Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

I don't believe Castro has been listed as a major candidate here. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Castro was never in the major candidates, and probably never will be. Scu ba (talk) 16:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Alright. Noted. Thanks for Clarifying. InterDoesWiki (talk) 04:22, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Adding popular votes

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

Okay, but we can change it. How? Kk.urban (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The map has been updated. You may need to clear your browser's cache. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep that was it. Thank you! CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidates

BottleOfChocolateMilk you linked me [6] 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)

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)

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)

They weren't released. They will on January 31 Punker85 (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thank you. NathanBru (talk) 14:58, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Trump changed his residence to Florida in 2019: [7]. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

I agree, good idea. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

It's a good idea. I support it. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree Punker85 (talk) 22:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

 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)

"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)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2024

Trump needs to be edited to only winning 1 contest as of 1/23. 2600:1004:B154:E006:2096:4CD1:603F:25A2 (talk) 01:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

It’s pretty much already over and trump won Reddithater56 (talk) 01:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

 Not done. He has been declared the winner of a 2nd contest as of Jan. 23. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 01:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Endorsement maps

Whoever is in charge of updating the endorsement color coded maps.. sucks. 69.141.156.218 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

There was an RFC about it last year [8]; the conclusion of it was that he is not a major candidate. David O. Johnson (talk) 05:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

True. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 20:23, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How many votes did binkley get? 174.106.224.196 (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Ryan Binkley is unequivocally a major candidate 173.54.44.85 (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Seconded. Greene Mr. (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

True. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Right now in NH he's received less votes than Pence, Ramaswamy, & Christie (whom all have dropped out) & is currently has gotten less than 0.1% of the vote, based on this info I am very weary of classifying him as a major candidate TheFellaVB (talk) 02:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Alao In NH. He Beat Hutchinson (Again) As Well as Scott. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

• Also

47.20.46.230 (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hutchison and Scott are both withdrawn candidates. As of this moment he's received less votes than Mary Maxwell TheFellaVB (talk) 02:45, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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)

Trump has been colored blue on Wikipedia since the 2016 primaries. Each website and news org have different colors they assign to each candidate. Biden was also colored blue in 2020. This is how it's been, there is no "wrong" color to assign. Longestview (talk) 01:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

The logic of "this is how it has been" is a straw man argument. The Republican party color is Red. The leader of the Republican Primaries should be Red. The leader of the Democratic Primaries is currently Blue, which also happens to be the color associated with Democrats. Channard (talk) 03:44, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump is given a blue color because that's Trump's specific shade.

• Hillary was yellow in 2016
• Romney was orange in 2012
• Obama was purple in 2008

It's not party colored, each candidate gets their own color. Colin.1678 (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

E. W. Jackson suspending his run should be on the timeline

I see that both Steve Laffey and Corey Stapleton dropping out are listed on the timeline. E. W. Jackson apprently suspended his stint for office on December 14, 2023. https://boxcast.tv/channel/g5czazrflmhsbd30kmj7?b=swcoopti7qbunry3da9n This should be noted in the timeline if we are going to mention both Laffey and Stapleton as well. TruthplusFacts (talk) 07:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Laffey and Stapleton both had a big back and forth over if they should be major or minor candidates, and their inclusion in the timeline was a byproduct of this. None of these three should be in the timeline. Scu ba (talk) 18:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Desantis and Ramaswamy's place on the infobox

Desantis and Ramaswamy got 9 and 3 delegates respectively, using previous primaries as a reference this seems far too insignificant to warrant them being on the infobox, right now they're relevant and the primary just started so I think it's alright for now however we should probably decide on when (and also on whether they should be removed if there's a strong case for it) they should be removed, personally I would say after Super Tuesday but that's just my thoughts. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Bill Weld Literally Got 1 Delagate. 4 Years Ago. And He is still on the Infobox. So your claim doesn't stand well 47.20.46.230 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

2020 Democratic: Klobuchar got 7 delegates & Gabbard got 2 and they were omitted from the infobox

2016 Republican: Carson received 9, Bush 4, & Paul, Huckabee, & Fiorina at 1

2012 Democratic: Randall Terry 7, Jim Rogers 3, Keith Russell Judd 15 (but only 1 since he didn't register delegates)

2012 Republican: Huntsman 3 & Bachmann 1

2008 Democratic: Edwards 28

Bill Weld is on the infobox for 2020 because he was the primary opponent to Trump, historically when there's a sitting President the primary opposition is listed even if they only receive one delegate, I listed more than enough precedent for removing low delegate receiving candidates. TheFellaVB (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

In previous years, the consensus has been to include candidates in the infobox if they (1) win a contest, (2) get 5% of the popular vote, (3) get 5% of the delegates, or (4) are the second place challenger, even if they don't meet the other criteria. (This explains why Bill Weld is in the infobox for the 2020 primary season). I see no reason to change it, and would remove Ramaswamy and DeSantis if (when) they fall below the 5% threshold for total votes. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 02:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured there was some consensus but didn't know what it was, removing them when they fall bellow those criteria seems more than reasonable TheFellaVB (talk) 02:41, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I feel like we should just wait for things to pan out. If Haley pulls out in the near future I would keep all four of them up there. But if the race, somehow, gets competitive between Haley and Trump then we should just have those two on the infobox. Scu ba (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Bring back vice presidential selection?

Since it’s just Haley and Trump left I feel like we should bring the infobox back Reddithater56 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree WorldMappings (talk) 07:13, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's in draft space right now:

Draft:2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection, after an AFD discussion last :year Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Republican Party vice presidential candidate selection.

Hope it helps. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Definitely. We should bring back the vice Presidental selection. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Minor Candidate nonsense

Why are we listing just one of the minor candidates alongside the actual candidates? Binkley, who hasn't gotten even 1% in either Iowa or New Hampshire, is persisting due to his RfC concluding that he is a minor candidate, and not a major one, and as such should still be listed in the minor candidates section. However, the minor candidates section hasn't existed for months, so he is just awkwardly crammed between active and withdrawn candidates as if he was a major candidate, and there is no mention of any of the other minor candidates. In New Hampshire he polled worse than Vivek and Pence, who both withdrew, and polled comparability to Mary Maxwell, a minor candidate so minor that nobody has even mentioned them on this page. Binkley only passed the media notability guidelines in the initial debate we had because he is buying interest out of pocket. Politico only brought him up recently to point and laugh at him when he said he would get "a few points" in the New Hampshire primary. The only argument for his relevancy is that he did better than Asa Hutchinson in Iowa because Hutchinson is so out of touch he thought appearing in lengthy interviews on regional cable news was a better investment than internet ads. The only time Binkley crops up in regional news are followed by words such as "nonfactor" and "little to no national name recognition" and "Why?". Why indeed. Why are we keeping him on this page? Scu ba (talk) 20:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Minor candidates do not need to be listed in this article. That is what 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates is for. The RfC in question concluded that he should not be in the table for major candidates and should be considered a minor candidate, but the RfC made no additional requirement that there be a prominent table for minor candidates. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean respectfully, past wikipedia articles like the 2020 Republican Primary have listed people like Rocky de la Fuente as major candidates. I think the standards have been inconsistent, but most people have made the point that many major outlets have named Binkley a major candidate by their standards and wikipedia is an exception to that. You mention that his media coverage is more mockery than anything but that is still media coverage by the standards of the website. In the past Wikipedia has taken a pretty expansionist view of what qualifies as a major candidate, and I think that is what's creating the questions for Binkley. 2603:8000:A642:5100:E027:BDE0:B283:5980 (talk) 02:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I can name a couple of reasons why.

- Similarities to Major Candidates.

- Polling or Results. (The less than 1% part is also a stretch. Considering he got more than some major Candidates. And was better than expected.) 47.20.46.230 (talk) 23:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Sam Sloan

Should Sam Sloan remain listed as a minor candidate? He has only recieved 7 votes for president so far. Out of over 400,000 NathanBru (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The minor candidates section is meant for candidates who have a wikipedia page and are running, vote totals usually don't matter. It's just to say "Hey this person is somewhat notable and they're running, but they aren't significant" TheFellaVB (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And why would you do something like that in an encyclopedia article? -- Jfhutson (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it's semi relevant information? It's practically a footnote in the article, I see no reason why it shouldn't be there in the way that it is. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

From what I know, candidates would also need to have a reliable source to be able to be a minor candidate Punker85 (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Delegates in Candidates section

It says Trump has 33, but I’m not sure how to fix it. Can someone do that? NathanBru (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Done, you need to edit the candidates page to change the table Punker85 (talk) 15:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! NathanBru (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Lede problems

I have made edits to the lead section to address a few issues. My edits have been undone multiple times. User:David O. Johnson has asked that I gain consensus here before making these edits. The edits can be viewed here.

My concerns are:

1. Length. MOS:LEADLENGTH indicates, as a general guideline, that lead sections of Wikipedia pages of more than 5,000 words should be three to four paragraphs long. Currently, the lead is five paragraphs long. Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, "a lead that is too long is intimidating, difficult to read, and may cause the reader to lose interest halfway". Even if my edits are made, the lead would still be five paragraphs long. If anything, my edits do not go far enough in bringing the lead down to an appropriate size.

2. Excess detail. Per MOS:INTRO, "editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article". Details about the candidacies of Vivek Ramaswamy and Mike Pence (which I removed) would fall into this category.

3. Verifiability and accuracy. Currently, the lead states that four major candidates remained in the race until the primaries. The source that is cited near this sentence is from June 2023 and cannot possibly verify this statement. Also, Chris Christie was still in the race in Iowa. Was he not a major candidate? I propose to remove this statement.

4. Clarity. The lead includes the following sentence: "Some Republicans have expressed concerns about Trump's nomination due to..." This sentence is confusing. It makes it sound like Trump has already received the Republican nomination. I edited the sentence to refer to Trump's "potential nomination".

These are the reasons for the edits I made, and I am seeking consensus to reinstate them. MonMothma (talk) 04:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with all proposed changes. You have done a good job at explaining the way your changes follow Wikipedia's policies. I agree that the lede is much too long. (And the whole article could probably deal with a bit of shortening, too). Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. MonMothma (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I have reinstated the above-referenced edits. MonMothma (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I object on all points. Getting one editor to agree with you doesn't mean you've reached consensus. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

BottleOfChocolateMilk, I have reinstated the edits. Leave them in place for now and explain your objections so we can discuss them. Simply stating that you object is not a reason to revert edits, especially edits that have been fully explained on the talk page with reference to Wikipedia policies. MonMothma (talk) 02:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Also, I waited almost a week after posting on the talk page and no one had any objections at all. This is a fairly prominent and frequently edited page. Anyone with objections had ample time to let me know. So I'm not up for a blanket revert without justification. MonMothma (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Primaries calendar & timeline

We should include a primaries calendar & shortened the timeline section into a link to its own page. See how it's done at 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which make for easier reading. GoodDay (talk) 17:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

There is already a primaries calendar in the page Punker85 (talk) 19:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The delegate count after New Hampshire

I'm noticing a lot of confusion among the various media scores and making edits when it comes to what the current delegate count is out of New Hampshire. The AP and the NYT say Trump won 13 delegates and Haley 9, TGP says Trump won 12 and Haley won 10, NBC and Google say that there's still a delegate yet to be allocated.

If you do the math, Trump should win 12 delegates to Haley's 10. This is what the results should amount to according to TGP.

Trump: 54.352% of 22 = 11.957. Rounds to 12 delegates. Remaining 10.

Haley: 43.237% of 22 = 9.512. Rounds to 10 delegates. Remaining 0.

Trump having received the most votes, receives the remaining 0 delegates. Total: 12.

So I guess the question is are we entrusting the media or are we entrusting the math? Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 11:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The NH Sec. of State website says that "The 2024 Presidential Primary results posted are subject to change due to corrections issued from cities or towns." The math for Haley's total is close enough to 9.5 that any small change could tip it to the other side, meaning it could round down to 9 instead of up to 10, in which case Trump would get the leftover delegate. In fact, The Green Papers currently shows two different popular vote totals for New Hampshire (324,860 vs 323,590), which give different delegate results. At this point, the safest bet is Trump 12, Haley 9, with 1 remaining, as you say for NBC/Google reporting. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

In New Hampshire, any unallocated delegates are awarded to the top vote-getter, which in this case is Trump. This is sometimes referred to as a “winner’s bonus.”

Please do some research next time. LegendaryChristopher (talk) 23:57, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think you read Spiffy’s reply to my question, which is the basis for my changes. I will copy it down below for your convenience.

The NH Sec. of State website says that The 2024 Presidential Primary results posted are subject to change due to corrections issued from cities or towns." The math for Haley's total is close enough to 9.5 that any small change could tip it to the other side, meaning it could round down to 9 instead of up to 10, in which case Trump would get the leftover delegate. In fact, The Green Papers currently shows two different popular vote totals for New Hampshire (324,860 vs 323,590), which give different delegate results. At this point, the safest bet is Trump 12, Haley 9, with 1 remaining, as you say for NBC/Google reporting. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

I think I found a resolution to this dilemma. The controlling state law is N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:93. The text reads: "I. The secretary of state shall apportion delegates to the national party conventions among the candidates voted for at the presidential primary by determining the proportion of the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate to the total votes cast for all presidential candidates of the same political party, rounded to the nearest whole number.

II. A presidential candidate must receive at least 10 percent, before any rounding to the nearest whole number, of the total vote cast for all presidential candidates of his political party to be eligible for a share of the apportioned delegates.

III. In the event the apportionment of delegates according to paragraphs I and II leaves one or more delegates unassigned by the process of mathematical distribution, said delegates shall be apportioned to the presidential candidate of that party with the highest number of votes."

Per Part I, the percentages for all candidates with at least 10% of the vote is rounded to the nearest whole number. Then, that percentage (i.e. 54% for Trump, 43% for Haley) is used to allocate the 22 delegates. (0.54 * 22 = 11.88, which rounds to 12) (0.43 * 22 = 9.46, which rounds to 9). This leaves one delegate leftover, which Part III dictates going to the candidate with the highest number of votes (i.e. Trump). Thus, Trump should receive 13 (12+1) and Haley should receive 9 delegates, pursuant to New Hampshire law. Scribetastic (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove DeSantis from infobox

The infobox makes it look like DeSantis is running as a candidate. He is not. Even if technically he has only "suspended" his campaign, reliable sources say he "ended" his bid or "withdrew." Reliable sources about this contest are now only talking about Trump and Haley. The 5% rule is not relevant because it is for third-party candidates and DeSantis is not even running any more. His 5% was achieved when he was running. Bill Weld being included in the last primary infobox is also not relevant because the rationale for that was that we are demonstrating it was a "contested" primary (though I don't necessarily agree with that rationale either). --Jfhutson (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a issue with DeSantis being in the infobox, since it clearly indicates that he has withdrawn. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I tend to favor keeping candidates who received delegates in the infobox. Especially considering there may only be 4 candidates with delegates this cycle. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 21:41, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. In the past, for U.S. primary elections, consensus has generally been to include in the infobox: (1) candidates who win a contest, (2) candidates who get 5% of delegates, (3) candidates who get 5% of the popular vote, (4) a second-place finisher, even if they meet none of the other requirements. I think these are good conditions in order to provide due weight to the top candidates. Getting only about 10 delegates out of 2429 (0.4% of the total) is not enough to consider someone important in the grand scheme of the race. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

In 2016 there were nine Republican candidates who received delegates. But I don't think some kind of complicated (and IMO largely arbitrary) set of rules is what we need for this anyway. There is plenty of reliable source coverage on this race. It is pretty uniform in treating it as a contest between Trump and Haley. -- Jfhutson (talk) 15:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends on how long the race drags on for. Desantis and Vivek only contested one race and promptly dropped out, if Haley amasses hundreds of delegates then I don't see why their collective 12 delegates and sliver of the popular vote should be included. I'm in favor of keeping them until Super Tuesday and from there we can decide what should be done with the infobox TheFellaVB (talk) 21:09, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with TulsaPoliticsFan that there is no reason in this context to not have all 4 candidates who won delegates. Rlendog (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I just don't see the reasoning of why they should be on there, they won less than half of the delegates in a single state and promptly dropped out. In the event Haley drops out immediately following Super Tuesday after winning few delegates than theoretically I could support keeping them on there but even then they still don't feel important enough. TheFellaVB (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:INFOBOX: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article ... The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance." I just did a Google News search for "republican primary" and then searched the page for "desantis" and "haley." There was one mention of DeSantis and 22 of Haley. There's been a lot of discussion of delegates and votes here, but we are supposed to be summarizing reliable source coverage of the race. -- Jfhutson (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Does anyone know the precedent for this? If not, I feel this issue is more of a precedent setting question for all primary infoboxes rather than being a decision for this one alone. GigaDerp (talk) 16:28, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Relevant discussions can be found at this RFC in 2017 and here from 2020. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@Michelangelo1992:Your edit was not discussed here. 5% is a guideline and not MOS rule. I would remove Vivek and DeSantis or KEEP both. At The Republican National Convention, the delegates may change preference. 207.96.32.81 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Resolution to NH Delegate Count

I wanted to draw attention to what should be the resolution to the New Hampshire delegate count confusion. The controlling state law is N.H. Rev. Stat. § 659:93. The text reads: "I. The secretary of state shall apportion delegates to the national party conventions among the candidates voted for at the presidential primary by determining the proportion of the number of votes cast for each presidential candidate to the total votes cast for all presidential candidates of the same political party, rounded to the nearest whole number. II. A presidential candidate must receive at least 10 percent, before any rounding to the nearest whole number, of the total vote cast for all presidential candidates of his political party to be eligible for a share of the apportioned delegates. III. In the event the apportionment of delegates according to paragraphs I and II leaves one or more delegates unassigned by the process of mathematical distribution, said delegates shall be apportioned to the presidential candidate of that party with the highest number of votes." Per Parts I and II, the percentages for all candidates with at least 10% of the vote are rounded to the nearest whole number. Then, that percentage (i.e. 54% for Trump, 43% for Haley) is used to allocate the 22 delegates. (0.54 * 22 = 11.88, which rounds to 12) (0.43 * 22 = 9.46, which rounds to 9). This leaves one delegate leftover, which Part III dictates going to the candidate with the highest number of votes (i.e. Trump). Thus, Trump should receive 13 (12+1) and Haley should receive 9 delegates, pursuant to New Hampshire law. Scribetastic (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

If we apply this state law to past election results, it doesn't necessarily match up the delegate totals.

I'm going to use the 2016 NH Republican Primary as an example. The official delegate count was as follows (according to TGP):

Trump: 35.232% of 23 = 8.103. Rounds to 8 delegates. Remaining 15.

Kasich: 15.715% of 23 = 3.614. Rounds to 4 delegates. Remaining 11.

Cruz: 11.627% of 23 = 2.674. Rounds to 3 delegates. Remaining 8.

Bush: 10.962% of 23 = 2.521. Rounds to 3 delegates. Remaining 5.

Rubio: 10.517% of 23 = 2.419. Rounds to 2 delegates. Remaining 3.

Trump having received the most votes, receives the remaining 3 delegates. Total: 11.

Now here's what happens when you round the percentages to the nearest whole number.

Trump: 36% of 23 = 8.28. Rounds to 8 delegates. Remaining 15.

Kasich: 16% of 23 = 3.68. Rounds to 4 delegates. Remaining 11.

Cruz: 12% of 23 = 2.76. Rounds to 3 delegates. Remaining 8.

Bush: 11% of 23 = 2.53. Rounds to 3 delegates. Remaining 5.

Rubio: 11% of 23 = 2.53. Rounds to 3 delegates. Remaining 2.

Trump having received the most votes, receives the remaining 2 delegates. Total: 10.

It's when a candidate's fractional remainder is closer to 0.5 that it becomes less accurate, in the case of Haley. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 21:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit perms changed?

I have been able to change this article consistently and suddenly it is blocked from me. I was going to provide a better source for the “race for second” since it’s an outdated Financial Times source (seriously who decided to use the Financial Times???) IEditPolitics (talk) 22:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The article had Extended confirmed protection (ECP) (See here for an explanation on what it is: [9]) added to it on February 3 as part of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics/American politics subset of the Wikipedia:Contentious topics rules. With ECP, a user has to have an account that's at least 30 days old, with a minimum of 500 edits. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect Infobox Material

A footnote claims that Nikki Haley won the primary in Nevada. While she was the clear winner for actual people, None of these candidates won. Therefore, the footnote should be changed.

Why has the edit permissions changed? I used to be able to edit, now I have to go through here to fix obviously needed changes. IEditPolitics (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the USA Today citation in the footnote [10]: "Although "none of these candidates" received more votes, according to Nevada state law, the person who gets the most votes is declared the winner." There's another note in the 2024 Nevada Republican presidential nominating contests article here: [11] that talks more about it and cites the specific election law. It wouldn't make sense to award a primary to "none of these candidates", so that's how it works. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We had some issues with people repeatedly changing the delegate totals even though we had reached a consensus on the talk page. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

None of These Candidates added?

Currently (9:03 PM PST), NOTC has overpassed Ron DeSantis in vote total. Should it be added? I would add it, but I lack proper permissions. Politicalwizard2000 (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Its best to wait until 100% of the vote is in beforehand. WorldMappings (talk) 05:25, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

This is not a "candidate" and "they" will not get any delegates.-- Jfhutson (talk) 13:55, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Disagree for several reasons. (1) NOTC is coming up specifically because of Nevada. In the case of Nevada, voters could participate in BOTH the caucus and primary. However, per discussion on this page and also multiple media sources, the primary is non-binding and irrelevant to the outcome of the nomination. We do not want to run the risk of double-counting votes, so we should ignore the results of the primary in favor of the caucus. (2) Most (i.e. almost all) of the NOTC votes were really proxy votes for Donald Trump, who was not participating in the non-binding primary. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: The infobox should only include candidates with delegates, over 5% of the vote nationally when the primaries are over, or who wins a state. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

How about after the primary in the big box that lists all the candidates and their vote totals? If not, would it get mentioned? I know under NV law, Haley technically won (minus the delegates) Politicalwizard2000 (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Support: We Should Put NOTC In as well. It did get votes. And Defeated Haley in the election. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 01:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

NOTC did not win the election, Haley did. [12] David O. Johnson (talk) 01:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Update: I do think its should be added, but perhaps lumped in with "others", or labeld "uncommitted" WorldMappings (talk) 07:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: For reasons already stated None of these candidates is only an option in Nevada. A somewhat comparable comparison in regards to Presidential primaries is favorite son candidates who are not listed on infoboxes since they only sought to control the delegations of their home states. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Map update

Trump won all the Republican Nevada delegates & the US Virgin Islands delegates. We need Nevada & the US Virgin Islands colored for the former US president. GoodDay (talk) 07:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What To Do About the Nevada Primary and Caucus

As some you may know, Nevada is holding both a primary and a caucus. The primary is on Tuesday of that week and the caucus is on Thursday. The Republicans do not want the primary to happen, for various reasons. They have decided that only the results of the caucus will count towards delegates. Trump and Binkley (who is touching 0%) are on the ballot for the caucus. On the other hand, Haley is the only candidate on the ballot for the primary.

For how to map the results of Nevada, here is my suggestion:

The map should be split into two groups (as it normally is) between popular vote and delegate allocation. For the popular vote map, Nevada should be split into two, with the results of the primary colored in on one side (either with Haley's color if she wins or black if "None of the Above" wins the most votes) and the winner of the caucus' color (it is almost certain to be Trump) on the other half of Nevada.

As for the delegate allocation map, the winner of the caucus' color will fill the whole state (almost certainly to be Trump).

What do y'all think? Trajan1 (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The competition that actually binds the delegates should be the competition used. If the RNC/Nevada GOP ignores the primary, we should ignore the primary too, at least on the map and for the contests won section. We can still mention it with an efn if need be. Scu ba (talk) 20:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. There are plenty of times in other primary elections where the popular vote results don't match the delegates, and the map still shows it. It's not that hard of a thing to add in. Trajan1 (talk) 20:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The Nevada primary does nothing, It awards no delegates. It is little more than a state-run straw poll. The caucuses is how the delegates are getting distributed, that is what this wikipedia page should concern itself with. Sure Haley is running unopposed in the unoffical popularity contest on the side of the actual election, but she isn't participating in the actual election that has actual results. Scu ba (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The GOP nomination is based on delegates. A candidate who gets the majority of the delegates becomes the nominee. Therefore, a contest that does not award delegates is meaningless. We should only be using the caucus for the map and info box, as this is the contest that actually awards delegates. The non-binding primary can be discussed in the main body of the article.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is precedent for this. In the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries there were a few states including Washington and Nebraska that held both caucuses (where delegates were awarded) and non-binding primaries with no delegates. As far as I can tell the results of the non-binding primaries were disregarded in the maps and the vote totals, only the caucus results were used Kevingates4462 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good, but what about popular vote. Do we count what Haley earned, or do we disregard it? NathanBru (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Disregard it. The primary has nothing to do with the nomination; only the caucus counts. If they release any popular vote data from the caucus, though, that should be included. See the footnotes in the infobox for 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries and 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries as examples. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you! NathanBru (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree this idea,I believe we should only focus on the caucus as the contest is the only one consider valid by the state's Republican party LegendaryChristopher (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

When filling in Nevada on the popular vote map, it should be orange/blue striped for Trump and Haley. RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Edit: blue/orange RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose (using the 2008 Democratic primary’s treatment of the un-sanctioned Michigan primary in which Hillary Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot as a precedent) we add a footnote after the popular vote total for Haley which notes what her popular vote would be if we counted the votes she received in the un-sanctioned Nevada primary SecretName101 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Now there’s a bit of an edit war over counting the Nevada popular votes when it comes to Mike Pence and Scott. It seems that there’s no consensus as to do about anything about the Nevada primary or caucus. So I want to keep the votes. XXXXS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.35.68 (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Links

Does anyone else have it where some of the links are for some reason not blue. Some of links just look like normal writing until you click on them. NathanBru (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I noticed the same behavior, earlier today. It seems to be a Wikipedia change. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Noticed that too! It’s like black text. IEditPolitics (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Nathan Bru, I asked about it at the help desk and its a bug that's being worked on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk#February_9

Hope it helps. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! NathanBru (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 February 2024

We need to fill in the map for the Nevada Primary/Caucus results. Both primary results have been declared by sources such as the NYTimes. Someoneexample171 (talk) 17:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

And the US Virgin Islands. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Does the Nevada primary count as to vote totals? There are lots of “beauty contests” in the past, and they all count. I don’t want an edit war. XXXSX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.35.76 (talk) 21:09, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Seems to be updated already. Please reopen this edit request if not. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Popular Vote Source in the infobox - TGP

My recent addition to the infobox here was reverted by @Scribetastic, with the comment that The Green Papers has not included the most current Nevada caucus numbers. That is not correct according to The Green Papers - the popular vote page specifically stated that NV is included. I think including a source in the infobox is necessary so readers can see where the information is coming from and to avoid WP:OR. Currently the popular vote data appears to be unsourced entirely. I am not going to revert the change to avoid WP:Edit warring, but I would appreciate clarification and perhaps some second opinions from other editors. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:44, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you are totally correct in your reasoning here.

TGP is one of, if not the, only reliable news source that displays the nationwide popular vote. None of the major reliable news sources (CNN, NYT, ABC, NBC) do, mostly because the primaries are more about delegates than actual votes.

If we wanted to accurately find the popular vote, we could find the official results from IA, NH, NV, and VI and add them altogether, but as you said, this would be violating W:OR.

TGP is the closest thing we have right now to a source that backs up the popular vote, so I think using their numbers is the safest bet. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, The Green Papers included the NV caucus in its overall calculation. However, TGP lists Trump as having received 59,787 votes. The official NVGOP caucus results page promulgated by the state party lists Trump as having received 59,982 votes. Hence, the 195-vote difference in totals.

TGP is a fine secondary source generally, but information from primary sources should taken precedence. WP:OR explicitly does not extend to "routine calculations," WP:CALC. "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers...is almost always permissible." WP:OR simply does not apply here, as you or Thelittlepoliticalboy suggest.

I understand the argument to have a singular source of reference, but it is simply not updated to reflect current totals. (e.g. TGP did not update its total to reflect the official VI results until after Wikipedia editors added the total from sourced primary sources.) Scribetastic (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

My primary concern is that the information in the infobox is currently unsourced. Readers and editors should be able to see exactly where the numbers are coming from. Even if this is a footnote, it should note that the national popular vote data is being calculated by adding data from X, Y, Z sources. Secondarily, is there a better source for NV popular vote than a Google Sheets link? I don't see why we should consider that to be more accurate than TGP. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

References

Trump should have 63 delegates

This is according to the AP CaptainCrusader1 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Are they counting un-bound delegates they anticipate going to him, perhaps? Or is whatever number was on this article wrong SecretName101 (talk) 21:33, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, NBC does too. IEditPolitics (talk) 22:29, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Many media outlets have Trump's delegate total at 63 because they're projecting Trump will win 13 delegates in New Hamsphire to Haley's 9. As of now, we have still not yet confirmed that is the final delegate count. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Propose using the AP projected delegate counts as a neutral source and citing this in the infobox. We need to go by reliable source projections and avoid WP:OR. If there are multiple different projections from reliable sources, we can write a range such as "Projected delegates: 61 (source 1) - 63 (source 2)" Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:53, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's a great idea. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that's unnecessary at this moment. Right now this is a single delegate difference, if the estimates start varying by more than 10 then maybe that should be considered but to do this over a single delegate when there's over 1000 seems premature. TheFellaVB (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Green Papers used the wrong method when calculating delegates for NH because of NH's weird rounding rules. It uses the correct method further down on the page to match AP, but that isn't what it shows at the top. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:34, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Trump wins Michigan Primary

Please replace the info saying the Michigan primary is on feb 27 with Trump won Michigan Primary on 27 Turtlepro22 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Add Uncommitted to infobox?

Considering uncommitted / none of these candidates got votes totaling up more than 5% of the total votes overall if we factor in the michigan primary and the non-binding Nevada results. Di123 (talk) 09:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

We should not include the non-binding Nevada results due to the fact that they were non-binding and irrelevant to the outcome of the nomination. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Binkley

Add that republican presidential candidate Ryan Binkley dropped out Turtlepro22 (talk) 19:48, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

It's already mentioned in this section:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries#Withdrew_during_the_primaries David O. Johnson (talk) 20:24, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 March 2024

I want to add Illinois to the list of states where Trumpp being on the ballot has been challenged. Akaganhamilton1 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 01:07, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 March 2024

The entire map of primaries on the sidebar is messed up I.E. Montana's primary is linked under Michigan, California appears under Arizona. Danxv33 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Are you talking about the first map on the page, under the candidates and their delegate counts? It seems to work fine for me, I tried different browsers and messed with page zoom but couldn't reproduce the issue. Jamedeus (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Unreproducible issue. If anyone else has the same issue, please ping me or reopen the request. Thanks. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 01:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I have the same issue. Using a mobile, the browser is DuckDuckGo. 2A02:3100:155C:D800:B027:E9DC:6662:8E66 (talk) 02:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

OK

nbc just called oklahoma 4 don. page already updated Cannolorosa (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Trump Paragraph

If(when) nikki drops out i believe this should be the paragraph

“Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee on March 5, 2024, after his last major opponent, Nikki Haley suspended her presidential campaign due to (whatever reason she says in her speach)” Cannolorosa (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

We’d say “citing” not “due to” if that happens SecretName101 (talk) 02:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

NBC delegate

NBC’s delegate tracker has don at 467 and nikki at 46 and has been the most quickly updatedhttps://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-primary-elections/delegate-tracker Cannolorosa (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Make that 911 for Trump & 78 for Haley. GoodDay (talk) 04:23, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

US Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley to exit Republican presidential race

US Republican presidential candidate Nikki Haley to exit Republican presidential race

Reuters: [13]https://www.reuters.com/world/us/nikki-haley-exit-us-republican-presidential-race-wsj-reports-2024-03-06/ 217.213.31.159 (talk) 12:18, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

When does Trump become the "presumptive" nominee?

With Haley's apparent exit imminent, now seems like the right time to get this sorted. David O. Johnson (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be redirected to the Talk:2024 United States presidential election where it have a section about it and where I think this question have more prevalence than here Punker85 (talk) 14:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 March 2024

Under Timeline > 2024 > March 2024: Add that Nikki Haley has suspended her campaign. Summerlytx (talk) 22:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

It has already been added. Please see: [14]. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 22:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox

Should Nikki Haley be removed from the infobox because she withdrew? DeSantis used to be in the infobox but was removed after he withdrew. SlightlyToastedCheesecake (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

• I believe the standard, as demonstrated by past primary pages, is that anyone and everyone who received at least one delegate appears in the infobox when all is said and done. It was the case with Bill Weld and his 1 delegate in 2020, and it's the same with Jason Palmer now in the 2024 Democratic primaries page. So technically, the infobox should feature Trump, Haley, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy. 141.156.176.96 (talk) 15:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

  No. The current criteria for a candidate being included in the infobox is either winning at least 1 contest, 5% of the total number of delegates, 5% of the popular vote or being the second place finisher Punker85 (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated Popular Vote

Can someone update the infobox to include Trump and Haley's current popular vote totals? The Democratic primary page is updated as such, but not this one. As of today, the Green Papers show Trump with 8,354,314 votes and Haley with 2,877,718, both considerably higher than what is currently displayed. 141.156.176.96 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Done, and added source. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

American Samoa

Anybody going to put in the results on the map for American Samoa? Dogperson160 (talk) 02:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Map updates

We need American Samoa to be colored blue, now that Trump has won their caucuses. GoodDay (talk) 15:49, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I update the vote totals by now? Trump has well over 8 million votes and th page is still showing 1.5 million 2A02:AB88:F0A:2280:A8E2:BBDF:DAB8:CDDC (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Updated vote totals:

Trump - 8,853,411 Haley - 3,004,395 Trump’s Percentage - 74.6% Haley’s Percentage - 25.4% (Might be a bit off because it’s 4 AM and I’m tired) SpiderPRORUNNER (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 March 2024

The popular vote count of both trump and Haley are outdated, trump alone has over 3 million in texas and California combined and his popular vote is still at 1.5 million? should be at least 4 million if not more. I wanna edit the popular vote of both candidates, why is biden popular votes changed but trump not changed? discrimination against the republican party, Either change it or I will request more edit requests until I am allowed to change it. Stop being against the republican party, they will win just watch. 2607:9880:21F8:2E:A1C9:2D30:654B:E3FE (talk) 15:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 March 2024

The popular vote for trump seems to be wrong, it says that he got 1.5 million votes total but in texas alone he got 1.8 million votes, please correct the popular vote of trump for all republican primaries and THE TOTAL POPULAR VOTE. 2607:9880:21F8:2E:848D:36F2:28BE:DEBF (talk) 16:52, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You may need to gain consensus on this issue. This update was done once, but someone changed it back based on the idea that the votes shouldn't be updated until all Super Tuesday votes are counted. I'm note sure I agree with that notion, but the problem is that reliable sources are not all synchronized. The best sources (in my view) that actually sum all the contests are The Green Papers and US Election Atlas, and these are currently 411,532 apart (and may have changed as I type this). I have my own summations, but that's viewed as original research. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the excuse that all super Tuesday votes haven't been counted yet is dumb. It's the same on the dem side, and Biden's total has been updated with only 65% of the vote counted in California. Willingly not updating our pages with the most accurate information is a betrayal to the idea of Wikipedia. MoMoChohan (talk) 13:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with waiting until the votes are fully updated. Right now the total votes are off by millions, and it presents a very inaccurate picture of the race to the casual reader. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

@NathanBru: Please stop reverting these edits and bring discussion to the talk page. Secondarily, other editors who keep changing the vote total are strongly encouraged to add a source. Right now there is unsourced information in the infobox.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

For many years, all I have seen is that we do not update total votes until All votes are counted. I have heard this from more senior wiki contributors/editors and from the average user. Just because the 2024 Democratic page is doing it wrong does not mean that this page should also partake. NathanBru (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Then why aren't you showing the same attention to the Democratic primaries page, if they're also "doing it wrong"? You're clearly in a minority of one on this "consensus" of yours and need to stop edit-warring. 65.216.235.66 (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

That’s the thing about a war… it takes two to tango. NathanBru (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

And I’m not caring about the Dem page because I don’t care about it. NathanBru (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

RFC infobox inclusion

Currently the candidates are included in infobox when polling more than 5% nationally. Relevant discussions can be found at this RFC in 2017 and here from 2020.

Question: What is the criteria for inclusion in Republican primary infobox?

1. (1) candidates who win a contest
2. (2) candidates who get 5% of delegates
3. (3) candidates who get 5% of the popular vote
4. (4) a second-place finisher, even if they meet none of the other requirements.
5. (5) candidates who received at least 1 delegate
6. (other) please specify.

207.96.32.81 (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

why separate discussion from that of the Democratic primary? SecretName101 (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Democratic National Committee conducts caucuses differently. For example, superdelegates don’t exist in the republican primary. Editors may treat them differently. A separate discussion would be more appropriate for Democratic primary.207.96.32.81 (talk) 04:47, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

superdelegates are no longer a factor in first-ballot votes for presidential nominating at Democratic primaries. They have no first-ballot vote. So this distinction still does not make any sense. SecretName101 (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• 6: Include the candidates mentioned consistently in reliable sources. Reliable sources consistently treat this as a race between Trump and Hailey, to the extent it’s a race at all. Any of the rules above are OR and UNDUE —Jfhutson (talk) 05:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• 5 with the primary practically over, there are four candidates with delegates and I'd support listing them in the infobox. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• 5 Include the top four candidates who got delegates. DeSantis in particular got extensive coverage for more than a year before Iowa, so not including him seems incorrect. If we include Bill Weld in 2020 we can include the top four this time. --TocMan (talk) 18:04, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
• 1, 2, 3 and 4: I think the current criteria are ok for including candidates in the infobox since, in a competitive race, it would include notable candidates during the primary season, it would not include candidates who only withdrew after the first primary but received delegates which are not particularly important in the primary season and to not have the infobox being crowded Punker85 (talk) 22:25, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2024

Could someone please fix the timeline for March 12 to state that Trump won all of those contests? It's currently written that they are scheduled to take place. [15] Noah, AA^Talk 14:53, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

eg. On March 12, the Georgia, Mississippi, and Washington primaries are scheduled to take place, alongside the Hawaii caucuses. to On March 12, Trump won the Georgia, Mississippi, and Washington primaries and the Hawaii caucuses. Noah, AA^Talk 14:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:30, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2024

I request a deletion of this line: "Trump became the presumptive nominee on March 12."

Instead, I request an edit for this line, "After Trump's overwhelming victory on Super Tuesday, Haley suspended her campaign on March 6."

I wish for it to be changed to, "After Trump's overwhelming victory on Super Tuesday, Haley suspended her campaign on March 6, thus making Trump the presumptive nominee. He crossed the delegate threshold for the nomination on March 12 following his victory in the March 12 Washington primary."

The reason is because Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican nominee on March 6 after Nikki Haley, the last major candidate in the Republican race, dropped out, though he crossed the delegate threshold on March 12. The GOP declared him the presumptive nominee shortly after Haley's suspension of the campaign on March 6. RuqManOfU (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 01:43, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

That was the RNC declaring Trump the presumptive nominee; that's not the same thing as Trump acquiring enough delegates to become the presumptive nominee. I'm going to undo the edit. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

But technically one becomes the presumptive nominee either with the delegate threshold or with no major candidates running against them. Presumptive means the presumed nominee, and nothing is official until the convention. So if there's no major candidates running, they're still presumed to be the one to attain enough delegates by the time of the convention, therefore the presumptive nominee. It was just like in 2020 when Biden was declared the presumptive nominee of his party after Sanders dropped out, and even the Wiki page said he was so, although it took 2 months afterward for Biden to cross the delegate threshold. Also the RNC runs the Republican primaries so if they declare him the presumptive nominee then that's what he is. RuqManOfU (talk) 22:06, 17 March 2024 (UTC)