[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Channard (talk | contribs) at 21:38, 23 January 2024 (→The color coding of candidates is in error: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Canidate Colors/Gradients (Updated)

With Matthew McMullin, the former head Wikipedia editor responsible for updating the candidate color shading page, stepping away from the project due to disputes and conduct disagreements with other users, the page has remained neglected for nearly a month. Since the page hadn't seen any updates, discussions among Wikipedia users took place on the talk page, resulting in an agreement to overhaul the candidate colors. However, this overhaul wasn't executed, leaving the page outdated in terms of new entrants and prominent candidates such as Hurd, Johnson, and Binkley.

In light of this situation, I, a frequent contributor to this Wikipedia page, have taken the initiative to undertake the task of overhauling the candidate shadings. The goal is to provide a more accurate representation and include additional shading for candidates who have garnered prominence and have been featured on the main candidates page.

As a result, I have restructured the original "Candidate colors/gradients" section, to remove it as the main discussion, as it has since been abandoned. This separation acknowledges that this space now serves as the primary hub for discussions concerning candidate color representation. - Expoe34 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (CST)

All colors are taken from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/USA_legend_colors/proposals/2023a_all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums/USA_legend_colors/proposals

·Edit 1: With Saurez out of the race, I gave his more distinct brown color to Binkley, whose shading was a tad too similar to DeSantis and Burgum.- Expoe34 (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2023 (CST)

·Edit 2: Removed Suarez and have given his color to Ryan Binkley (Previously light red) Expoe34 (talk)

·Edit 3: I have removed Hurd and Given his color to Perry Johnson, as per the Wikipedia page. In addition, I have given Stapleton a more distinct red shading - Expoe34 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 3: With Corey Stapleton out of the reace, I gave his color to Perry Johnson. - Expoe34 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 4: Removed Perry Johnson - Expoe34 (talk) 17:07, 13 October 2023 (CST)

·Edit 4: Removed Binkley along with all withdrawn candidates so far - Expoe34 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2023 (CST)

Expoe34 (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now that Suarez has withdrawn before the primaries, should we free up his color and give it to someone else? Maybe Burgum or Binkley because they have fairly similar colors. QuailWatts (talk) 20:27, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good Idea! I've since made the tweak to Binkley's color Expoe34 (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The colors for DeSantis and Haley seem fairly similar to me. Could one of them be assigned a different color scheme? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, especially as Haley and Ramaswamy look similar as well, but do you have any suggestions of what to change it to? I'm having trouble finding a better color for Haley. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:47, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Przemysl15, can you be more specific, which shades do you find similar? Expoe34 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Metropolitan90, do you mean for the <30% shade, as by comparing them directly, I can see where there's some confusion. However, for the deeper shades, they're starkly different even when I tested color blind settings. Expoe34 (talk) 00:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. territories ballot access

The table on ballot access for each candidate should include primaries and caucuses in the U.S. territories as well (Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa). I'm not sure how to edit the table myself. FireflyNV (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

States and territories are only added when the state GOP or secretary of state announces who is on the ballot. I'm not too sure on how the "territorial conventions" work, though. Longestview (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Colorado ballot access status change

Due to recent developments in legal cases, I believe it's pertinent to change Donald Trump's primary ballot access status for the state of Colorado.

Trump has formally appealed the Colorado decision to SCOTUS on January 3rd.

Per the Colorado ruling, Paragraph 7:

"Therefore, to maintain the status quo pending any review by the U.S. Supreme Court, we stay our ruling until January 4, 2024 (the day before the Secretary’s deadline to certify the content of the presidential primary ballot). If review is sought in the Supreme Court before the stay expires on January 4, 2024, then the stay shall remain in place, and the Secretary will continue to be required to include President Trump’s name on the 2024 presidential primary ballot, until the receipt of any order or mandate from the Supreme Court. "

As review has been sought before the deadline, the stay will remain and Trump's name will appear on the ballot.

While it may be inaccurate to say Trump is definitively on the primary ballot in Colorado, stating that he is not is also misleading. Therefore I believe that Trump (and in turn, Ramaswamy) should be at least marked in a yellow color to most accurately signify this status. 97.116.41.53 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll go ahead and change Ramaswamy and Trump to the green checkmark for the Colorado listing in the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates#Ballot access. (I'll also revise the wording in the footnote regarding Trump). If anything changes in the future, we can update it at that point. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump is officially on the Colorado ballot

This must be changed to light green, but leave the footnote in.

https://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/newsRoom/pressReleases/2024/PR20240105BallotCert.html

Trump will be printed on the ballots for now, because yesterday was the final day to finalize the ballot. If the Supreme Court of the US rules after February 8 (their hearing) that Trump is not qualified, his votes will not be counted according to Sec. of State Griswold. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VP speculation article

Hi,

Scu_ba, re: your edit summary [1] asking about the Republican VP speculation article; it was moved to draft space [2] after an AFD about it back in September [3].

Hope it helps. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@David O. Johnson Ah thanks! I must've missed that! Scu ba (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christie on the Ballot Access table

What's the deal with Christie remaining on the ballot access table with his name italicized? Shouldn't he just be moved to the Others column since he's dropped out before voting even started? Kevingates4462 (talk) 10:06, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the rationale is that Christie dropped out past the various deadlines to be removed from the ballot, so even though he has dropped out, his name will remain on the various ballots. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Anthony Castro

I see that John Anthony Castro has been removed from the major candidate's section, yet I cannot find any discussion on this removal plus with his recent arrest he has generate drew headlines.  Casper king (talk) 22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe Castro has been listed as a major candidate here. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Castro was never in the major candidates, and probably never will be. Scu ba (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binkley (and other Candidates in General.)

So. Is Binkley a Major Candidate? I Saw He was put there for a short while. Maybe we should put a "Other Candidates" or something. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not. There was a discussion about it last year [4] (there were a few, in fact). The "Other candidates" section already exists at the Candidates article: [5] article, but that portion is intentionally not included here on the primaries article, as I believe it would give them undue weight, per WP:UNDUE. (Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on the UNDUE point). David O. Johnson (talk) 00:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Noted. Thanks for Clarifying. InterDoesWiki (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Binkley and Hutchinson on the infobox

I saw someone added Ryan Binkley and Asa Hutchison on the infobox and I have removed it as both candidates got 0.7% & 0.2% respectively in Iowa which is not even somewhat significant, I'd like to get consensus though on making it so that candidates at the very least need to obtain delegates to get onto the infobox. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not put (withdrawn) underneath Ramaswamy's name in the infobox?

In my opinion putting something like "[a]" next to his name would confused too many people who don't read further into the page, and instead think that he ran all the way until the convention. Plus, "(withdrawn)" was used in the infobox for the 2016 Republican primaries, so why not 2024? CY223 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should Binkley be considered a major candidate now?

Ryan Binkley received 0.7% of the vote in the Iowa caucuses, beating former Governor Asa Hutchinson and outperforming Rick Santorum and Martin O'Malley's 2016 showings. I wasn't a fan of Binkley being considered a major candidate before tonight but now I think it's at least worth a discussion. 2601:18D:C180:7D20:3C0F:E662:302B:37A7 (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an RFC about it last year [6]; the conclusion of it was that he is not a major candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The question is whether he should be considered major now, not last year. In my opinion it's pretty clearly inaccurate to include Hutchinson as a major candidate but not someone who's had four times as many votes as him. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hutchinson was a major candidate, as he was the governor of a state. He unequivocally fits the criteria. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that moreso represents a failure on the part of Hutchinson than a success on Binkley. 774 voters is not a lot of people. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:28, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still, he defeated Hutchinson - who actually attended one of the debates, and served as Governor. It's ridiculous not to add him after that. 181.194.228.243 (talk) 18:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be ridiculous to include him. He is, by no stretch of the imagination, a major candidate. the only reason why anyone would ever talk about him, especially in the media, is a quick "haha look at this random Texas pastor who beat a governor who spent millions running" and that's it, there is nothing more to Binkley, and there never will be. Scu ba (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To Binkley become a major candidate, he would need to have substantial media coverage. Recently, he had articles on Politico, Yahoo News, The Washington Times, USA Today (twice), Des Moines Register, the Telegraph, Newswire, C-Span and was mentionned by the Independent Punker85 (talk) 22:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That Yahoo article is just a republication of the Des Moines Register article, so it wouldn't count. The NewsWire article is a press release, so that one likewise doesn't count. The article from the Independent is a "kitchen sink" listing of all candidates, so that one wouldn't make the cut either. The rest of the articles look good, at first glance. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:46, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still. The Rest of the articles along with the Iowa caucus should be enough evidence or close to enough for Major candidate status. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 22:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. If you get less than 5% of the vote, in an election with 15% turnout, you aren't a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many votes did binkley get? 174.106.224.196 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Binkley Got 774 Votes on the Iowa Caucus. More than Hutchinson. Who got 191 votes. Christie (who withdrew Beforehand) and others. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about 774 individual votes, I've had college lectures that where close to that. Binkley got 0.70% of the total vote share and I know from my use of Template:Infobox election that you need to get 5% or more of the vote to be considered a major candidate, unless other qualifications where established. And we did the latter. And we determined that Binkley isn't major. Scu ba (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ryan Binkley is unequivocally a major candidate 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He should have been considered such even before Iowa. He consistently polled ahead of Hutchinson and Burgum even then. 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how he was polling, we determined that it is media coverage that determines notability, and as such, Binkley should not be counted as a major candidate. Scu ba (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open up another RFC, until then, he isn't a major candidate, and I will personally revert any attempt to go against the RFC that I see. Scu ba (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This belongs on 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates, and I say wait until he earns at least one delegate. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 23:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is that Binkley is a major candidate then i'm fine with him being classified as such, however if he ends up dropping out right after New Hampshire then we should probably remove him TheFellaVB (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given Binkley's results in the Iowa caucuses, and the coverage above, I think that's enough to be considered a major candidate now. I would like to see the NH results first (and it's not just because I live there!), just to confirm. But regardless of how quixotic his campaign is (to paraphrase Politico), I do think he's on the board, and should be considered a major candidate as such. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 00:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Greene Mr. (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that several very reputable news outlets including the New York Times, Axios, Politico, the Guardian etc., include him on their list of major candidates. I can't speak for all of these sites but Politico has had him listed since July-August or so. He arguably could've met the criteria a bit ago, now that is he running a clearly active campaign and has a Wikipedia page, I think it's hard to argue he should not be added. 104.173.208.16 (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have finally gotten some votes we can discuss adding the popular votes each candidate has received. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Infobox Info?

Hi everyone,


In the info box, we have put a contests won marker. Trump has one, since there has only been one. Others show 0. Should we make a (0/1) contests won?


Trumps would be 1/1 (changed after contests) and everyone else would be 0/1 (also change after contests)


Think this is needed to not make people confused who don't regularly look at this stuff. IEditPolitics (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, good idea. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Won't change it until I get one or two more agreeing. It makes obvious sense so I'm tempted to do it now but I want there to be consensus. IEditPolitics (talk) 20:01, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good idea. I support it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Punker85 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, if you look at other primary infoboxes it does not list the amount of contests contested so far nor did they while the contest was ongoing. I highly doubt people are going to be confused seeing it as it normally is TheFellaVB (talk) 22:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This hasn't been done in previous years and there's a reason for that, it doesn't look good. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox broken on mobile view

The top left and bottom left candidate images (Trump and Haley) appear smaller than they should. Kk.urban (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sizes are different, no matter whether it's viewed on the Wikipedia app or mobile view on a browser. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but we can change it. How? Kk.urban (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can't? Doesn't Wikipedia need to patch the mobile app for this to be fixed? Scu ba (talk) 00:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When should candidates be added to infoboxes for each primary?

There have been a few reversion on the primary pages already, so it's probably best to discuss here instead. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say either 1 to 4 weeks before the primary or when they are registered on the primary Punker85 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the consensus for Iowa was it is going to be too much of a pain to work out who should be in the infobox before the votes are cast, and that we should just wait until votes start coming in. However, now that the field of candidates is slimming down to just 3 major candidates, it shouldn't be too much of a problem to just have all three of them. Scu ba (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

I can't edit the page, but why not write (withdrawl), just like that, in parentheses, under Vivek's name? It makes understanding and reading easier and makes footnote b unnecessary. 138.121.65.101 (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates

BottleOfChocolateMilk you linked me [7] specifically saying that this justifies the complete removal of the "Other candidates" section that I added. This discussion was clearly about major candidates, as stated by the discussion title "RfC: Polling criteria for “major candidate” status". I did NOT add these candidates to the "Major candidates" section. I opened a new section called "Other candidates" for those still in the race. Therefore, this archived discussion does not justify this removal, as that discussion was about major candidates, not other candidates. It was also discussed before any results came in. We now have results where Ryan Binkley received more votes and a higher percentage of the vote than Asa Hutchinson and all those within the "Withdrew before the primaries" section. So, to include Hutchinson who received less votes and a lower voter percentage than Binkley plus a list of candidates that haven't received a single vote but to totally omit Binkley from this section is completely wrong. Remember, I'm not saying he or Stuckenberg should be in the "Major candidates" section but their own separate section titled "Other candidates" , as I set out in my edit. A section for other candidates also exists on 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates so I don't see the problem with also including such a section here. To deny this just omits correct and factual information for no good reason. Helper201 (talk) 06:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York times includes Binkley in their list of Republian candidates running and includes a blurb about him and his campaign. If the New York Times considers him a candidate worthy to display along the others, I feel that Wikipedia should as well. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/us/politics/presidential-candidates-2024.html#binkley MannyMammal (talk) 02:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2024

In the sentence below, "where" is used 2 times. The word that should be used is "were", both times.


2024 January 2024

Additionally, it was found during Sicknick's autopsy that the blood clots in his brain which resulted in his death where not the result of any physical trauma during Jan 6, nor where they caused by allergic reactions to pepper spray as initially claimed, with the corner ruling that Jan 6 had no bearing on Sicknick's death.[150] 2604:3D08:7389:6900:1C1C:CA97:BD8B:4F5D (talk) 17:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:03, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map on main page is still blank grey.

Shouldn't it show Iowa as blue to represent trump's victory? CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The map has been updated. You may need to clear your browser's cache. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep that was it. Thank you! CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Finance needs updating for Q4

Can someone update finances for Q4? I believe (correct me if wrong) they got released on Jan 15. NathanBru (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't released. They will on January 31 Punker85 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you. NathanBru (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2024

Change

| candidate5 = [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] <small> <br>(withdrawn)</small>

to

| candidate5 = [[Vivek Ramaswamy]] {{refn|Withdrawn after Iowa caucus<ref>https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/2024-republican-iowa-caucus-results-explained-with-6-key-precincts/72245358007/</ref>}}


References

207.96.32.81 (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Ramaswamy withdrew after the Iowa caucus.

https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/politics/2024/01/17/2024-republican-iowa-caucus-results-explained-with-6-key-precincts/72245358007/

David O. Johnson (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

​ Changed the note.207.96.32.81 (talk) 20:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. I don't think that much information is needed in the infobox. PianoDan (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trumps home state

It isn’t Florida, it’s New York 2601:14B:281:56D0:6012:8111:3285:454E (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trump changed his residence to Florida in 2019: [8]. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Count Discrepancy

Hello, I was looking at some numbers on this page and found something that didn't make sense to me.

So, the Republicans originally had 2,467 delegates (pledged and unpledged) across all contests, as stated in the article in the "Delegates" section under "Primaries and caucus calendar" tab.

There are two instances in which contests got the delegate counts reduced:

First, for running their caucus too early, the US Virgin Islands had their totals reduced from 9 to 4. A net loss of 5. Second, for running their primary too late, New Jersey had their totals reduced from 49 to 9. A net loss of 40.

That means that 45 delegates should have been removed from the original total and there should now be 2,422. However, at the top of the article its listed that their are 2,429 delegates up for grabs in total. Where are these 7 extra delegates coming from? 97.116.41.53 (talk) 07:38, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"2024 GOP" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 GOP has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 23 § 2024 GOP until a consensus is reached. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The color coding of candidates is in error

The color assignments are wrong. Trump, leading in the Republican polls for a very long time should not be assigned the color blue, but "Red", the color of the Republican Party. Interestingly enough, the Wikipedia 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article has Biden, who also has been leading polls for his party, as "Blue", which is the color associated with the Democratic Party.

Whoever set this up needs to fix this "misalignment". Channard (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1198340909"