Talk:2024 Republican Party presidential debates and forums

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

Identification of debates[edit]

The article currently refers to the two debates so far as the Fox News debate and the RNC debate. I think it would be preferable for the tables to refer to them as Debate 1 and Debate 2, for the following reasons: (1) We shouldn't assume that there will be only one debate on Fox News Channel. In the 2016 Republican Party presidential debates and forums, three of the 12 debates were broadcast on Fox News. This time around, there could certainly be multiple debates on Fox News or on some other network. (2) All of the debates are expected to be sponsored by or held under the auspices of the RNC. (3) The Wikipedia Manual of Style doesn't support putting either "Fox News" or "RNC" in italics in this context. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the suggested changes. Thanks. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:41, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Forums[edit]

For the forums, we know who was present, but do we know whether the absent candidates were invited or not? I notice that 8 of the 13 candidates are listed as non-invitees to the Moms for Liberty forum in Philadelphia. How do we know that they were not even invited? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Debate Qualification Chart[edit]

Dear Wikipedia editors:

I am not a Wikipedia editor, however I have one suggestion for how to improve this article.

Instead of doing a chart that only describes who participated in each debate, it could instead try to mimic the chart from the 2020 Democratic Debates & Forums article.2020 Democratic Party presidential debates

For example:

Qualified candidates for the first debate(as of June 12)
Candidate Met donor criterion

(3rd tiebreak priority)

Met polling criterion

(2nd tiebreak priority)

Met both criteria

(1st tiebreak priority)

Additional

Ref(s)

Biden Yes

(on April 26)

Yes

(37.7%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Sanders Yes

(before April 1)

Yes

(26.7%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Warren Yes

(before April 1)

Yes

(16.3%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Buttigieg Yes

(before April 1)

Yes

(13%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Harris Yes

(before April 1)

Yes

(11%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
O'Rourke Yes

(on March 15)

Yes

(10.3%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Booker Yes

(on May 4)

Yes

(4.0%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Klobuchar Yes

(before April 1)

Yes

(3.7%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Castro Yes

(on May 3)

Yes

(2.0%, 8 qualifying polls)

Yes
Yang Yes

(on March 11)

Yes

(1.7%, 10 qualifying polls)

Yes
Gabbard Yes

(on April 11)

Yes

(1.3%, 8 qualifying polls)

Yes
Gillibrand Yes

(on June 10)

Yes

(1.3%, 6 qualifying polls)

Yes
Inslee Yes

(on May 24)

Yes

(1.0%, 5 qualifying polls)

Yes
Williamson Yes

(on May 9)

Yes

(1.0%, 4 qualifying polls)

Yes
Ryan No Yes

(1.3%, 7 qualifying polls)

No
Hickenlooper No Yes

(1.3%, 5 qualifying polls)

No
Bennet No Yes

(1.0%, 3 qualifying polls)

No
de Blasio No Yes

(1.0%, 3 qualifying polls)

No
Delaney No Yes

(1.0%, 3 qualifying polls)

No
Swalwell No Yes

(1.0%, 3 qualifying polls)

No
Bullock No No

(2 qualifying polls)

No
Messam No No

(1 qualifying poll)

No
Gravel No

(40,000 donors on June 1)

No

(0 qualifying polls)

No
Moulton No No

(0 qualifying polls)

No
Ojeda No No

(0 qualifying polls)

No
Withdrawn candidate

This is just a suggestion though. Since this is probably a lot of work, I would understand if you guys chose not to do so.

Thank you for reading my suggestion.


Sincerely,

spicyostrich269

Spicyostrich269 (talk) 02:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicyostrich269 From what I could tell, it is an addition to the Participation table. It's definitely a good idea to add something similar to this article, once we get more concrete info related to how candidates have qualified. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The first qualifying poll is now official. - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/07/12/anti-trump-presidential-candidates-poll-debates-00106000
Also Trump, DeSantis, Haley, Scott, and Ramaswamy have met the donor threshold. I think the chart could be added now. A good way to keep it updated would be following Politico's debate tracker spreadsheet here - https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eIr6uYF5C_wU8KiBRuW7iTY_2Si9H0Ij06ux50ogQMk/edit#gid=146700960 Alexjjj (talk) 22:44, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the table, though it's a bit barebones at the moment. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the second qualifying poll? https://www.americanpulse.us/NHPresidentialPoll-July2023
Early voting state and over 800 sample size. Politico or no other major source is reporting it yet though. 2.103.98.81 (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge[edit]

A New York Post article which is basically a tabloid has said a week ago:

"Pence, Haley and Scott have all publicly indicated they will sign the support pledge, but not all have agreed. Christie, Hutchinson and Hurd — who have all spoken out against Trump in the course of their campaigns — have promised they will not sign, jeopardizing their spot on the Milwaukee stage should they otherwise qualify."

Is this true? It was my understanding Hutchinson is trying to get onstage and Christie said he would begrudgingly sign Veganoregano (talk) 18:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table problem[edit]

There is a table in the article that looks like this:

Qualified candidates for the first debate
Candidate Met donor criterion Met polling criterion Met both criteria Additional
Ref(s)
Burgum No
(0 qualifying polls) 		No
Christie Yes[1] No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
DeSantis Yes[3] No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
Elder No
(0 qualifying polls) 		No
Haley Yes[4] No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
Hurd No
(0 qualifying polls) 		No
Hutchinson No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
Johnson No
(0 qualifying polls) 		No
Pence No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
Ramaswamy Yes[4] No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
Scott Yes[1] No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
Suarez No
(0 qualifying polls) 		No
Trump Yes[3] No
(1 qualifying poll)[2] 		No
  Withdrawn candidate

This table makes it look like every candidate in the race has failed to meet the polling criterion and thus will not be eligible for the debate. That's not what this table is supposed to say, since there haven't been three qualifying polls held yet. The candidates should all have a "pending" indication in the "polling criterion" and "both criteria" columns. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_debates&oldid=904115711#Qualification_3 for a similar situation where none of the candidates had qualified yet because there hadn't yet been enough polls for them to do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree change "met polling criterion" to something fitting Veganoregano (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b Vakil, Caroline (July 12, 2023). "Christie, Scott notch RNC donor requirement for first GOP debate". The Hill. Retrieved July 12, 2023.
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h Montellaro, Zach; Shepard, Steven (July 12, 2023). "The anti-Trump presidential candidates clear an important hurdle". POLITICO. Retrieved July 14, 2023.
  3. ^ a b Allison, Natalie; Isenstadt, Alex (July 2, 2023). "The first GOP debate is at risk of losing its draw". Politico. Retrieved July 3, 2023.
  4. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference axiosjuly8 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

POLITICO has a tracking chart that you all may want to refer to[edit]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1eIr6uYF5C_wU8KiBRuW7iTY_2Si9H0Ij06ux50ogQMk/edit#gid=146700960 Veganoregano (talk) 01:59, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson poll[edit]

I see the reference where an AP article claims Johnson has one qualifying poll, but what poll is this? I don’t see it anywhere else. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 21:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://twitter.com/PerryJo45478105/status/1684631169625694208
Perry Johnson's son says they are claiming the big village poll as qualifying, although it almost certainly is not. LoganZombieOfTime (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move him down to 0, as it doesn't seem that this is a qualifying one yet. Rhetoricalnoodle (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson's camapign has announced that he has officially qualified for the debate with the polling requirements and the donor threshold. 4 polls. Mister Conservative (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty pledge column in Qualified candidates tables[edit]

Should the wording in the "Signing loyalty pledge" column read "Signed loyalty pledge" to match the other columns? We'd have to make some changes, since AFAICT, only DeSantis, Haley and Ramaswamy have signed so far. Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 04:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of polls[edit]

I don't think that the "Met polling criterion" column needs to be continually updated with the number of polls after the entry is changed to "Yes". Unless I'm mistaken, the cited source does not keep a running tally, so this seems like original research to me. (For comparison, the source used in the 2020-Dem article did keep a running tally.) It is not a simple matter of counting polls, since the criterion specifies that "the polls must meet RNC stated standards," which I believe includes size requirements and pollster quality. Furthermore, it is not clear whether these numbers refer to national or state-wide polls, which factor differently for determining qualification. I propose that the number of polls be removed in each cell once "Yes" is reached, unless another reliable source can be cited for this information. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The POLITICO spreadsheet that the article is based on keeps a running tally so I would say the source is fine, although I do agree that it’s probably not necessary. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 13:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I hadn't noticed the Politico source cited in the prose, which I have now added to the table. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 14:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, Perry Johnson just qualified for the debate, because at least one poll for the Iowa caucus, one out of New Hampshire, one national poll had Johnson at or above 1%.
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1692507216857714749
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1692567781504352458
https://twitter.com/IAPolls2022/status/1692556962104283317 MrBlueDroidTech (talk) 16:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he did. I keep readding him but somehow the changes are not saved or some user deletes him. He has officially qualified. His campaign announced on Thursday. Mister Conservative (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perry Johnson probably qualified today, see my entry below, based on the 2 national + 2 different early state poll requirement. But we need confirmation from a reliable source, such as the Politico tracker etc. first. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Loyalty Pledge[edit]

This is kinda semantics so not sure it *really* matters but it seems the RNC is only sending the pledge to candidates that have met the threshold, so for candidates that don’t meet the other requirements so don’t get the pledge but have publicly said they would sign the pledge, how should we treat them? Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, it seems that Suarez was sent the pledge, though he has not officially qualified.
https://apnews.com/article/francis-suarez-miami-mayor-republican-debate-president-5898b380b1d239a94d9de358e72253b7
If they have said that they would sign, I think they should still be marked as Pending unless we get confirmation otherwise. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:58, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Suarez[edit]

Has Francis Suarez met 4 polls? His campaign says he has, but he still appears to have only 2 polls. Also the reference we are using to track the candidates has not been updated so I do not believe we should rely on it... Mister Conservative (talk) 23:45, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible. The politico tracker is good compared to what's out there but it is often delayed and does miss some polls. For example, Johnson is on 1 poll currently on here, but poll tracker sites on twitter show he has scored in 2 national polls and 1 state poll just in the last week, all with over 800 voter sample size, so I'm inclined to believe there campaigns. 2.103.97.60 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we should go with what the campaigns and the candidates say. Mister Conservative (talk) 17:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No, you cannot go by the campaigns: The RNC requires 800 likely voter polls. Suarez's Super PAC claims polls that have fewer than 800 respondents and not even likely voters, but registered voters.
I think Johnson might have enough polls now, because 1 Trafalgar, 1 Victory (both national, both over 800 likely voters) and 2 state polls from Trafalgar (Iowa, NH) also with 800+ likely voters each. But it needs confirmation from Politico. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez has now qualified: https://twitter.com/FrancisSuarez/status/1692552018739544565 Mister Conservative (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/sppeoples/status/1692568610625958244 Mister Conservative (talk) 17:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"UPDATE: Despite Suarez public assurances, senior advisers with the Republican National Committee now say that Suarez has not yet officially met the criteria." Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter what their campaigns or SuperPACS say, it only matters what the RNC and the Politico tracker say. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suarez now has 2 national polls (MC + Kaplan) + 1 early state poll from Iowa. He needs another national poll with 800+ likely Republican primary voters until tomorrow, or one early state poll that's not from Iowa. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 08:31, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perry Johnson has officially qualified according to the Politico tracker[edit]

But Suarez has not.

I changed him to "qualified" via polling. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an article from Politico that just came out.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/18/gop-longshot-debate-campaigns-00111859 David O. Johnson (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Another candidate, Miami Mayor Francis Suarez, also claimed on Friday to have made the debate, even though it is not clear he did. “I am excited to announce that I have met all of the criteria to qualify for the GOP’s first primary debate,” Suarez’s campaign announced on X, the social media site formerly known as Twitter. But his announcement does not match POLITICO’s analysis, and an RNC official told The Associated Press, which first reported Suarez’s claims, that the committee considers Suarez short of its criteria."
Johnson qualified, Suarez not. His campaign is touting polls with low samples, which is fraudulent. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Binkley qualifying poll[edit]

According to the Politico tracker, Ryan Binkley has a qualifying poll. Should he be added to the table? 69.124.146.67 (talk) 18:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning at least. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:20, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Binkley is not considered a "major candidate" by Wikipedia and is therefore not included in the table. But someone could mention it in the text below the table. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Table format[edit]

While I appreciate the idea given how the rules are structured, I do think the new format is a little crowded/hard to understand. Maybe just two columns (national and state) and list which states in the text? Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 15:00, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is too much info in the table as it currently exists. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The old table worked perfectly fine. I see no reason why there needs to be any changes TheFellaVB (talk) 18:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That would probably be my vote Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 20:01, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is my vote as well. If someone wants to know the poll breakdown they can use the references or the prose below the table. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I preferred the old table. The new one obfuscates things and makes it look as if a candidate needs polls in all 4 states to qualify (which they do not). No idea why the change was made Epicradman123 (talk) 00:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since we all seem to be in agreement, can someone change the table back to the way it was? David O. Johnson (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, whoever changed it to the way it is now didn't consult anyone. TheFellaVB (talk) 03:12, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the breakout of national vs state (and don't feel the anon editor needed consultation), I prefer the original format over that implementation of the additional info. Since there is enough agreement here, I have changed it back. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suarez and Elder are at 3 polls now[edit]

Suarez got 2% in a Kaplan poll yesterday, Elder 1% in a Rasmussen poll today.

But both polls are not showing up on Politico's tracker, even though they both have more than 800 likely R primary voters. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Kaplan poll was sponsored which is the reason it (may) not count according to the guy that runs the tracker. Rasmussen should count according to my interpretation of the rules, though. https://twitter.com/ZachMontellaro/status/1693390102326554758?s=20 141.161.133.209 (talk) 18:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Remember, POLITICO is not necessarily updated. Suarez now has 4 polls, according to Yahoo News. I readded him with 4 polls. He has now qualified. Mister Conservative (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Elder still has only 2 polls. Suarez has now qualified. 2806:103E:D:81F:457A:DD1B:989D:88C7 (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Yahoo News source just says that he claims he has qualified, which we already knew. The RNC has already shot down his claims. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen a American wire poll today which I think is another for Suarez. 2.103.97.60 (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that exists, that is OR. There are no reliable sources that show him actually qualifying. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RNC had shot down his claims the first time, since then he has gained more polls. Mister Conservative (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source for that? ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
https://twitter.com/sosamericapac/status/1693705326749495536 Mister Conservative (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There has been consensus that we are not using campaign claims of polling qualifications. If you disagree with that, you can try to start up a new discussion about that. Otherwise, we need to wait for independent verification of campaign claims. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 21:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RNC should release the official list of the invitees in the near future, so we'll hopefully have some clarity soon. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic[edit]

Is there a page for the Democratic debates? If not, when will one be created? GamerKlim9716 (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One won't be created since the DNC has no plans to hold any.
There's a subsection on them at the 2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries article:
[1] David O. Johnson (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If there were going to be debates between Robert Kennedy Jr. and Marianne Williamson, there would be an article about those debates along the lines of 2020 Republican Party presidential debates (which were held without Donald Trump participating). But no such debates have been announced yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burgum poll[edit]

He's at 4% in this poll: https://patriotpolling.com/our-polls/f/trump-holds-lead-in-primary-haley-support-boosted-post-debate. Does it count? If so he's qualified for the next debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.224.91 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN article cited in the criteria section states, "Qualifying polls must be conducted on or after August 1 and meet several requirements, including that they’ve surveyed at least 800 'registered likely Republican voters' and are not conducted by a company affiliated with a candidate." While I don't know whether the pollster has an affiliation, it appears that the poll does not meet the size requirement. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Post-debate RCP average cutoff[edit]

At what point do we stop updating the post-debate polling averages? It has been a couple weeks since the debate. Also, I am curious what people think of adding FiveThirtyEight’s polling averages as another column in the pre and post polling chart. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What has been the cutoff in the past for similar articles? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't done a comprehensive search, but for the 2008 and 2016 Democratic debate articles (the most recent, and probably only, articles with such information), the polling data appears to be from the day of or the day after the debate, with no before/after comparison. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I found as well. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 07:39, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I stopped updating it after two weeks but that was an arbitrary point Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 22:57, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2nd debate qualifying polls[edit]

So it seems like Politico has stopped updating their polling tracker, there hasn’t been a new entry in a couple of weeks now. Luckily, there haven’t been any polls since that help any candidate that hasn’t qualified, but going forward we might need a new source (if anyone knows of one) Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 22:59, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it is an issue yet. Is it even notable how many polls a qualified candidate has attained? I think if an unqualified candidate's numbers stop becoming updated, it will be an issue we will have to address. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But that will be an issue at *some point*. Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Burgum Trafalgar Poll[edit]

https://www.thetrafalgargroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/TFG-National-GOP-PPP-Poll-Report-0922.pdf 1091 Likely GOP Presidential Primary Voters 3.2% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.35.93.245 (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burgum seems to have qualified for the 2nd debate at the last minute[edit]

Today, a national Trafalgar poll dropped with more than 1000 likely Republican primary voters and Burgum has 3.2%, more than the 3% needed. He also already has 2 state polls with 3% or more from Iowa and New Hampshire and meets the requirements of 1 national + 2 state polls. Waiting for Politico to confirm. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 05:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential qualifying national polls for Christie[edit]

4% https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/first-read/poll-overwhelming-majorities-express-concerns-biden-trump-ahead-2024-r-rcna111347

5% https://emersoncollegepolling.com/september-2023-national-poll-a-trump-bump-in-gop-primary/

9% https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/biden_administration/trump_maintains_primary_lead_after_first_gop_debate

Tim Scott third poll?[edit]

What poll is being used to suggest Tim Scott has met the polling threshold for the third debate? --Vrivasfl (talk) 16:23, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The YouGov/Liberal Patriot poll from September 7-18. This poll is referred to as the "little-noticed poll" in this article and is listed at Opinion polling for the 2024 Republican Party presidential primaries. However, it is not included in the Politico reference used in the qualification table in this article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know if there is a temporal limitation on qualifying polls this time around? For the second debate, they had to have been conducted in August or September. Are we assuming, or do we know for sure, that the cutoff date for the third debate is on or before September 7? The campaign says one thing, but no one is going with it, so it seems we're sort of in the same situation as we were during the first debate with Johnson and Suarez. --Vrivasfl (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That Politico article mentions a cutoff date of November 6 [2], which is also supported by this article from The Hill: [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:13, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From September 1st, so there's no problem with the date this poll was conducted.
[4]https://gop.com/blog/qualifying-criteria-for-the-third-republican-presidential-debate/ Twentytwenty4 (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I think I see the potential problem. This was a YouGov Blue poll not YouGov. YouGov Blue is described on their site as a custom research division for progressive and Democratic clients. it would be surprising if the RNC allowed this poll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twentytwenty4 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scott qualifies for 3rd debate[edit]

The Hill has just confirmed that Scott has made it onto the 3rd debate stage. Mister Conservative (talk) 18:08, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Oct. 31 article from The Hill, they didn't confirm this with the RNC, they confirmed this with Scott's campaign. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:34, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RNC don't confirm qualifications. The NYT tracker for instance has 'confirmed by campaign' not 'confirmed by RNC'. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OP said "made it onto the 3rd debate stage." That will certainly require RNC confirmation. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:12, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the same for everyone. I was just making the point that the RNC don't confirm qualifications or which polls count until the end of the process. I don't want people reading too much into the fact the RNC haven't confirmed it although there could be another Johnson situation. Twentytwenty4 (talk) 13:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would say we should add him to the qualified list until the RNC denies this. In Suarez's case for the first debate the RNC denied the claim that he had made it, so I believe that the RNC not having comented on this could signify that Scott has indeed qualified. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The RNC could be releasing the list of invitees as early as tonight (previous lists were released two days before the actual debate), so it's something of a moot point. David O. Johnson (talk) 22:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added Scott to the list of individuals who had qualified. If Scott has not qualified according to the RNC we will know for certain shortly. I suggest that we leave it like this. Scott deciphered that he had made it onto the debate stage based on a conversation with the RNC so... I believe we can at least for now add him to the qualified list. Mister Conservative (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Tim Scott made it after all:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/republican-debate-candidates-qualify-rcna123741 David O. Johnson (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Video links to full debates[edit]

The Wikipedia entry must start with a section with video links to the full version of each debate. Users must first be given access to The Original Source. At least two links (YouTube or otherwise) from different sources for each debate.

links to transcripts are also needed. YT embeds transcripts now, but they are not downloadable or searchable to support serious study.

if you think this is a trivial request, try easily finding each debate. Darrelstickler (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are links at the Politico tracker ref:
https://www.politico.com/2024-election/presidential-debate-gop-candidates-schedule-moderators-polls-tracker/
Two are Fox News links and one is YouTube. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should candidates who have dropped out or not yet participated in the debates be listed in the Schedule?[edit]

I think they should, as it shows the progression (or lack thereof). Trump could conceivably participate in a future debate. David O. Johnson (talk) 19:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates designated as “major” should be included, just as they are throughout the rest of the article. While it is true that 300 million Americans did not participate in the debates, we are not listing Americans, we are listing major candidates. ShuffleboardJerk (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am indifferent as to whether withdrawn candidates who never participated should be in the Schedule table. Trump should be put back in the Schedule table, per David Johnson's reasoning. I do not like the footnotes in the first column that used to be in Trump's column. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:28, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we decide to keep the withdrawn candidates off the table (sans Trump or otherwise), there should at least be a sentence above the table saying something like "Note that major candidates who were never invited to any of the debates have been excluded." - EditDude (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the consensus here that major candidates should be included because if a candidate is major enough to be included on this page, the lack of participation/invitation to a debate is relevant and important information that should be conveyed, and I think that the debate schedule is a perfectly acceptable way to convey that information. Przemysl15 (talk) 00:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

False positive ref 28[edit]

Ref. 28 has a generic name error. I've tried several methods to get it to go away by false positive solutions from the template. Any suggestions? -- Sleyece (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. I replaced the generic name (last=Staff |first=CNN) with the value that should be used when no author is specified (author=<!--Not stated-->). --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Debates 5/7[edit]

Keeps getting changed to not invited but CNN, who is hosting the debates, say he has qualified. https://www.cnn.com/2023/12/07/politics/cnn-gop-presidential-primary-debates-2024/index.html Crazysportsdude1 (talk) 15:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_Republican_Party_presidential_debates_and_forums&oldid=1220189568"