me it makes no sense that someone who's polling at 0% who's never held an office is included but not a former state sec of state Veganoregano (talk) 22:59, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Will would violate WP:CRYSTAL which is why we don't say "will announce." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:19, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

I do believe it is allowed when events are scheduled or near certain though right? Veganoregano (talk) 23:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's a tone and style thing, we don't know they will announce (things could change), we only know they say they will announce. It's typically more concise to convey this conditionality with words like "pending" than "has said they will." TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, my edits were to the potential section, not the denied. I made it more specific and with common sense as to not overlap with the denied section. Veganoregano (talk) 23:01, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Ted Cruz announced he was not running for president yet was on the potential list. The criteria of the section was nothing but two sources speculating a run about anyone. I simply specified it to say individuals who say they're not running shouldn't be in two sections at once, and obviously shouldn't be considered potential candidates, confusing the reader. Veganoregano (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source were Cruz says he's not running? the last discussion here resulted in him being moved from declined to potentially partially because no one gave a source where he said he wasn't running. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What Cruz stated was that he will be running for a third term in the senate in 2024, back in February. That makes it almost certain he's not running for any other office at the same time. That would be bizarre. POLITICO declared him "ruled out."

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/14/politics/ted-cruz-senate-2024/index.html

https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/ Veganoregano (talk) 23:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Did you read the source that was after his announcement of his re-election campaign and the footnote you removed that stated he can run for both if he chooses? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:23, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I didn't say he can't run for both, I said it would be bizarre and I've never heard of something like that before. People announcing they will seek a third term can be assumed to mean just that. Veganoregano (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Marco Rubio ran in both the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries and the 2016 United States Senate election in Florida; Corey Booker ran in both the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries and the 2020 United States Senate election in New Jersey. It is definitely not unheard of for someone to run both for re-election and in the presidential primary. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, with regards to Veganoregano's remark about not hearing of someone running for both the Senate and Presidency; perhaps two better examples (although for the Vice-Presidency) can be brought up, both from Texas (Lyndon Johnson running both for Vice-President and re-election to the Senate; winning re-election before becoming Vice-President, and Lloyd Bentsen doing the same runs for Vice-President and re-election, winning re-election while Bentsen and the candidate at the top of the ticket that time, Michael Dukakis, were defeated). WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:34, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I place Cruz in potential candidates once again, I only need help with the picture. 2806:103E:D:C3F9:2877:9E93:C15C:E55E (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one warring here? You raised this contention Veganoregano (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Corey Stapleton is a MAJOR candiate!

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2023/06/01/2024-us-presidential-candidates-election/9721684804723/ 2806:103E:D:D866:DDC5:BA79:B436:C003 (talk) 00:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

We've had this discussion, he isn't. Check back in the archive for more information. Also UPI is not on the WP:RSP and would require an entry in WP:RSN to determine if it is a reliable/major source. Scu ba (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

After quite a few discussions, I think the current consensus is he is not. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, ridicoulous that the page has decided Elder is and Stapleton is not Veganoregano (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but if we add Stapleton what should his color be? WONKAKlD (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest a Gold-yellow color and I think we should put him under Nikki Haley. WONKAKlD (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Look, I am sympathetic to the argument that Corey Stapleton is a major candidate and advocated so myself in past discussions (per the major office criteria), but the consensus has been on the other side for months. He was the first candidate to announce and has been in 0 polls, and that in itself is kinda telling. Rick Perry has 3 polls and hasn't announced. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

I have found more media coverage https://ballotpedia.org/Corey_Stapleton_presidential_campaign,_2024 WONKAKlD (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ballotpedia isn't really "media coverage," it's a more of a reference/tertiary source. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

• I could support adding Stapleton into major candidates. He's been getting more media coverage. The Hill, Yahoo, MSN. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Hill and Yahoo articles are the exact same article, and it's a list format that doesn't really report on the candidates or their campaign in a meaningful sense. Rather, it just pulls some quotes the author found online. The MSN article is a mere passing reference. Stapleton is specifically excluded from the chart of major candidates in that article. The tenor of these articles is exactly the type one would expect of minor candidates. Vrivasfl (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

We seem to be talking about trying to fit Corey into the criteria and not focusing on the faultiness of the criteria itself. Simply having attention paid to you doesn't make you a major candidate. The news gave Elder attention because he's an oddball, not because he's anybody's choice. I've thought about it and nobody's going to come back years later and care about sideshows. The candidate section is the top of the page, naturally it should be for important things. Like on the 2012 page where it's brief, I think the criteria should be changed to something like "Current or previous significant officeholder - or has received at least 1-5% in five national polls." As for the timeline, it shows the progression and heating up of the race so it should feature everybody, no criteria. Veganoregano (talk) 20:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Your suggestion is dangerously close to original research. It is not Wikipedia's job to question why the media is giving Elder attention. Rightly or wrongly, "having attention" actually does make you a major candidate, and in case you forgot, sometimes the oddball actually wins. Our job is not to question why the media and the pollsters are giving more attention to Elder than Stapleton, and it certainly isn't to create criteria to adjusts for this. We are here to say it like it is. Elder is a major candidate because the reliable sources we cite treat him as a major candidate by reporting on his campaign and including him in polls. Stapleton is a minor candidate because the reliable sources were cite treat him as a minor candidate by mentioning him only in passing and excluding him from polls. Vrivasfl (talk) 21:05, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

It's not original research to say we're not going to put people polling at 0.5% at the top of the page. Veganoregano (talk) 21:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Polling is fact based and this page is about a big poll that's going to happen in 2024. We also organize things for the reader. I'm saying there's a place where we can tell it like it is, and that's lower down the page where Stapleton and Elder and Burgum and such can go. Veganoregano (talk) 21:27, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I understand you argument is the current polling criteria, which is inclusion is five national polls is too generous. It should be inclusion in polls *and* a certain polling threshold. That a perfectly reasonable position, but I oppose it for the following reasons: (1) unclear which polls we should use, or if we should use an existing aggregate. If so, which? 538 is perhaps the most well-known aggregator, but this may cause further argument down the road; (2) more criteria creates more opportunity for needless arguments on the talk page, such as what the appropriate threshold should be, and we should strive to do less of that; and (3) I'm not sure it would accomplish the purpose of the article. The chance that Doug Burgum will be the nominee is basically zero, but that's true of everyone not named Trump or DeSantis. The chart is not "here are the people who actually have a shot," it's "here are the people who are being treated as serious contenders due to sustained and significant reporting on their campaigns and inclusion in polls." The current criteria accomplishes this. Vrivasfl (talk) 12:05, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Youngkin

What has happened to him?

Last I saw he was bouncing between potential candidate and declined candidate, now he isn't in either list. Was that the compromise reached?

92.16.56.134 (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the archives it seems we had listed him as potential since he'd "ruled out a run this year" but there is speculation of him announcing early next year. I'll re-add him now until we get a new consensus or a new source where he declines totally. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It looks like new information has come out since I created this topic, and Youngkin is deciding whether to run, he has been moved to decision pending. That seems to be the right place for him given the information available. 92.16.56.134 (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Youngkin himself hasn't expressed publicly that he's interested. The Axios article said it was a "top source close to Youngkin". I think he should go back to the 'potential' list until Youngkin comments publicly on the subject. Alexjjj (talk) 19:37, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think you have a point. Unless the information is coming directly from the candidate, it almost seems like glorified hearsay. Prcc27 (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Consensus can always change, but it's my understanding the "Declined" and "expressed interest" section are for when candidates themselves have said they're interested or said no. Conversely, the burden of proof for the potential candidate section is intentionally lower at media speculation (which is pretty much glorified hearsay, as you put it). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

For any editor wondering "what happened?": We listed him as potential, a few hours later an Axios (website) article came out quoting an adviser saying he was seriously reconsidering. Youngkin was briefly moved to "Public Expressed Interest," based on this report. However, editors moved Youngkin back to potential since he needs to express interest himself to be in the other section. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I think reports should not be considered, an individual's public statements/actions even if they were less recent should take precedence and define what section they are in. Axios simply said an anonymous source told them Youngkin is weighing it. One, just how reliable is that? Two, anybody can be weighing anything. Are they gonna do it though? Veganoregano (talk) 23:47, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Campaign start dates

This may be trivial but Doug Burgum effectively announced his campaign with this op-ed on the 6th. Are we recognizing the date of announcement or the date of fec filing? Elder announced on April 20th but did not file until May 1st. It looks like the timeline is recognizing the former and the major declared section is recognizing the latter.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/north-dakota-to-the-white-house-economy-energy-presidential-announcement-election-2024-candidate-552a70a0 Veganoregano (talk) 07:47, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Oh, and Burgum actually released a campaign video earlier on the 5th. Veganoregano (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I set up a discussion in the talk page a month or two ago about the subject and most agreed we should go with the FEC filing date. Alexjjj (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

RfC DeSantis Photo

There's been a constant back and forth over the image used for Ron DeSantis. Since his campaign announcement, his image has constantly changed. I think reaching a consensus here would be beneficial as it would give a justification to end a potential edit war. Here I'll lay out some options, but feel free to add more options you think look better. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

• 
  Option A (current)
• 
  Option B
• 
  Option C
• 
  Option D
• 
  Option E
• 
  Option F
• 
  Option G

• Option B or D I'll start off by suggesting that these two images are in better quality than the current image used. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

why are none of the options his actual official photograph Veganoregano (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

If you see the 2024 Dem primary page and this GOP primary page, there's this trend of not using official portraits onto these pages per the 2016 and 2020 primary articles. Also if his own wiki article isn't using an official photograph, why should this article use it? TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

Option B or C: The current option is low quality and honestly not a very good crop, especially compared to the other candidates' photos. Any of the remaining options would be better, though out of this bunch I'd rather go with B or C due to their recency. DukeOfDelTaco (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Option B: IMO, the best quality image of the given options. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 01:27, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Option B or D, but also open to using official portraits for DeSantis and all other candidates. Option B is good quality and has a good background, but his face is at an angle. Option D is good quality and at a good angle, but not a good background. Options F & G are honorable mentions. Whatever we choose, I am vehemently opposed to option C; I do not like the squinting. Also, this section says “RfC”, but it does not look like this has been made into a formal RfC..? We might not need to formally start one though.. Prcc27 (talk) 02:59, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Changing !vote to Option D or G per discussion below. Prcc27 (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Option B it is Veganoregano (talk) 06:16, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

• Option B adding on to the chorus of editors supporting it after the change has been made. Option G is fine too, but B already seems to be the consensus option. Oppose Option A. It's just a little weird to use in this context. It's a photo of him standing in front of a clearly visible Flag of Japan, which just seems slightly out of place when it was the photo we're using to depict him as a candidate for President of the United States and he has no meaningful relationship to Japan.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 01:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
• Option A, Option E or Option G: Because Option B is clearly one of the worst options. It is too dark and he's sideway-looking. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  That is honestly my biggest issue with it. Option E would be okay, if it wasn’t for the microphone in the way. Option A has too much squinting, and as someone already said, having the Japanese flag in the background is a little weird. I would be okay with option G though. Prcc27 (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  The Japanese flag is not recognizable as a Japanese flag in the cropped version though ... so of course it can be used. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 13:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  The newly cropped version is a little better in that regard, but it's still recognizable to me. Granted, I might just be used to recognizing it because I first saw the uncropped version of that photo. I still find B & G to be preferable images anyways. B seems to be the most popular in this discussion with 4 !votes expressing support, but the last 3 !votes supported G so it's possible it can emerge as a new consensus option if more people express the opinion that it is preferable to B due to the lighting or camera angle etc.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:49, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  I’m willing to change my !vote, option G works for me. Prcc27 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Guys it doesn't matter just pick one thing Veganoregano (talk) 00:00, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Colors of Burgum and Hutchinson?

Recently users have been going back and forth on if Hutchinson and Burgum's colors should remain Purple and Peach respectively, or to the updated Indigo and Pink color schemes. We need to find a consenus, so I'm proposing the question, which colors should we go with. Arguments for the new indigo and pink colors: These colors were chosen specifically because they are in good contrast with the rest of the canidate colors, and peach is too light for a shading spectrum. Arguments against the updated colors: They're the originals Expoe34 (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

the original colours are the ones which have the consensus currently, as I have stated to you multiple times Expoe there is 3 seperate above proposals on the talk page, you cannot unilaterally instate your own proposal which has received no wider community discussion or a vote/debate. Matthew McMullin (talk) 18:42, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The change was a given when we reached a consensus to update the colors to those that matched and contrasted, Matthew, you cannot (on several different occasions) change the colors to the ones you suggested, espically if no one has suggested we keep the initial colors. I will no longer engage in this "Edit-War" you're attempting with that, I will also be blocking and reporting you, good day Matthew. Expoe34 (talk) 18:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

I am not changing the colours to ones I suggest, I changed them back to the ones which have been in place since April, you did NOT reach a consensus and no matter how many times you repeat that it does not make it true, there was 3 seperate discussions about 3 seperate colours none of which saw a vote. if you want to block me that's fine but I'll once again implore you not to abuse the report system of wikipedia simply because I'm following protocol by not giving your suggestion precedent over the other 2 suggested changed on the talk page. Matthew McMullin (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

If we have too many talk page sections about the same thing, we'll never be able to determine a consensus from any of them. The agreement for the new color palette was reached at Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Proposed new color palette to put this issue to rest, we should be discussing the new colors there.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:18, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Which offices get bolded?

Looking at all the political party primary pages, going back to 1912. Which offices of the candidates should be bolded? The incumbent offices only? Or both the most recently held offices & incumbent offices? GoodDay (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

• I would prefer to bold the first-listed (i.e. most recently held) office or occupation, whether or not the person is an incumbent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:58, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
  • This is about the presidential race, the only one who should be bolded is Biden, as he is the incumbent (and this isn't a Biden thing, the incumbent should always be the only one bolded no matter who it is). Everyone else is coming for Biden's job. Bolding them would make them appear as equals to the president, which they aren't. There's only one "big chair", and right now Biden has it, and the rest are looking to knock him out of it. Vjmlhds (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

    I disagree with you. On all the other primary pages, we bolded every candidate’s most recent experience. If we go with your suggestion, the next presidential election with no incumbent will have no job experiences bolded. I think the bolding is helpfully, especially when there is a long laundry list of 3 occupations per candidate. It makes the most recent position stand out. Prcc27 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

    Also, this is the page for the Republican primary, where Biden isn't even one of the candidates. But I agree with Prcc27, and even on the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries page I would want to bold the most recent experience for Biden's opponents. Nobody is going to be confused and think that Biden isn't the incumbent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:11, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Will Hurd to announce his decision "as early as this week" (19-25 June)

"Former U.S. Rep. Will Hurd of Texas was also in New Hampshire earlier this week – his fourth visit so far this year. The former CIA spy who was the only Black Republican in the U.S. House during his six years in Congress is likely to launch a presidential campaign as early as next week."

https://www.concordmonitor.com/On-the-Trail-by-Paul-Steinhauser-GOP-battles-heating-up-as-Trump-faces-new-indictment-51337241

Someone please move him to "announcement pending" category. Thanks. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 04:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like this is a reliable source even though the second sentence is provably false. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

The source saying they are only “likely” to to make an announcement does not seem to meet the threshold, in my opinion. Prcc27 (talk) 05:01, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

This doesn’t seem to have any focus on Hurd and it doesn’t provide any source or explanation for this news, like “anonymous sources said” which is strange for an article. I can’t find anything else providing context to this or backing it up

And Hurd said over a month ago that ”anybody’s decision for their future in politics has to happen by Memorial Day” Veganoregano (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, we'll see what happens until 30 June ... if both Rogers and Hurd are not moving, both should be listed under "expressed interest to run" from 1 July onwards. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 19:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hurd just announced a presidential bid today. Mister Conservative (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This section of the page should probably be archived. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Rollan Roberts and Corey Stapleton should be major candidates if Richard Ojeda was in the 2020 Dem primaries page.

Ojeda was only a state senator, yet he made it onto the major declared candidates on the 2020 dem primaries page. Stapleton and Roberts are both state senators, so why aren't they included? Futhurmore, why was Roberts taken off the minor candidates list?! Sure, maybe he shouldn't be on major candidates, but not even minor candidates?! He's still running, you know! YangGang2024 (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• Rollan Roberts, who is a state senator, isn't running for president. His son, Rollan Roberts II, who is not a state senator, is running. [7] As of this writing, Roberts II isn't considered notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, so he doesn't even qualify for the minor candidates list. As to why Ojeda was listed as a major candidate but Stapleton isn't, it's because there was a discussion at Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 1 to tighten up the requirements to become a major candidate. Stapleton hasn't served in a high enough office to qualify as a major candidate automatically, so he would need to be included in at least 5 independent national polls or receive significant media coverage to qualify. To my knowledge, he has been included in zero polls so far. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:56, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  ok thanks YangGang2024 (talk) 17:45, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are potentially hundreds of people who are minor candidates and they can't all be here Veganoregano (talk) 20:48, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Doug Ducey in Potential candidates

This discussion is a bring-back WONKAKlD (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

The last discussion did not find 2 sources from the past 6 months. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

In the last discussion it was said that The consensus is, to be listed as a potential candidate, they would need two separate major and reliable news sources publishing articles on them and the prospect of running. That doesn't appear to be correct. 5 of the 6 sources for the current candidates listed in potential candidates are local or unreliable news sources. 92.12.12.233 (talk) 02:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

I think he they just stated the rule a little stricter than it actually is. I think we just need two reliable sources from the past 6 months and a lack of contradicting sources (like a source where the candidate explicitly declines). TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2023 (UTC) edited TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 06:12, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Some declined candidates still being subject to speculation and being discussed as potential candidates.

Among some of the "declined candidates", are names that have continued to be tossed around as potential candidates in the last days. Rick Scott, Marco Rubio, Brian Kemp: https://www.newarab.com/news/look-prospective-2024-us-presidential-contenders I believe they need to be re-added to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:B06D:9190:4664:251E:D574 (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

That site isn't listed on the reliable sources page Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. You would have a better case if you could find some speculation in reliable sources. The site you linked even lists Larry Hogan who couldn't have been more clearer that he isn't running for the Republican nomination. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 20:13, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I feel like Marco Rubio should be in Potential Candidates but that’s just me. 2603:6080:2105:AA26:950A:E67C:38D1:C8D0 (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I agree completely. Marco Rubio never gave a complete, flat no, when asked about it, in fact, some sources say he avoided the question. He should be moved back to "Potential candidates" 2806:103E:D:C40F:F593:D145:EF9F:4EAF (talk) 17:49, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

But we can’t change it without people doing revisions on our edits. 2603:6080:2105:AA26:24C8:2F05:A6D6:C1D7 (talk) 11:33, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

What's the position of Rubio advocates,that saying you're not running is different to saying you have no plans to run? 2A00:23EE:14E0:8DD9:F680:1B88:5C45:4F0D (talk) 12:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

EXACTLY WONKAKlD (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Our last discussion didn't find any sources were Rubio said he would run after he was reported as declining in March. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:11, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

It's the end of candidate joining season and you guys are looking way too deep into this. No major names are coming in that haven't come in already. Regardless, just because there's some article from a random source lying around that chose to include them on a list doesn't mean anything. Isn't this a "kitchen sink?" The rule if I remember it correctly is multiple reputable sources that actually focus on the individual possibly running. Veganoregano (talk) 03:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Source quality matters. Rubio has declined by any reasonable interpretation of "I have no plans and intentions to do anything, run for anything over the next couple of years." It will take at least two reliable sources with a quote from Rubio or at least his staff or an advisor or someone close to the individual walking that comment back, which is what happened with Youngkin. Otherwise, he stays in declined. Vrivasfl (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate Color Shades

Currently all candidates are different shades that vastly rade on shade, with ome having a 40-50 shade while others use the 70–80% shade, I feel this leads to the candidate's page feeling like a disorganized mess, with very few colors complimenting/balancing the others out. Thus, I'd like to open a discussion to change all candidates colors (barring trump) to a uniform shading. 2603:8080:4D01:6516:69B3:3DE9:E498:9735 (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

• You would be best off continuing the discussion which is still on this page at #Candidate colors/gradients. That way, your comments will be much closer on this page to where the colors are being illustrated. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I made all candidate colors same shade WONKAKlD (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate Colors and Rules

Candidate colors have gone back and forth and we need to define DEFINITIVELY the colors for each candidate. It was mentioned that the colors should be the same shade but this make Ramaswamy and Suarez look very similar and Burgum and DeSantis look Very Similar. Try looking at both the colors side by side before choicing a color for a candidate. There also NEEDS to be rules for Major/Minor Candidates that EVERYONE can agree on to end the back and forth about Perry Johnson for example MarblePolitics (talk) 14:01, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I now see what you mean I think we need to talk to Matthew McMullin about the color situation and for the Major/Minor candidates situation we need to get everyone to agree that Perry is not a major candidate WONKAKlD (talk) 16:41, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Also Even Matthew McMullin said he thinks we should use 70-80% I think people who redo edits like this just like to make edits WONKAKlD (talk) 17:04, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Mike Rogers

Found an article from "The State", says Rogers is to jump in this summer.

HurricaneKappa (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I think his deadline should be summer 2023 and not June 2023. 2806:103E:D:D866:E918:230E:1ED1:9873 (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Can't read it because it's paywalled, but unless it's a direct statement from him and more recent (April or later) his statement on CBS should be the final word. He said "late spring-early summer" and "May or June" Veganoregano (talk) 23:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

March 30th - youtube.com/watch?v=N1-mn0J-Qwk&ab_channel=CBSNews Veganoregano (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should move Rogers to "publicly expressed interest" after 30 June if nothing else happens. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 03:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

agreed Veganoregano (talk) 03:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

same HurricaneKappa (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Significance of Trump's federal indictment

At this point, I think it is fair to say that the federal indictment of Donald Trump has become a galvanizing flashpoint of the Republican primary campaign. In addition to the event itself dominating international headlines, there is substantial reporting on the responses of other campaigns, with these responses ranging across an entire spectrum from Chris Christie and Asa Hutchinson hammering Trump on it to Vivek Ramaswamy pledging to pardon Trump, to attempts to strike various middle ground poses in between. The event has also appears to have reshaped the polls, with Trump pulling further ahead against all primary candidates. In short, this appears to be shaping up to be the defining issues of the contest to this point. I think it would be reasonable to have a section in each candidate's campaign article describing the coverage of their specific response (or non-response) to the event. BD2412 T 06:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Candidate pictures

Is there guidelines on pictures for the candidates? The pictures seem to be changing every few days for all candidates and is getting a bit annoying. Blake675 (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

In past elections I’ve seen RfCs on candidate photos. Might be needed again to avoid edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

I have been trying to put in the best pictures but they keep being taken down. 96.230.191.203 (talk) 01:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

I think we should just have them be their most recent official photos/portraits for those who have them. I mean, that's the highest authority there is. They made those for a purpose, they'll be flattering, and that's the way they want to present themselves to the world. Veganoregano (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

That works for me. Prcc27 (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2023 (UTC)

https://ballotpedia.org/Republican_presidential_nomination,_2024

Ballotpedia chose great pictures, and they have an actually good one for Elder Veganoregano (talk) 23:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I Agree Ballotpedia has good pictures so I think we should use those WONKAKlD (talk) 11:00, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

I’m starting to get uncomfortable with Hurds picture I don’t like how he is all sweaty… WONKAKlD (talk) 18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

He actually has grey hair now Veganoregano (talk) 08:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Adjusting autoarchive?

Would anyone object to the autoarchive counter being adjusted to 10 days, instead of the current 14 days? It would cut down on the amount of discussions. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I think we need to start closing and archiving duplicate discussions. Like the time they're here isn't as big of a problem as we have 3 open discussions on Corey Stapleton, 3 on Perry Johnson, and 2 on Roland Roberts II. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

No objections, this talk page is a monstrosity Veganoregano (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Will Hurd officially in.

Will Hurd announced his campaign for President today:

https://apnews.com/article/will-hurd-2024-republican-presidential-primary-710f6f0d4bb6cc1f5046e20ed17ef602

He must be listed under major contenders, right ? Having served in the US House. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

He would definitely qualify. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Official FEC filing: https://docquery.fec.gov/cgi-bin/forms/C00843540/1708715/

Official website: https://www.willbhurd.com/ Glasperlenspieler (talk) 12:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

This can be his color #c5b634 JustAChickenPotPie (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Brian Kemp still considering presidential bid, subject to speculation.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/05/17/new-poll-shows-how-brian-kemp-stacks-up-against-other-republicans-2024/ Kemp is still being speculated about, his intentions about running are still not very clear. I would recommend returning him to "Potential candidates" 2806:103E:D:48B:0:0:0:3 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm fine with that Perryj1622 (talk) 01:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think this source is better than the Wall Street Journal reporting a direct no from Kemp in March. News speculation and polling doesn't outweigh a direct no. Especially because this article says his office made no comment. If they had said "Maybe" or "He's considering it," then maybe we should update it. But not based on this source. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

https://nowhabersham.com/a-kemp-presidential-run-in-2024-advisor-says-things-can-change-quickly/ 2806:103E:D:BF71:507B:769:CE19:67BF (talk) 02:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Hall said that he does not “actively” expect a 2024 U.S. presidential run from Kemp but is open to the possibility. I don't think this is super persuasive that he's a potential candidate either. He said no in March and his advisor says he's not expecting a run in May. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I concur with TulsaPoliticsFan. We do not move someone out of the declined section if they have not recanted their initial declination. Prcc27 (talk) 03:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with TulsaPoliticsFan, Kemp in plain white and black text said no. The media can speculate on a campaign all they want, but until he personally changes things we should keep him in declined. Scu ba (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Other candidates such as Noem and Carlson have also said no, but the media continues to speculate, thus they are in "potential candidates", in the lalst week, 3 seperate articles have commented of Kemp as a potential candidate in 2024. Mister Conservative (talk) 23:50, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you have sources for Noem's no? I'm fine removing her if we have a source for a direct no. Also, I believe, Tucker Carlson was in the declined based on his no until he left Fox which is an unique situation that is not really comparable to Kemp. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I was not implying that Noem should be removed, only that Kemp should be added. I think both are still subject to speculation. Mister Conservative (talk) 01:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There are a lot of democrat candidates in the same situation as Kemp, declined to run but still speculated over. They would need to be relisted as potential candidates if Kemp is listed as such. 92.16.56.134 (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Kemp is listed in the Declined section, though (as he should be). No matter what the speculation is, if a person has outright declined a presidential run, they go in the Declined section.David O. Johnson (talk) 22:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

greed. If they are subject to speculation about a potential candidacy then they should be relisted as potential candidates.a 2806:103E:D:C9B7:4461:E5AE:0:C9FC (talk) 22:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Brian Kemp keeps getting re-added to Potential candidates section

A user keeps adding Brian Kemp to the Potential section, without reason.

First edit: [8], second edit: [9], third edit: [10]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

He has walked back his previous comments and left the door open[11] Twentytwenty4 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like a change in his stance since the last discussion was closed. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Where does he walk back his declination though? Seems pretty vague to me. Prcc27 (talk) 05:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

It was a direct no before, now it's no plans, but anything can happen. Back in March I had ruled him out, but this new stance and the continued media speculation has changed that. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 13:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson just got 1% in a poll- has he been in any others? Because I want to know how close he is to the five needed to be a major candidate.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

yep YangGang2024 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I counted 3 polls that Johnson was in. I think that as soon as he reaches 5 polls, if he ever does we should consider him a major candidate MarblePolitics (talk) 23:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Johnson appears to have 5 different national polls from 3 different pollsters on 538 as of today. His polling average is less than 1%, but he appears to have been in 5 national polls. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:21, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Wiki page on opinion polling only has three polls I believe, MarblePolitics (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Well, than why isn't he on major candidates?! YangGang2024 (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

That's interesting and would be convincing if true, could you highlight which polls you're referring to? I clicked around on a few random ones on that page and didn't find mentions of him, nor is he listed on the candidate polling graph.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:07, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

If you type a candidates last name into the "search polls" box on 538 it returns only the polls they're in. For Johnson we have Quinnipiac (Mar. 9-13; 0%), Quinnipiac (Mar. 23-27; 0%), Cygnal (Mar. 26-27; 0.4%), Quinnipiac (May 18-22; 0%), and Big Village (June 9-14; 1%) listed on FiveThirtyEight. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I didn't notice that feature until you pointed it out to me. You're right, 5 polls do come up when you search Johnson. Taking a look at each of the ones you linked, I was able to find where in the polls he's mentioned in 4 out of 5 of them; I'm having a hard time noticing where he's mentioned in the Cygnal poll, but I trust that there's a reason why 538 put it there and I must've juts missed it. I recommend directing people's attention to it at Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries#Revisiting Perry Johnson as a Major Declared Candidate Again (unfortunately this is one of the most unorganized talk pages I've ever seen with way too many separate talk sections about the same things, which makes it really hard to gauge consensus on anything)  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 18:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the Cygnal poll is in a pdf that you can't control F. It's page on 22 here. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

New colors for candidates

Some candidate colors are WAY to similar to each other so I decided to propose some new colors

Francis X Suarez

Hex code	Percentage
#ebf7e6	<30%
#d6efce	30–40%
#a4d695	40–50%
#74bd5d	50–60%
#47a52b	60–70%
#218d00	70–80%
#1a7000	80–90%
#135300	>90%

Doug Burgum

Hex code	Percentage
#ecfafa	<30%
#daf5f4	30–40%
#ace1df	40–50%
#80cfcd	50–60%
#52beba	60–70%
#1cada8	70–80%
#168985	80–90%
#0f6563	>90%

WONKAKlD (talk) 23:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Can someone fix this I don’t know how to WONKAKlD (talk) 23:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

The Burgum color just looks like Elder and Scott and Suarez looks like Pence. MarblePolitics (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Table format is now fixed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 02:12, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

We have too many green colored candidates as-is. If we were to use the green color you used for Youngkin, that'd make it even more difficult to tell all the candidates apart, and the suggestion to change Suarez and Burgum to colors we're already using would even further exacerbate readability and accessibility issues. We can't have every candidate be green.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 05:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

You can tell from Burgum , Elder and Scott but with Francis you have a good point but what color do you guys think I should change Francis too? (Also thanks spiffy sperry) WONKAKlD (talk) 11:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Maybe like Lilac? MarblePolitics (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

These colors are even less unique than the ones we currently have in place, all it does is add another Green (We already have Christie and Pence) and blue (Which we already have Elder and Trump) Expoe34 (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Glenn Youngkins 2024 color

Glenn Youngkin (should he run)

Glenn Youngkin = (should he run)

Hex code	Percentage
#f6f9e0	<30%
#eef3c1	30–40%
#d3dd7c	40–50%
#b9c837	50–60%
#a0b200	60–70%
#8c9c00	70–80%
#717d00	80–90%
#555e00	>90%

WONKAKlD (talk) 13:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

That'd be 4 candidates sharing the color green, that might get a bit confusing. I recommend referencing 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries for an example of how to color-code candidates when the field gets too crowded.

Right now we have:

-      Red (darkish, slightly maroonish): DeSantis

-      Red (not quite pink not quite red): Rogers of Bolton should they run

-      Orange (slightly dark and desaturated): Haley

-      Yellow (a rather ugly shade of it, too dark and desaturated): Ramaswamy

-      Green (regular): Christie

-      Green (somewhat lime): Pence

-      Green (slightly teal): Scott

-      Green (a very slightly olive lime): Youngkin should he run and this color be used

-      Blue (lighter): Elder

-      Blue (navy): Trump

-      Purple (bright, with a small hint of magenta): Hutchinson

-      Peach (not that far off from the rogers/bolton color proposal): Burgum

-      Brown: Suarez

These current colors have very poor contrast in my opinion. We could improve readability by using more basic colors and intermediate colors, and by keeping in mind accessibility guidelines for colorblind readers. We should consider using bolder colors instead of shades of green that only somewhat lean towards being teal (e.g. just use teal), etc. Adding yet another green color (this time one that'd be quite hard to tell apart from Pence's) is not ideal.

I think we should have a discussion about potentially replacing almost all of these colors with better ones. It really seems like these hues were picked randomly without much thought going into how well they'd work with the rest of them.

 Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree, most these colors were picked only once the canidate announced their bid, and no color was picked ahead of time, thus the colors look out of place, and poor contrast with eachother Expoe34 (talk) 03:50, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to keep it diverse we go with this:

-      Blue Trump

-      Brown Saurez

-      Green Scott

-      Yellow Ramaswamy

-      Lavender Pence

-      Orange Haley

-      Blue Elder

-      Red DeSantis

-      Green Christie

-      Pink Burgum

-      Purple Hutchinson

It's still distinct even on the different colorblind sprectrums Expoe34 (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

I say we should have a vote on weather or not Perry Johnson and Corey Stapleton should be in the major candidates. Should I make a google form?

It seems to be very split, and a vote would finally settle it. YangGang2024 (talk) 19:12, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:19, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Shameful YangGang2024 (talk) 20:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@YangGang2024: Based on this response, it appears that you do not understand the purpose and function of this encyclopedia. BD2412 T 18:09, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also shameful YangGang2024 (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

I've fought for stapleton but there's a bunch of people here with sticks up their ass referencing random rules Veganoregano (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

yES, LET}S HAVE A VOTE, ON A GOOGLE FORM 8.243.213.122 (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

We both do and don't "vote" when making decisions on Wikipedia, it's a little weird to explain. We call them "!votes", which is pronounced not-votes. What this means is that, on the one hand, the option that gets the most support is more often than not going to be the consensus option (as consensus is the fundamental method of decision-making on Wikipedia, but at the same time, Wikipedia is not a vote and the rationale or arguments provided for a certain option matter more than the shear number of users expressing support for an option. That is to say that users simply saying "support" or "oppose" followed by nothing doesn't really matter; you need to provide an explanation for your stance in order for your "vote" to count. One last thing, we don't use external websites like Google Forms, we do everything right here on the Wikipedia talk pages. If you want to hold "a vote" on a matter, consider starting a Request for Comment. Hope that cleared some things up for some of the newer editors.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 20:10, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes very helpful. I would lean towards supporting Perry Johnson as he has more notable endorsements than Hutchinson and Elder. I would lean against supporting Corey Stapleton as I don't see him mentioned by the media as often, however I could change my mind if a convincing argument is put forward.

Bring on the !votes 2.103.101.154 (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson yes, Corey Stapleton no. 2806:103E:D:1D8B:FD48:AA74:F100:DE38 (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It seems like the current criteria we're going off of for listing a candidate as a "major candidate" is that a candidate must meet one or more of the following criteria: campaign has received substantial major media coverage; current or previous holder of significant elected office; have been included in at least five national polls. Does anyone have citations demonstrating that either of these two have met said criteria?  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson technically meets the media criteria,see Perry Johnson discussion above. 2A00:23EE:14E0:8DD9:F680:1B88:5C45:4F0D (talk) 15:39, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I've read the discussion above a few times and I see no consensus on whether or not he meets the substantial media coverage criteria and that he's one poll short on the polling criteria. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

How can someone "technically" meet a subjective criterion like "has received substantial major media coverage"? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Oppose both because they haven't met any of the criteria. Stapleton is a good example as to why the "significant elected office" criterium is limited to President, VP, Governor, Senator or Representative. Only those people are, basically without exception, automatically treated as major candidates. Despite once holding statewide elected office, no one will give Stapleton the time of day. He is not even close to major. Johnson is on the cusp. He has been included is some polls, and he has received some national news coverage, but I believe it falls short. Substantial media coverage means to me that it is overwhelming enough that any reasonable person would have to conclude the person is being treated as a major candidate. It is a high burden. Vrivasfl (talk) 00:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I watched a Fox News video and at begging it showed pictures of 11 Republican candidates and Perry Johnson was on there 64.255.149.196 (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Sure. He's a candidate. Being a major candidates involves a lot more than being included on a list of candidates. Vrivasfl (talk) 12:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Stapleton seems like a no to me. As for Perry Johnson, at least one major media source (Politico) seems to be treating him as a major candidate. See https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/02/first-gop-debate-qualification-00100080/ , https://www.politico.com/interactives/2023/republican-candidates-2024-gop-presidential-hopefuls-list/ , and https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/03/roast-and-ride-iowa-gop-primary-00100095 . I'm not sure if one source alone is enough to qualify as "substantial major media coverage," but it's something. Jacoby531 (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/07/rnc-debate-rules-small-donors-00100637

Politico called Perry a "longshot" Veganoregano (talk) 00:59, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

They called Burgum and Suarez “longshots” I support Johnson as a major candidate MarblePolitics (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

This feels like WP:DEADHORSE territory. It has already been discussed and determined, more than once, that neither are major candidates. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:56, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

^Agreed. This does indeed feel like a case of WP:DEADHORSE. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:15, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

And as for Perry Johnson absolutely not Veganoregano (talk) 00:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson absolutely meets the criteria needed to be a major candidate, but I will staunchly oppose adding Stapleton to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:E7E7:BC36:CC33:A43:F1FD (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson absolutely meets the criteria needed to be a major candidate, but I will staunchly oppose adding Stapleton to potential candidates. 2806:103E:D:E7E7:BC36:CC33:A43:F1FD (talk) 23:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

I would say that both meet the criteria needed to be a major candidate, and again, many articeles are treating Perry Johnson as a major candidate. In fact, some of the other candidates have mentioned Perry Johnson along side other candidates names and have attacked him, the only reason they would do that is because they consider him a serious aka major candidate. 2806:103E:D:E7E7:BC36:CC33:A43:F1FD (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Can anyone point to even one reliable source which explicitly calls either of them a "major" candidate? Ann Teak (talk) 23:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

• I've got a reliable source that explicitly calls Perry Johnson not a major candidate. This article from FiveThirtyEight.com says (at note 1): "One name you might not recognize in the table below is Perry Johnson. He’s a businessman running a quixotic presidential campaign who, decent fundraising aside, doesn’t qualify as a major candidate by our definition." --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  I think Perry Johnson is a major candidate, he has been included in at least 5 polls, and has had substantial media coverage. It could be argued that he has never held elected office before, but then again neither has Larry Elder, Vivek Ramaswamy or even Donald Trump back in 2016. 8.243.213.122 (talk) 15:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  With all due respect, I am looking for independent reliable sources, not opinions. Ann Teak (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

  Johnson has only two national polls listed at Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  For what its worth, Big Village just dropped a poll that included Johnson. Going by FiveThirtyEight, he has five national polls. I think he squeaks in now. Vrivasfl (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  Yep! 8.243.213.122 (talk) 20:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

  He has definitely not had substantial coverage Veganoregano (talk) 02:07, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

The BBC [12] . They've not used those exact words but 'Trump's top challengers' is effectively the same thing. 92.16.61.17 (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Perry Johnson is not a major candidate

Perry Johnson should be removed from the candidates list. He is not an elected official or someone with major notoriety. If he is included, then candidates such as Corey Stapleton should also be included as Stapleton at least has a successful electoral history (statewide at that). Johnson has also not received any kind of consistent inclusion in political polling for the 2024 republican primary. There is little reason at all to include him in this list. Rjeremygolden (talk) 01:27, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done - Candidates listed under the "Major Candidate" box are only required to meet one of the agreed upon criteria for being considered major. One of these criteria is being included in at least 5 national polls, and as of recently, Perry Johnson met this criteria. If you believe this criteria should change, you are welcomed to propose a new criteria here, but that is something that cannot be done through an edit request as it would require a consensus.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)

be quiet YangGang2024 (talk) 22:21, 25 June 2023 (UTC)