Talk:Results of the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries

Binkley, Burgham, Christie, etc…

The chart should include everyone on the ballot in at least ten states, and that includes Chris Christie, Burgham, and Ryan Binkley. Due to the accomplishment of getting on ballot in at least 20 states for some of them at least, and depending on what happens tonight, even DeSantis or Haley will be inconsequential. What if Ryan does better than Hutchison? Be inclusive. -XXXXXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.11.67 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose We can add any delegates (from a non-negligible number of votes) for candidates who suspended their campaigns later, without adding any more rows and columns, for convenience reasons. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 14:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Support When talking about convenience, Look at the older articles. 2020, ‘16 etc. They listed EVERYONE on this page. Christie is on the ballot everywhere, and Binkley is on at least 30, plus he did better than Hutchison in Iowa. Burgham is on at least ten ballots and Stuckenburg is on at least 15. We should add them NOW. This is convenience: getting it all done at the beginning and then just having to plug in the numbers as they come in. Plus, having Vivek being blocked out is just poor planning. He’s on the ballot everywhere and will get plenty of votes between now and Super Tuesday. XXXXXXXX — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.11.67 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Partial support. Ryan Binkley should definitely be included. It makes no sense to include Asa Hutchinson but not Ryan Binkley when Binkley has received more votes and a higher voter percentage than Hutchinson. However, I wouldn’t advocate including anyone like Christie who dropped out before any of the primaries began. Helper201 (talk) 05:44, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I added the three former candidates who are on the ballot in at least twelve states. Christie is on the ballot everywhere. We are doing this for posterity, and while it may not seem so now, posterity will thank us for being as complete as possible. Wowizowie57 (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: Binkley and Stuckenberg are both not major candidates, so including them in the table would give them more credit than they should have and Christie and Burgum withdrew before the primaries, so they are very likely to get very few votes and they are not relevant to the unfolding of the primaries Punker85 (talk) 23:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Binkley is considered as such by the RNC and much of the media. We shouldn’t make judgements like that as it’s non-encylcopedic. Plus, they suspended their campaigns, not actually withdrawn. Paul Tsongas in 1992 and Howard Dean in 2004 both won primaries after unofficially leaving the race. The reason we have this article is to have a handy reference as to how the primaries developed. ALL the candidates will receive votes, including those who are out, and if you will permit a WP:Crystal reference, unless Haley WINS New Hampshire, the whole thing’s over anyway and even Super-Tuesday will be irrelevant, just like the Democrat’s is. Put Christie, Burgham and Stuckenburg back on the chart, and have a smaller one with all the rest of them below it. To do otherwise is insulting to the other campaigns. XXXX 64.18.11.69 (talk) 13:44, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Binkley and Stuckenberg aren't major candidates by criteria cited in the 2024 Republican Party presidential candidates page (Binkley qualified for the polling criteria, and thus became a major candidate, but was removed as such after an RfC). If you want one of them to be considered as a major candidate, discuss it in the talk page of the 2024 Republican presidential primaries page. Campaign suspensions in presidential primaries are considered as de facto withdrawal according to 2024 Republican primaries page. Paul Tsongas and Howard Dean both participated in the primaries before they withdrew while Christie and Burgum didn't, both of those examples were, respectively, over 31 and 19 years ago and Dean said to still vote for him after he withdrew, Christie and Burgum had not done this. All of those candidates will very likely have very little influence, attention and relevancy during the primaries (maybe apart from Binkley) and have way less votes nationally and per primary (apart from Binkley) compared to the other major candidates who have participated in the primaries. And other tables could be added to withdrew and other candidates

And also, its Burgum, not Burgham Punker85 (talk) 22:45, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Support: The Iowa Caucus. Meeting the Donor Criteria for the 1st Republican Debate. Making 25 or more state ballots and more should mean he is A Major Candidate. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Who should be included on this page?

Which candidates should be included in the "Overview of results" section? Helper201 (talk) 09:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently listed candidates + Ryan Binkley. Ryan Binkley finished in 5th place in the Iowa Republican presidential caucuses. As seen from those results (see the prior link) he finished above Asa Hutchinson and received over four times as many votes as Hutchinson, who is currently listed on this results page, at 774 votes for Binkley compared to 191 for Hutchinson. He also received over four times the vote share percentage of Hutchinson, at 0.70% of the vote to Hutchinson's 0.17%. And yet Hutchinson is currently included on this page and Binkley is not. Binkley is also still in the race, whereas Hutchinson dropped out after only standing in one state, so Binkley's votes will almost certainly increase, as will his vote share, while Hutchinson's will not. We also have several major sources covering Binkely, including (but not limited to): Politico, The Washington Times, USA Today (twice), Des Moines Register, C-Span and The Independent. It makes no sense to include Hutchinson here but omit a candidate with more votes and a higher percentage of the vote than him. Helper201 (talk) 09:35, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently listed candidates. Placing ahead of Hutchinson does not equal major candidate status. Hutchinson is only included as he held a major public office, Governor of Arkansas. If another hits 5% of the vote (infobox requirement) or 3rd place in a state, I will be open to others' inclusion, but as it stands, Binkley and Stuckenburg are not worthy of major candidate status. Longestview (talk) 11:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Reply: It’s not a requirement that someone be "major" candidate to be included on this page (though to state he isn't one is highly debatable, especially if we are to include Hutchinson). There is no notability requirement for information within articles. Hutchinson being included because he once held a public office is some arbitrary requirement for inclusion thought up by an editor. The 5% infobox point is, A. a general principle, NOT a rule, and, B. this is not an infobox, it’s a results page. As a results page this is specifically supposed to be more expansive and comprehensive than a simple infobox, otherwise this article wouldn't have been created as its own page. The page also is simply titled "results", not "Results of major candidates". It’s not beneficial to restrict the inclusion of Binkley in any way, it just makes the reader less informed with less information. Omitting him benefits neither the reader nor the page, it simply makes them less informed. Helper201 (talk) 12:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What Helper201 said. This chart and those which came before have always had minor and withdrawn candidates listed and the reason is that the charts are a reference for easy viewing. The reader has a single place to see everything at a glance rather than go on a hunting expedition. What we’re doing a curtesy to posterity. Wowizowie57 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

The Term “worthy” is troubling. Either all of these people are worthy or none of them are. This is a moral judgement on their characters that we’re not “worthy” to make. While over the past year, making the debate stage was a good standard, the primaries have actually begun, and the number of states on the ballot, at least for this page at least, should be, in my opinion, ten states, and perhaps a smaller chart for those who are on three to five. Every vote counts. Wowizowie57 (talk) 13:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently listed candidates in the main table (for clarity, since it's not specified above, this means DeSantis, Haley, Trump, and the withdrawn candidates Hutchinson and Ramaswamy) and add one or two tables for Binkley, Christie, and others, like in Results of the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries or Results of the 2020 Republican Party presidential primaries. The criteria for a major candidate is a matter of well-established consensus, not just "thought up by an editor". I don't believe that getting more votes than another candidate is part of that criteria when both candidates in question get less than 1%. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Seconded Punker85 (talk) 22:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently Listed Candidates plus Binkley. Even if He is a minor candidate. The fact he got more Than Hutchinson and cannot be in the Results is Insane. 47.20.46.230 (talk) 23:13, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Where can we find the criteria for major candidates? Carleas (talk) 02:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Include Binkley. We have well-known and reliable sources (multiple) covering him and his election campaign and as said he's had more votes than Hutchinson. Given he's still in the race also gives him more noteriety. Hutinson contested the vote in only one state and he's included. The page is easily readable with more candidates included. It doesn't compromise the page to include him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:E884:2A01:F474:ED46:D659:BEBE (talk) 00:20, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently listed candidates. I think Spiffy sperry has summed up my thoughts on the matter perfectly here. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 23:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently listed candidates + Ryan Binkley. Withdrawing my previous comment. Given that the pool of candidates is much smaller than in the 2020 Democratic primaries, which is what I was basing my previous comments on, I don't believe the table in this article should be held to the exact same standards.

Comment: Longestview edited the article (diff) to include Binkley in the main table, with the edit summary "Moderate consensus for including Binkley." First, I disagree with that assessment of the above discussion, and second, it is bad form (i.e., contrary to RfC instructions) to edit the article to implement any conclusion while discussion is ongoing in this RfC. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, jumped the gun -- Not too familiar with the RfC process. Longestview (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

• This looks like a campaign to include a candidate who fewer than 1,000 people have voted for. I'd probably keep it at either 5% or candidates who have received delegates. SportingFlyer T·C 21:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

How should ranked choice voting be handled?

Hello, wondering on whether we should include the first round and the final tally totals in the table. Thanks! Esolo5002 (talk) 01:18, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

None of These Candidates

Should NOTC be added to the vote total for "other"? WorldMappings (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Binkley should not be listed as a major candidate

He should be removed from that section. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Totally agree. Esolo5002 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Also agree, only major candidates should be included in this section Punker85 (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

How does this work exactly? Binkley's votes just go back to the "Other" column, right? David O. Johnson (talk) 02:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

It would make the most sense Punker85 (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

leave it as is. He’s on almost all the ballots. Xxxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.231.109 (talk) 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Binkley is in the section named Major candidates and Binkley isn't a major candidate, so either the section should be renamed or he should be removed from it and I stand for the latter because he isn't a major candidate and he wasn't a notable enough candidate for me to change the name of the section Punker85 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Primaries from Super Tuesday

Is anyone going to add up the results from the primaries on Super Tuesday? Dogperson160 (talk) 22:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Shading withdrawn candidates

For withdrawn candidates who get third place in a primary or caucus, should their cell be shaded pink because they earned third place, or should they still have the withdrawn shade of gray? Longestview (talk) 22:55, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Pink 74.64.231.109 (talk) 10:47, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Gray, because, with 2nd and 3rd place withdrawn candidates being colored pink, they would likely be confused with candidates who where still running Punker85 (talk) 20:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

County Result Map Shouldn't Show Margin of Victory

The county map for the results of all the primaries has results for the margin of victory. I think this is needless detail, and will make it tedious for anyone to complete. If you look at the 2016 GOP Primary Wikipedia page, they have a county result map which just shows who won which county. I would reccommend doing that for this page. 108.39.196.77 (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Should we change Donald Trump's current image now

This is probably the stupidest topic on the talk page, but I think using photos of Donald Trump when he was in the office would be better. Memevietnam98 (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The portrait from Trump's presidency is 7 years old at this point, it's more appropriate to use a more recent photo. Longestview (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2024 (UTC)