Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 5

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This has been debated above without an apparent consensus. At this time, should RFK Jr. be included in the infobox? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes,' he should be included in the Infobox. His current polling indicates that his support is significantly higher than the 5% threshold we've used before. His support has attacted significant media attention, see [1], [2], [3], [4]. While it is true that third party candidacies tend to fizzle out, that is all a hypothetical, current polling shows him consistantly above 10%, with outlier polling higher than that. At this present moment, he has sufficient support. Whether that might change is irrelevant. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• After some thought, exclude until Kennedy recieves ballot access in 26 states. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:05, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Why 26 states? Ballot access by electoral votes might be a better threshold. Prcc27 (talk) 16:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• 26 is a simple majority, electoral votes is more subjective. Just because he can't win the election through the electoral collage doesn't mean he can't effect it signficantly. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ballot access in 270+ electoral votes makes a candidate more likely to win 5% of the popular vote than say if they were only on the ballot in 26 of the smallest states. It absolutely does matter which state you are on the ballot in, if you want to run up your national popular vote total. You’re not gonna pick up many popular votes in Wyoming. Prcc27 (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No one who is not in the ballot in all 50 states shouldn’t br sllowed onto this info box, if this were to actually occur, other major independents would have to be added. Hooten Glover (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn’t Be allowed* Hooten Glover (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Plenty of past infoboxes have candidates that had limited ballot access and either received electoral votes or passed 5% (see 1948, 1848, and 1836). PeacockShah (talk) 20:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude. While he is polling over 5%, early polls often overestimate third-party support. The media is not treating him as a serious contender for the office. Elli (talk | contribs) 18:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  He doesn't have to be a serious contender for the office. That's not the criteria. He just has to likely achieve 5% of the vote. Beyond this, the media does consider him a serious contender for the office, as his odds of winning the presidency are presently above DeSantis and Haley.

  1-5% isn't nothing. Will it happen? Almost certainly not. Yet that's not the discussion this RFC is about. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• No/Exclude It is far too early to suggest RFK Jr. will have any impact on this race, in spite of what polls taken now are saying, because it is so early. Note that there were a few polls from the analagous point of the previous cycle where "Other" was scoring 15-20% of the vote without having a potential third party candidate that has the name recognition of RFK Jr. See
  WP:UNDUE weight to his presidential chances. – Muboshgu (talk
  ) 19:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  As a comment above states: He has a better chance of winning the presidency according to betting markets than Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley. Pollsters also state that Kennedy will almost certainly reach 5% of the vote. That's the only criteria for being included in the infobox. The large majority of pollsters, forecasters, and betting markets disagree, and state that Kennedy has a substantial chance of winninng the presidency. (1-8%). There's an immense difference between past elections and the 2024 presidential election. Both candidates are deeply unpopular, Kennedy has name ID, has endorsements from powerful influences, and wealth to run a campaign, something that has not happened since Ross Perot. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that Kennedy will win. Just that he'll almost certainly get >5% of the vote. Even if the election results are 5% of the vote...he still qualifies. The criteria isn't whether he wins the presidency or not.. it's whether he gets 5% or not. He'll almost certainly achieve the latter. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Betting markets"? Meaningless. All third party candidates have their support overstated compared to the eventual results, except for Perot in 1992. Your speculation about the future doesn't change that. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's not speculating. Kennedy is polling 15%-20% in national polling averages. It *would be speculation* to remove him per All third party candidates have their support overstated compared to the eventual results. Just take a look at the 1980 United States presidential election article. Candidates only have to get 5% to be included. Frank Luntz and other pollsters are pretty confident Kennedy will get that. The claims aren't limited to betting markets. They're widespread among reliable sources. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  It's not speculation to note that every third party candidate fared worse than they polled, save Perot. What Luntz is saying is speculation. It is ludicrous to insist on putting up a picture of RFK Jr. and no other candidate on the assumption that things somehow won't change in a year in the way that they have changed in every previous presidential election, at least in modern history. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  That might be true if Luntz was a distinct minority voice or the only one making the claim. That's simply not the case. Once the Republican and Democrats are announced, of course their names should be included as well, and no one's saying otherwise. What is clear is that he's likely to get 5% of the vote. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:49, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  He is not "likely" to get 5% of the vote. The history of third party candidates for president (other than Perot) should show you that he is unlikely to get 5% of the vote. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Multiple reliable sources and polls state as such. Unilaterally overriding those based upon a gut feeling shouldn't be part of the criteria. StardustToStardust (talk) 12:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Prediction markets are generally quite bad for estimates of things with low probability. The general principal here for why people believe in prediction markets is that if there's for example an implied probability of 30% for a candidate's success in the market, but a more reasoned estimate would be 50%, there is money to be made placing bets on that candidate, which should lead to a correction. But that's not the same when the market gives a 1/50 chance for candidate; even if you think the actual chance is 1/1000 there's not really money to made in the same way to correct that.

  Also you mentioned forecasters. What forecasters have predictions for the likelihood of an RFK Jr. winning the presidency, particularly this far out...? Endwise (talk) 02:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not yet. I think there would be a stronger case to add him only once the party nominees are decided, as it just looks a bit strange to have him as the only portrait in the infobox currently. I would, however, support having an image of Kennedy displayed in the "Independent/third party" candidates section. Kafoxe (talk) 19:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude. It's too early to tell if he has any real support. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Yes. I do think He should. I already stated my reasons before so i won't reiterate them here. Orange Anomaly. (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes Robert F. Kennedy Jr. at this moment in time is a very strong candidate based on polls so at this moment in time, Kennedy stays in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 19:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, as he is one of the most popular 3rd party candidates in many sourced polls. 69.167.206.138 (talk) 19:48, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Not yet as per Kafoxe. dh (talk) 20:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Exclude. It is not yet the time. Adding him this early implies an undue level of confidence in the polling, which at this point is unreliable, as noted above. TheSavageNorwegian 21:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, per the overwhelming probability that Kennedy gets >5% of the vote - There is an overwhelming probability that Kennedy gets >5% of the vote (per reliable sources). He's leading among youth, independents, and anti-establishment voters, and professional pollsters are saying he will almost certainly meet the criteria for inclusion in the infobox. Opposition provides no good reasons to note include.

Per the Guardian: Luntz said there was the potential for third-party candidates to draw far more support than Ross Perot, whose independent presidential campaign won nearly 19% of the popular vote in 1992... and the New York Times: All of this is unfolding against the backdrop of the 2024 presidential campaign. Many young voters are already actively entertaining the alternative, independent candidacies of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West. According to a new Quinnipiac University poll last week, upwards of 40 percent of registered voters under 35 indicate they are supporting Mr. Kennedy and his anti-establishment message or Mr. West, the public intellectual and author, in a hypothetical matchup against Mr. Biden and Mr. Trump. Young people are turning to social media and seeing the noted conspiracy theorist Mr. Kennedy railing against the elites and rallying “millennials and Gen Z” who have never felt at home in the two-party system and “are repelled by the toxicity, the pettiness and, more than anything else, by the dishonesty” of politics today. Clearly merits inclusion. As others have pointed out: opposition to including him seems to be primarily emotional and based upon his promotion of conspiracy theories.StardustToStardust (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Some people here seemingly think that he has to have a likely chance of winning the presidency. He doesn't. He just has to go past 5%. There's a widespread consensus among sources that he'll likely achieve that. In fact, betting markets and pollsters are giving him a better chance of winning the presidency than either Ron DeSantis or Nikki Haley. He qualifies in spades. StardustToStardust (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with everything you said. Lostfan333 (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with it all. Everyone thought there was an "overwhelming probability" that the Gary Johnson 2016 presidential campaign would end up with so many votes because Trump and Clinton were so unpopular. He got less than 4%. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

At this point in time Gary Johnson wasn't polling above 20 percent. Kennedy is polling near or above 20 percent in most polls. Lostfan333 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

If Nationwide opinion polling for the 2016 United States presidential election is comprehensive, then Gary Johnson's 2016 campaign wasn't polled at all until May 2016, a much more reasonable timeframe than this. In late September 2016, Johnson's support was placed at 8.6% by the RealClearPolitics average of presidential polls and at 7.9% by the FiveThirtyEight polls-only forecasting model. Then he ended up with about half of that in the only poll that matters. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:46, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I still stand with the decision of leaving Kennedy in the infobox but when do YOU think it would be "okay" to add Kennedy into the infobox? Lostfan333 (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Without giving it too much thought, if he's still polling this high around the conventions. No earlier than the main party nominations being wrapped up, IMHO. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Overwhelming probability he gets 5% of the vote? Have you looked at the 3rd party results in 2016 and 2020? Those elections saw similar levels of disillusionment, and saw all sorts of candidates see large polling percentages this early in the cycle, yet in the end, no independent or 3rd party candidate topped 4 percent, let alone 5. TheSavageNorwegian 22:01, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

You could make a similar argument the other way. Looking back at the talk pages of the 2016 election, editors wanted to remove Donald Trump from the primary infoboxes under the belief that his support was being vastly overstated by polls: he ultimately ended up winning the nomination and then presidency. Frank Luntz and many other top pollsters have gone on record saying they expect Kennedy to surpass >5%. Beyond this, Johnson and third parties only barely missed inclusion. Polling showed that he wouldn't get 5% in most areas by the time of the election. StardustToStardust (talk) 22:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I find it odd that you are continuing to cite Frank Luntz as though he's not ever wrong about things. He predicted Republicans would end up with 233-240 seats in the House and control of the Senate in the 2022 elections. Republican Pollster Frank Luntz Admits He Got Midterms Wrong and Is Being ‘Deservedly Roasted’ for It – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

That argument is just an ad hominem against him. Most pollsters called the 2022 elections wrong. He's not the only one to make the claim that Kennedy will almost certainly get 5%. So even whether he's discredited (he's not) is ultimately irrelevant, regardless. I was just mentioning him as one example of a serious and well-respected pollster predicting Kennedy will very likely get 5%.StardustToStardust (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Ad hominem attacks are off-topic attacks about someone's character or other irrelevant aspects rather than the substance of the argument. I'm showing you that just one year ago, November 7, 2022, he made a prediction that turned out to be wildly offbase, and now you are justifying your confidence about RFK Jr.'s 2024 results based on that same "expertise". And no, many pollsters got 2022 right. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One error doesn't mean that he's discredited. Luntz is widely respected across the political spectrum. Even if he wasn't, this would only matter if he was the only one stating it. Many have made similar statements about Kennedy.StardustToStardust (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying he's "discredited". I'm saying that it is insufficient basis for putting RFK Jr in the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Even if reliable sources state as such? Again, it's not like Luntz is a crazy outlier here. StardustToStardust (talk) 12:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

“Respected” does not translate to “authoritative” SecretName101 (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: I think we should change the new inclusion criteria to 5% national polls aggregation and ballot access to 270+ electoral votes (with an

exception if substantial media coverage is received). It does not make sense to include an independent candidate with minor media coverage all alone in the infobox. I don’t particularly like the way the RfC is worded. This isn’t about whether or not to include RFK Jr., it’s about what the criteria should be. For this reason I won’t be !voting, but I trust that the closer will weigh my comment accordingly.Prcc27 (talk

) 21:37, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Exclude: Per

WP:CRYSTAL (Biden vs. Kennedy vs. Trump is hypothetical if we do not even know who will win the Dem and GOP nomination [further comments on this below]). Prcc27 (talk

) 15:20, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: Cornel West is actually polling higher than 5%, this issue isn’t just about RFKJR.[6] Prcc27 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Barely and within the margin of error. If West clearly and consistently starts exceeding >5% then I wouldn't be opposed, either. StardustToStardust (talk) 12:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The current criteria does not take “margin of error” into account. Not sure how that would be possible with polling aggregation. But margin of error is probably a reason why 5% is too low of a threshold. Regardless, if Cornel West’s polling holds, he would be on track to be added to the infobox under the 2020 RfC criteria, no? Prcc27 (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes (Summoned by bot) They meet the inclusion criteria therefore they should be included. TarnishedPath^talk 23:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

  "Inclusion criteria" as determined by Wikipedia editors.

  WP:Consensus can change. And I think that "5%" consensus originated around results, not polling. – Muboshgu (talk

  ) 01:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Originated around results, but was extended to polling. What are you proposing to be the new inclusion criteria, if you don’t mind me asking..? Prcc27 (talk) 02:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude: Too far out to make any definitive statements about how well he will perform.2601:249:9301:D570:8D7B:BDB4:4B96:F25C (talk) 01:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Exclude: I think this case is a good indication of why ">5% of polling for a third party candidate, even a year off from the election" would be a pretty bad criteria. On an article containing results, >5% of the vote makes sense, so I can understand wanting a proxy for "is likely to get more than 5% of the vote next year". But taking polling here as an indication of a third party candidate's success is to be willfully ignorant of the way the US political system works. For the last two elections:

• In 2016, the best peforming candidate, Gary Johnson, got 3% of the vote. He was far more notable, with far more media attention and prospects for success than RFK Jr.
• In 2020, the best performing third party candidate (libertarian Jo Jorgensen) got 1% of the vote.

It's not even clear at the moment that RFK Jr. will be on the ballot for a lot of states. I can accept the need for an objective criteria which means we won't have to have these kinds of debates, but under anything that's a reasonable proxy for "is likely to get >5% of the national vote", RFK Jr. should be excluded. Endwise (talk) 02:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes the dude's polling at 20% idk what else needs to be discussed when 1 in 5 voters are wanting to vote for him. If that's not "major" then idk what is. I also support adding Cornel West if he starts polling a bit higher too IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 07:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  What threshold would you support for Cornel West? Prcc27 (talk) 09:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• No - It's too early (we're still in 2023) & none of the party primaries & caucuses have been held yet. GoodDay (talk) 08:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No - He could still potentially lose. If someone had the sense to put RFK on their, why don't they just put Biden and Trump on there because "they'd obviously win"? Any independent politician could come in and beat him. Who knows, he's an old man, he could die any time from now. WiinterU (talk) 13:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No, for now. His polling average merits inclusion in the infobox, but polling is inexact and we need a more objective metric to answer this question. He should get on the ballot in enough states to win the election before he is included, in addition to maintaining a polling average above 5%. -A-M-B-1996- (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• No - it's too far out, and he's not even on the ballot in most places. Perhaps in a while if this keeps up

AntiDionysius (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment He's also a huge anti-vaccine activist. I don't think that someone who is openly trying to harm people with misinformation will win to be president. He might be able to make it into an Independent candidate. However, he will most likely fail becoming president due to him spreading misinformation (uhh, actually). And it is exceedingly difficult (not impossible) to beat the incumbent president. To add onto this, peoples opinions can change over even a short period of time. RFK could come out and say something that could ruin his career (not like it hasn't happened before).. WiinterU (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No: Not yet, more time will need to pass to show he holds support in order to meet the threshold. TheBritinator (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

He may not even continue to run. He said he was going to run as a democrat, now he is an independent. He might change his mind all together and run for something in Massachusetts instead. I'm kind of surprised he ran for president at all when he could have used his name to run as an independent in Massachusetts and get more attention for his whack job ideas. 64.237.115.91 (talk) 14:22, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Keep your political opinions to yourself please. Lostfan333 (talk) 14:44, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I think what IP was getting at is it is too soon to know how this election will play out, and who the candidates will be. Regardless, even assuming Kennedy stays in the race until the end as an independent, we do not know who the major party nominees will be. Prcc27 (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I meant his political opinions that Kennedy has "whack job" ideas. I've noticed several others call Kennedy a nut too. Is that even allowed? I don't think I'd be allowed to call AOC crazy during a series discussion about her. I just want the personal insults to the candidate out of this conversation. Lostfan333 (talk) 15:24, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

We should probably keep comments about the candidates to a minimum per

WP:NOTFORUM. Prcc27 (talk

) 15:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Lostfan333 (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Include: Polls are reliably showing that he is polling far above 5%, with Siena College asserting his appeal is as high as 24%. [7] I expect this to change as I feel a lot of voters aren't awake of his fringe beliefs, lack of foreign policy breakage (it seems as if many voters are opposing Biden's Middle East policy, but RFK Jr. extremely pro-Israel) and anti-vaccination activism, but at the moment he's as major as a candidate as Biden and Trump as far as the polls go. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 23:51, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but not now: It is too early to know for sure if he will actually be a major candidate on election day. Let's wait at least for a month or too to see if he continues to poll well at the earliest. Or until he actually achieves ballot access. KittyTeam (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

i think wait until he gets ballot access in 26 states Setarip (talk) 16:13, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

No: third-party candidates are a hopeless breed of politicking. Perot, the Free Soilers, and the Know Nothings all failed. Even the optimistic and powerful left-wingers can't get into a post-Red Scare party. Robert's no different.

talk

) 20:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely not. This also legitimates his fringe candidacy 141.161.133.121 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No, not yet: It isn’t reasonable to list serious independent contenders before the major party candidates are nominated, and probably also have ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions. Additionally, the consensus is that opinion polling (and media banter) are not statistically reliable enough to gauge true notability—especially above all other presidential candidates. Anderson in 1980 was the last independent with an infobox. He had several polls over 20% nationally but his final vote share was only just enough to warrant being in with the other candidates. 2600:1700:FD0:E200:4DA7:E4E1:CFF8:DF51 (talk) 23:53, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Correction. Perot in 1992 and 1996 garnered enough of the vote to be included in the infobox as well. SecretName101 (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No. I believe it’s far too early to include him as a serious candidate worthy of the infobox. This would be the first election since 1996 with a third candidate on the respective article, so it would be a big deal. PencilSticks0823 (talk) 00:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

He meets every single one of Wikipedia’s current criteria for inclusion. The change the criteria in the middle of a campaign season would give off a strong feeling of bias. There is no reason, given Wikipedia’s current criteria, to exclude him. 153.33.109.245 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

"Current criteria" is an irrelevant argument as

consensus can and does change. If "current criteria" allows for RFK Jr and no other candidate to be presented in the infobox (which is biased presentation), the criteria need to be changed. When we fix it is irrelevant. I'll note once again that voting hasn't started yet and won't for another two months. – Muboshgu (talk

) 20:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes/include. You can argue all you want that third-party/independents don't typically get a significant block of the vote. You can argue disillusionment is likely as high now than it has been. But the difference between every other election and now is that 2024 is a literal rematch between an 80 year old unpopular president and a 77 year old who's the subject of 4 different trials right now. Not only do people want something new, but according to polling, Kennedy eats away 8-25% of the popular vote. The last time an independent polled that highly - and what you can't argue is that any candidate in 2020 or 2016 did that - was in 1992, when Ross Perot took 19% while polling at 20%. Kennedy deserves to be in the infobox. Until something changes, and he consistently polls below 5%, we should keep him in the infobox. West, who polls rather consistently at 1-2% in recent 4-way polls, should not. GardenCosmos (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

We literally do not know who the Democratic and GOP nominees will be. You are assuming Biden and Trump will win, but we do not know that for sure. If one or both of them lose the nomination, it makes the aggregates with those respective candidates moot. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Until we know who the nominees will actually be, I do not think Kennedy qualifies. A Biden vs. Trump vs. Kennedy etc. is a hypothetical match up at this point. Prcc27 (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

lacks sufficient ballot access SecretName101 (talk) 23:04, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Still, he's working at it. You think a guy running in Texas - who's pretty up there with those polls - can deadlock the election? We still include the cheeky goober. ManOfDirt (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

He should be excluded until he at least gets on the ballot in most states or most EVs SuperGion915 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Exclude until he gets ballot accces in 2/3 of the states UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Media are now treating Kennedy as a serious candidate; Siena and other new polls showing that he's continuing to rise See the polling here. “It is noteworthy that among voters under 45 in those six states, RFK polls at 32%, Biden at 30% and Trump is at 29%,” Levy said. “Overall, while 18% of Democrats and 16% of Republicans say they would back RFK, 39% of independents would back Kennedy, compared to 28% for Biden and 25% for Trump.

Kennedy now surpasses 20% in polling aggregates. Which is far higher than any other third-party candidate within the 21st century. Per: Biden’s crumbling support among younger voters was one of the key takeaways from the poll results, but instead of showing Trump in the lead, it appears that voters under the age of 45 are consolidating around [Kennedy]...And in some states, Kennedy is winning younger voters by enormous margins. In Arizona, Kennedy has 39 percent of the 18-29-year-old vote to Trump’s 26 — and in Georgia, Kennedy leads Trump 35 to 28 in the same demographic. Biden still has some sway with younger voters in several states — pulling in 37 percent of the 18-29 year old vote in both Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. StardustToStardust (talk) 15:25, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

That's some very interesting information. Kennedy needs to stay in the infobox. Lostfan333 (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude for now - unclear if he'll be on enough state ballots to reach 270 electoral votes. Once he has enough ballot access to theoretically win, I have no problem adding him back. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Ballot count is currently not apart of the requirements to be considered a major candidate on the site. 174.230.145.60 (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  That's mostly because it's presumed that a major candidate will have full ballot access since all the major have full (or almost full) ballot access already. Independent candidates are different in that regard. Woko Sapien (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

• Not yet Showing only one candidate in the infobox of an election page is nowhere near NPOV. Polling numbers are a red herring; Trump and Biden are polling far higher, but I hope we would never put only Trump's or only Biden's picture in the infobox. This can be revisited later, when it's time to put the other pictures up, but if his poll numbers are similar then, I see no reason not to. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think we will end up putting one picture up before the other, unless consensus

  changes. Prcc27 (talk

  ) 21:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Has there previously been consensus that it's OK to put only one candidate's picture in the infobox of any (contested) election page? That seems non-neutral on the face of it. The RFC linked below doesn't seem to cover that issue, though I haven't read the whole thing obviously. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not sure about official consensus, but that was the

  edit consensus. Prcc27 (talk

  ) 21:43, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  We have tended to place one candidate in the infobox if one party has a presumptive nominee while the other party is still contesting its nomination without a candidate having secured presumptive status. SecretName101 (talk) 23:07, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude if for no other reason, we don't even have Trump or Biden yet. GreatCaesarsGhost 22:17, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude and IMO we shouldn't be displaying the empty Repub/Dem nominee labels either, there were times when they weren't there and I recall some talk page discussions where some of us agreed it's unnecessary or unhelpful to display them.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with this. It would be cleaner to just leave that whole section out until after the primaries, and then have a discussion about which third party/non-party candidates are popularly considered viable, if any. Moonreach (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Seconded, would sidestep this debate. PeacockShah (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  I also think we should probably wait until both major parties select a nominee, as Suffusion of Yellow suggested above. Seems

  WP:UNDUE to only have some but not all “major” candidates in the infobox. Prcc27 (talk

  ) 21:00, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. I agree 100%. It's far too early to have any candidates in the inbox. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  That sounds like a good idea. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:27, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude oh absolutely not. He has polled between 6-22%, that's not a stable support line that would lead us to believe that he is 100% guaranteed to be a major figure in the coming election. Wait until the major party candidates are chosen and then we can make that call, never any harm in waiting. JaacTreee (talk) 04:20, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude for the time being. It is way too soon to place any candidate in the infobox based solely on polling numbers, as we have no way of knowing to what degree those figures may fluctuate in the months ahead. I also agree with others who have suggested that a prerequisite for inclusion should be having secured ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of attaining the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes He's polling high and is viewed as a major contendenr. ShadZ01 (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

He is neither polling high or viewed as a major contender. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude It is far too early to tell if RFK Jr. will get more than 5% of the vote or even have a major impact on this election. We could put him back later if he has a very serious chance to do something, but right now, it is just simply too early (remember that we are still a year out from the general election). Evaxooooof25 (talk) 03:14, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes So long as he is polling above 5% there is no reason he should not be included at this stage, especially as he has announced his campaign; were it still in the hypothetical stages that would be something else entirely. --Ariostos (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Yes He has recently received at least 20% in the polls. This makes him a significant candidate in next year's race. Until his support lessens, he should be kept on here for now. 98.20.147.181 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• We're at 22-9 against by my rough count after three days. Consensus clearly in favor of pulling from the infobox at this time. We can always add back if consensus changes. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:03, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

  Correct me if I am wrong, but there also seems to be a general consensus to re-add ballot access as a criterion for inclusion (in addition to the 5% polling requirement), and to possibly wait until both major parties nominate someone before adding anyone to the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 00:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

  I think it was a misreading of consensus to remove it in the first place. I reviewed every vote for the 5% threshold, and everyone seems to be ignorant of this outcome. Also, the discussion took place in July, after the ballot access was a foregone conclusion. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

• Kafoxe's rationale is good enough to remove this individual from the infobox, at least at this point in the election. At the moment, it looks like we are promoting him and that needs to stop. Acalamari 08:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Remove, featuring fringe candidates so prominently like that doesn't seem due. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:58, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
• Remove unless we also add Cornel West, who is polling at 6% according to Newsweek.[8] Nosferattus (talk) 20:00, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  In that case, what's wrong with adding Cornel West to the infobox? 98.20.147.181 (talk) 14:24, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  Everything that's wrong with adding RFK Jr, and then some. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• Strongly support: Reliable sources state that he is a leading candidate. Kennedy also seems assured to get over 5% of the vote. He, along with other non-major-party candidates, has a real chance to affect the outcome of the 2024 election... The amazing thing, though, is that these three have been the only non-major-party candidates in the history of polling to hit more than 20% within a year of the election. Kennedy is now part of this select group. Moreover, those three prior candidates ended up getting above 5% (if not 10%) in the final outcome... Like other editors have said, "this seems more based upon a dislike of Kennedy than an objective accounting of the situation"; whether or not he spreads misinformation is irrelevant. KlayCax (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  I agree. Lostfan333 (talk) 00:20, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  We have no obligation to include him at this stage, regardless of what reliable sources say, per

  WP:ONUS. No, nobody is saying don’t include him because we don’t like him. In fact, some people are saying do not include any candidates until after both parties have a nominee. Prcc27 (talk

  ) 02:54, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I object to the idea that this is due to a "dislike of Kennedy". We have said that it is UNDUE weight to his candidacy to put him there so early when the major party fields are blank. Plus, RFK isn't "assured" of sufficient ballot access to reach 5% of the vote yet.

  Focus on content, not on contributors. – Muboshgu (talk

  ) 03:13, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  No candidate can be assured of getting 5%. (Even Republicans or Democrats.) However, CNN says he'll likely get 5% of the vote. We're going to have to eventually pick one nominee in the infobox before the others, regardless. My opinion would change if the RFC leads to a change in criteria. For now, there's no good reason to exclude. KlayCax (talk) 04:21, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Not true. If the Democrats choose a nominee first, we likely will still leave the infobox empty, until the Republicans choose their nominee too. That seems to be the general agreement, but I could be wrong.. Prcc27 (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  @Prcc27 that's not how we have done it in the past. My memory is that in 2016 and 2020, Trump was included in the infobox before Hillary and Biden (respectively) due to him becoming the presumptive nominee of his party at an earlier time in each of those years than the aforementioned Democratic Party nominees. SecretName101 (talk) 23:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  I am aware of that. But most people in this RfC want to

  change that. Prcc27 (talk

  ) 23:12, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  You claimed a “general agreement”, implying an existing consensus that has not previously been established as far as I know. Hence my correction. SecretName101 (talk) 16:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless someone can refute the following reason for removal, I will be moving forward with removing RFKJR from the infobox tomorrow: we do not even know who the nominees will be, so this all seems

WP:ONUS, the onus is on those seeking inclusion to get consensus, which editors have failed to demonstrate that the previous consensus applies. Prcc27 (talk

) 23:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Please wait for the RFC to be closed before doing that. Let someone uninvolved make that decision. Esolo5002 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Weren't you one of the first users to argue Kennedy should be on the infobox if I'm not mistaken? Lostfan333 (talk) 00:06, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I was indifferent to it, I never said I supported it. But we clearly cannot include him in the infobox based on hypothetical polls. Prcc27 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Regardless, I too think we should wait. Lostfan333 (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I think not, per WP:ONUS. Prcc27 (talk) 00:09, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

IMO the better way to handle this is to ask for closure from an uninvolved editor as the RfC has gone on for more than 7 days and the consensus isn't murky enough to warrant relisting it and waiting another week. If this were an ordinary discussion, boldly removing it due to the apparent consensus would be totally fine, but this is an RfC. Let's just let the process play out, we're at the end of the process anyways.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 13:58, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. Did not see your message until after I made my BOLD edit. But I definitely will take your advice and request closure. There is no guarantee an editor will close this RfC soon though. It took forever for the last RfC on this talk page to be closed, even though it was several days after the 30 day automatic end. Given the clear consensus and WP:ONUS, seems bizarre to wait possibly several weeks before we can remove him. Prcc27 (talk) 14:30, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Summary of debate as of 00:13, Thursday, November 16, 2023 (UTC). Some editors argue for inclusion based on his polling numbers, which are significantly higher than the previously used 5% threshold. They also cite significant media attention and historical precedents where candidates with limited ballot access but considerable electoral support were included. Others argue for exclusion until he achieves ballot access in a majority of states or a number of states that could yield a majority of electoral votes, suggesting that his current support in polls may not be sustained through the election cycle. Another point raised is that early polls often overestimate third-party support and that media is not treating him as a serious contender, hence his inclusion would be undue weight. Some editors also suggest that inclusion based on polls alone is insufficient and speculative, as it does not necessarily translate into actual votes or impact. There is a substantial discussion about the relevance of early polling and historical comparisons to other third-party candidates. Many editors express caution, suggesting it is too early to make a definitive judgment about his candidacy's impact. Some editors also believe that changing Wikipedia's current criteria mid-campaign may reflect bias and that if Kennedy continues to poll above 5%, there should be no reason for exclusion. The use of betting markets as a gauge for candidacy success is also debated, with some editors dismissing them as unreliable. A suggestion to wait for the major party nominees to be decided before including any candidate in the infobox is also being considered, with the idea of preventing undue emphasis on one candidate. The debate also touches on the appropriateness of Wikipedia's role in potentially legitimizing a candidate's campaign. Ultimately, the consensus at the time of the discussion appears to lean towards excluding RFK Jr. from the infobox until more concrete criteria are met, such as ballot access in a significant number of states or the passing of the election cycle to a point where more reliable data can be obtained. This reflects a broader caution among the participants against relying too heavily on early polling data and a desire to maintain neutrality and avoid undue weight on any one candidate. Svenskbygderna (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  Great summary! I honestly think we can close this RfC ourselves; when consensus is clear, you do not need an uninvolved editor to close it per

  WP:RFCCLOSE. Does anyone oppose closure by an involved editor at this stage, given the clear consensus here? Prcc27 (talk

  ) 02:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

  No objection here. And yes, that is a great summary. Kudos, Svenskbygderna! A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

• Exclude - there is a 99.9% chance the winner will be a Republican or Democrat. No need to entertain this in a country known for a rigid two-party system. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 02:55, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

Should the inclusion criteria for the infobox be changed? If so, what should it be changed to? Please see this RfC on the previous inclusion criteria. Prcc27 (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm still recovering from the RFC results at the 45th Canadian federal election page. GoodDay (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Too soon? I figured better now than in the summer.. 😅 Prcc27 (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I think candidates should be included in the infobox if they meet the polling criterion (which I think should be raised to at least 10%), if and only if they meet an additional criterion. Additional criteria: Ballot access to 270+ electoral votes OR substantial media coverage treating the candidate like a “major contender” that actually has a shot. 5% in actual results as the inclusion criteria is fine, but 5% in polls for inclusion is too low of a threshold. The current polling threshold does not take the margin of error into consideration, which is why I’m proposing we raise it to 10%. Furthermore, regardless of polling, you can’t actually win 5% of the popular vote without ballot access (or at least write-in access). In lieu of meeting the national polling criteria, I think we can add a candidate to the infobox if they have an average lead of 15% in a state (or Maine/Nebraska congressional district). Remember, winning a pledged electoral vote is also a criterion for inclusion, so it you’re polling high enough in a state you should be included as well. I think we included Evan McMullian in 2016 when he was polling well in Utah. Prcc27 (talk) 16:06, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• I disagree with any effort to raise the polling criterion. 5% is an arbitrary number, but it is consistent across American election articles. Better not to mess with it.
• I disagree with the media coverage criterion as framed here, because it is too subjective and will only lead to further debate over what constitutes such treatment.
• I agree with the ballot access criterion, as I expressed above and below.

-A-M-B-1996- (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

• It is a consistent number for American elections for actual election results. Isn’t the polling criterion relatively new? If a candidate is polling at 5% and the margin of error is 5%, there is a good chance that the candidate will not actually qualify for the infobox after the election. But I digress.
• The only reason I added it is because let’s say hypothetically Donald Trump dropped out of the GOP race tomorrow, and decided to run as an independent; I think we could add him to the infobox before he has any ballot access. But if users think that adding an independent candidate (even a former president) at this stage is premature, I can live with that.

- Question: any thoughts on what to do if a candidate is polling well in a single state (e.g. Evan McMullin Utah 2016)? Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Polling within a single state may affect the infobox for that state's election article (see 2016 United States presidential election in Utah), but should not be a factor for the infobox in the main election article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It does affect the main election article if the third party candidate actually wins the state… If polls indicate a candidate is likely to win electoral college votes, I would argue they should be included in the infobox. Evan McMullin’s showing in the polls was probably too low for inclusion. But if RFKJR was beating the Dems and Repubs by a margin of 15% in Tennessee polls, nationwide polls and ballot access become less relevant. Prcc27 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Would you like a side of Ross Perot with that?

talk

) 23:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If you don’t have anything productive to say, please don’t say anything at all. Prcc27 (talk) 02:59, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Disagree: Honestly, for me it's a minimum polling. We ought to include candidates that poll at least 15-25% before they're included in the infobox.

For people like Eugene Victor Debs, he got a decent popular vote. Millard Fillmore in 1856 had to get just 4 electoral votes alongside a decent popular vote.

Ballot access should play no part in this. Sure, it would be helpful to get all around the Union, but what if they could deadlock the electoral college because of a few states that let them on the ballot? Impact potential rather than ballot reach would be better, at least from my perspective.

talk

) 23:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

”Ballot access should play no part in this”. So if a candidate like RFKJR. gets no ballot access, he can remain in the infobox..? Pretty hard to get 15% popular votes if you’re not even on the ballot. ”What if they could deadlock the electoral college because of a few states that let them on the ballot?” I already said that if a candidate polls well in a state, they should be included in the infobox (so long as they meet other requirements), so that argument is moot. Besides, RFKJR. does not have any ballot access currently AFAIK. Prcc27 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Also. Above you said RFKJR. should be removed from the infobox, yet you just said a candidate can be included if they poll at least 15%-25% (which RFKJR. does). I’m not following here… Prcc27 (talk) 02:17, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Without wide enough ballot access, it is either impossible or near-impossible to either get a large national share of the popular vote. SecretName101 (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

No: I've always been of the mind that the minimum requirement for inclusion should exclusively be ballot access, where once you attain access to (270) Electoral votes you should be placed in the infobox, as was the case in for the 2012 Election. (5%) though is also the standard criteria for inclusion that has been adopted for all American election articles, and I don't see any reason increasing the bar for the pre-election period of an article only to lower it again for the post-election period. --Ariostos (talk) 03:50, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

It isn’t “lowering” it per se. Polling at 5% with a margin of error of +/- 5% means a candidate could get anywhere from 0%-10% of the vote. And that’s even ignoring the phenomenon that third party candidates usually outperform in polls with significantly lower numbers in the actual results. Increasing the threshold reduces the risk that a candidate will be in the margin of error. Also, if you are polling at 5% nationwide, but only on the ballot in 3 states, you’re obviously not going to win 5% nationwide post-election. Ballot access directly determines the likelihood that one will meet the 5% threshold post-election. Completely disregarding ballot access doesn’t make sense to me. Even if you have ballot access to 270 EVs, a candidate will likely need to poll at 10% nationwide to win 5% post-election since half the country can’t even vote for them… Prcc27 (talk) 04:09, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think there is clearly a problem with us applying a standard that allows third party access to the infobox before major parties. Biden and Trump have greater support than Kennedy, but so does DeSantis! GreatCaesarsGhost 18:13, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

If RFKJR is in the infobox a couple weeks before the major candidates, I do not really think it is a major problem.. But I agree that at this stage he should not be in the infobox. Last election Trump won his party’s nomination before Biden, so we put Trump in the infobox and did not add Biden until later on. Saying “do not add an independent to the infobox until at least 1 major party candidate is added” doesn’t seem very

neutral. Saying do not add anyone to the infobox until both the Democrats and Republicans have nominated a candidate could work I suppose..? So that means under that proposed inclusion criteria, if Biden won his nomination, he would not go in the infobox until after the GOP chooses their nominee. But I don’t think it is fair to remove Kennedy without first establishing what the new inclusion criteria is. And even if then, I think a ballot access criterion is needed, even after the major party candidates have chosen their nominees. Prcc27 (talk

) 18:28, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In short, a ballot access criterion, and waiting to add Kennedy until we add the major party candidates, are two proposals that are not mutually exclusive. Prcc27 (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is largely the right point. The prior RFC was about excluding candidates that had ballot access based on their polling. The concept here is that the Democratic Party has ballot access already, and can confer that access to the candidate of their choosing. So perhaps "polling at X% in a state where they have ballot access" would be a good standard that addresses all the concerns noted. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

You make a good point. In hindsight, we should not have replaced the ballot access requirement with the polling criterion; we should have added the polling criterion to the ballot access criterion. Prcc27 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. 100%. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 21:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

People dread another match between a neoliberal and Christian democrat.

People want someone new. Kennedy's looking to draw votes from conservatives and liberals for his antivax sentiment and "conspiracy theory" anti-corporate activism.

Jeez, aside from rightfully hating on corporations, I don't see why excluding him is good. He has a decent polling.

talk

) 20:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

What has Kennedy done to warrant inclusion that no other candidate has? Because he's the only one there. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:05, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

He's made big news. The media has treated him well.

Nobody wants a two-party system. People want an independent. That's why they're trendy right now.

We should include him.

talk

) 21:07, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

@

Western Progressivist: “Third-party candidates are a hopeless breed of politicking. Perot, the Free Soilers, and the Know Nothings all failed. Even the optimistic and powerful left-wingers can't get into a post-Red Scare party. Robert's no different”. You said that quote above, right? Can you please explain why you all of a sudden had a change of heart? If you changed your mind, please strike your comments like this. Let’s not confuse the process, thanks. Prcc27 (talk

) 21:40, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I find Robert the most interesting candidate in a while; he's syncretic.

Also, we should put a disclaimer next to his infobox that discusses the polling and ballot access criterion (thanks to @

talk

) 21:52, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Okay, we do not add candidates to the infobox based on whether they are interesting or not. Prcc27 (talk) 23:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your change of heart. Lostfan333 (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Seems less like a change of heart and more like disruptive behavior. If the user changed their mind they need to clarify that, and they should explain why. Prcc27 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

So have Biden and Trump. So I ask again - by what rational criteria should we include RFK and not Trump and Biden? GreatCaesarsGhost 01:35, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support changing inclusion criteria to equal ballot access in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of achieving 270 electoral votes exclusively, or in addition to, the polling average requirement. There's no reader benefit including someone in the infobox who has no actual possibility of election. High-polling, ineligible candidates can be addressed in the body of the article. Chetsford (talk) 07:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

  The problem with that is:

  • Many third-parties in the United States have had immense influence in determining the presidential election (or attempted to do so) without obtaining 270. Often, this involves attempts to throw it to the House of Representatives and/or encourage a de facto coalition through bargaining away their electoral votes. (See Strom Thurmond in 1948 and George Wallace in the 1968 election.)
  • There's a long standing consensus that attaining electoral votes is not required for infobox inclusion. See the 1848, 1912, 1980, 1992, 1996 articles.

  Due to the way that the American electoral system works: the mathematical possibility of getting 270 is not required to make an impact. KlayCax (talk) 04:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  Which is why I already suggested adding a criterion that if polling suggests a third party candidate will win electoral college votes, we should add them even if they do not have ballot access to 270 electoral votes. If Kennedy has a 15%+ lead in Tennessee, but only has ballot access in a few states (including Tennessee of course), we should definitely add him. Regardless, there seems to be a general agreement to wait until all major parties have chosen a nominee, before we add anyone to the infobox. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

  However, it is impossible/improbable to achieve 5%+ of the vote nationwide without ballot access to a large enough share of the population. SecretName101 (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. Which is why I support the requirement that a candidate gets 5%+ (ideally 10%+) nationwide polling and ballot access to at least 270 EV. But post-election we include candidates in the infobox if they win 1+ pledged electoral votes, even if their popular vote threshold is below 5%. For this reason, I think candidates polling well in individual state(s) do not need to meet the ballot access requirement, as they are likely to win electoral votes and would be included in the infobox post-election, despite limited ballot access. Prcc27 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2023 (UTC)