Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Popular Vote tally

The popular vote percentage as reported by ABC, CBS, NBC and others shows Trump with 49.9% This is not consistent with AP's reporting (which is cited) but the majority of networks report 49.9. If we are rounding to nearest tenth of one point then 49.9% Trump to Harris 48.3% is the correct rounding. Full counts have shown Trump below 49.85 which would round up to 50.0%. If you are going to round consistently between candidates it should read 49.9% to 48.3% or if rounding to whole percent 50% to 48%. Typically Wikipedia has rounded to tenth of a percent. Hans100 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry your side lost the election but we aren’t going to change the results to try to make you feel a bit better about things. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

He won but he is under 50% so that is a fact. Hans100 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

NBC, ABC, and CNN are all reporting the exact same popular vote total, which is about half a million votes ahead of AP's current total. LV ^{✉ ✎} 03:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DUE, we need to be reporting what those sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As of 10:35 EST:

74,504,984-76,993,848 (ABC, CNN, NBC). CNN and NBC report the percents as 48.3%-49.9%, while ABC reports no percentage.

74,348,719-76,851,910 (AP). The reported percentage is 48.4%-50.0%.

A third of a million total popvote difference, sorry. LV ^{✉ ✎} 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

He won the popular vote and no amount of denial will change that fact. No if ands or buts. sorry kiddo. though luck. 2601:647:4D7C:BD20:65E7:C04D:CD3E:8678 (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

This has got to be the most biased page I've seen in a long while. At no point does it even address what her weaknesses as a candidate were, even though this article is about the election itself? The article had no issue, however, characterizing each and every weakness of Trump. Did it bring up her Word Salad issues? How about "Change anything?...Nothing comes to mind." Passing on Al Smith dinner? Really? C'mon now, throughout her entire career she has been on the far-left, radical wing of the Dem Party, and had won zero primaries as a Presidential candidate in any primary election. She has espoused these leftist policies her entire career, until, suddenly, now? Now she's a joyful centrist? And she had so many proposals and policies? Huh? Clearly didn't resonate. Millions of illegal immigrants flowed in over Biden/Harris term, but you suggest that it started to slow at the end, so Trump was being misleading in his closing campaign argument? Are you kidding me?

Of course, Wiki doesn't use the word Radical anymore when discussing the more extreme elements of the Dem Party. It has bought into the far-left's rebranding of itself. Radical is much closer to Progressive than it is a Liberal. So Radicals have been rebranded as Progressives.

How about all the softball interviews, with only one exception...while running for the US Presidency...oh, and no unscripted press conferences. Paying millions for stars to "support" her onstage. You state there were conspiracy theories from Dems following the vote, but never used the word "baseless." But you sure do in the next paragraph about Trump supporter conspiracy theories? So you've decided, I guess.

You clearly imply that getting shot was largely his fault. I guess he called himself Hitler and a Fascist? Believe it or not, this part of this articles shows that Wiki has made a little progress, as there were other Trump Wiki articles that "suggested" he got shot. I could go on and on, but it's a waste of time. Let's just stop pretending this is an encyclopedia. It is a spin zone for the left.

Keep deluding yourselves - that this was all Biden's fault; Harris was not to blame at all; that Trump is evil; and that Trump voters are stupid, gullible, dangerous. Delusional...fact is, Joe Biden was in the public eye as a traditional Liberal for 50 years, but suddenly turned into a Progressive/Radical, all on his own? That wing had nothing to do with it, and Harris had nothing to do with it? Joe just pivoted on his own is all, against his blue collar pragmatic roots, and straight into....massive stimulus playing a major role in aggregated inflation, open borders, and woke as can be. This left wing caused this loss. Face it, or don't. It went too far. 2601:243:2681:74E0:6DB5:4E4C:2261:E6B4 (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

What is you're purpose of commenting? We understand that you may have your own views, but you need not force your way on others. We have our own views too, but we all need to just look at the facts from reliable sources.

I do agree with you in part from a personal perspective, but we should not mix our personal view/ideas with our edits and comments here.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Bjoh249, you made your opinions clear last time. We are going to go with what reliable sources say, whether that is that Trump won a majority or a plurality of the popular vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is such a wild reaction to simple numbers. "Hey, the info doesn't quite add up on this article" "SHUT UP YOU LOST!!!"

Should the article cite numbers or should it cite Bjoh's weird emotional outburst Thx.thx.goodbye (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

This is what a .1% change? I don't think we have to update every 10 mins as numbers go up and down. Once all the votes have been counted and the final numbers released, then we should update. As far as what you said about other elections, they are over all the votes counted, this one is still on going. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Currently Trump has 49.98% of the vote. So, it's 50.0% since none of these election articles rounds to the hundredth of a percent. Topcat777 19:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, this is why I think that it is unnecessary to update the tally. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

According to Cook as of this evening, Trump is at 49.83% and VP Harris is at 48.26%. The tenth of a percent rounding is now 49.8% Donald to 48.3% Harris. Hans100 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

There is a concensus with sticking with the AP. The results will change when the AP changes them. Bjoh249 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Or if the current consensus changes. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say it is clear enough that he only has a plurality, per FactCheck, Politico, and MSNBC, but the specific number is still unclear. To my understanding, there is another million or two votes left to be counted so this might be best to wait on and to update when AP does. That or we get an agreement to switch from AP if they are behind on reporting. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, why are we sticking with AP when more reputable sources (CBS, Cook, NBC) have more current data and different percentages. It is clear Donald is down to 49.8% Hans100 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe there was a consensus in the past to use AP for the infobox. If there is support for switching to a new method, then we don't need to stick with the AP. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The AP is a reputable source. All the sources will catch up and report the same final numbers in due time. AP is not intentionally fudging the numbers to tick you off. Bjoh249 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems WP:UNDUE to rely on one source, unless AP was somehow more accurate than the other sources (but this does not seem to be the case). The other sources are reputable too, AP may have a better reputation because they have been around for a long time, not necessarily more accurate though. Prcc27 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not recall using the words 'ticked off' nor 'intentionally fudging' in any way Bjoh249 and hope that you will avoid any additional claims like that. I have answered Hans100's question about why we are sticking with AP at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

77,237,942+74,946,837=152,184,779

77,237,942/152,184,779=50.7%

Donald Trump won the popular vote.

simple math 2600:6C56:9D40:86:A9CC:8491:447A:24F4 (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't forget the people who voted for Jill Stein.84.54.70.113 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Hum, hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for pointing that out. 2600:6C56:9D40:86:6D1C:FE38:1CD9:691F (talk) 02:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Of the 60 articles on US presidential elections, 57 round the vote percentage to the nearest tenth, two to the nearest hundredth (1880 and 1960) because of the closeness of the vote between the two candidates, and one (1840) to the nearest hundredth for unknown reasons. Topcat777 18:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Based of that then we should round to the nearest tenth and not hundredth, unless it quite close. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I agree, we should be rounding to the nearest tenth as is standard. And it seems that using AP is the standard too, but it's concerning to see them so far behind in counting the numbers. However, I'm sure they will eventually catch up with every other outlet in properly reporting the percentage as 49.9% for Trump and 48.3% for Harris. We should maintain patience. Bobtinin (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Correct, we should not be in too much of a hurry, we are not a news source, we are an encyclopedia. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

We can use the CNN totals and do our own rounding. We do not need to stick with AP for that reason. Prcc27 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

The AP count has been used since election day. It's more reliable than CNN. Topcat777 02:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

AP really does seem to be out of whack with everyone else, as it stand today 28th Nov: AP: T: 76.9M H-74.4M While NBC has T: 77.1M H-74.6M What really really weird is Al Jazeera is out but a country mile and much larger margin for both: IE Trump is 50.01% - 77,858,191 ( which looks to be 78M shortly) and Harris: 75,247,873 -48.33% https://www.aljazeera.com/us-election-2024/ Can anyone explain that and why AP is still being used when there not keeping up today, Does look like when all is said and done Trump will be 50%.... ; --Crazyseiko (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I am unsure. How the process should work is by getting the vote totals from election officials and adding them up. Based on LV's comment from almost three days ago to yours, that is AP's counts adding roughly 0.1M to both Harris and Trump and NBC's counts roughly adding 0.2M to Trump and 0.1M to Harris. The numbers I am seeing are: AP: 74,441,440 votes to 76,916,902 votes (48.4% to 50%); ABC+CBS+CNN+NBC: 74,666,439 votes to 77,100,099 votes (All, but ABC: 48.3% to 49.9%; ABC: No percents). I did take a peak at Fox News and they have the same as AP, which makes sense given that they use AP VoteCast with AP while the networks including CNN use National Election Pool.

Al Jazeera doesn't make sense when they claim their source is AP. Their results are at 75,247,947 votes to 77,858,299 votes. (48.33% to 50.01%) This is well off of AP. And to try to round out this analysis, DDHQ is at 74,722,181 votes to 77,137,509 votes with no percents. So by the two combined, you have 151,358,342 votes reported by AP VoteCast; 151,766,538 votes reported for National Election Pool (+408,196); 153,106,246 votes reported for Al Jazeera (+1,747,904); and DDHQ votes reported at 151,859,690 (+501,348). --Super Goku V (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC))

Normally, tiny percentage differences do not matter and are barely worth discussing. In this case, the question of whether or not Trump got a plurality or a majority of the popular vote is much more significant. After all, terms like "landslide" and "mandate" have been tossed around. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

True, but I did include the percents so that it is easier to compare changes on a day to week basis given this discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC))

With this election, it is better to be as specific as possible with the infobox. Once the counts are done we should put in the correct number. It is already down to 49.83%, so it would be rounded to 49.8% at this point. It is strange that Harris' numbers are listed at 48.4% but Trump's numbers are still listed at 50%. BootsED (talk) 03:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

New York magazine is a left wing magazine. Bringing up Trump’s margin and comparing it to past elections in the lead sounds biased. It’s clear you are a disgruntled Harris voter trying to use this article to try to make yourself feel better about the results. This isn’t the place, This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Bjoh249 (talk) 06:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Please stop. LV ^{✉ ✎} 06:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

100% agree. Can people just wait until we get the final results instead of trying to force a result that isn't even final because you sympathize with the losing side? Grifspdax (talk) 08:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Third party candidates and independents received approximately 1.5% of the vote, so that isn't strange. The strange part is why AP-VC and NEP are at different numbers. But it isn't clear which is more accurate. For all we know, NEP has a small mistake in their numbers and that is why their count is higher. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Now that AP has updated to the certified results in Ohio and Virginia, it is much closer to the other reliable sources listed above. I suspect that updates in Miss. and Mass. will nearly close the remaining gap. Patience is a virtue. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be something wrong with the AP source we are using. Is the page no longer live and not being updated? This NPR article was just released that says the AP has only called 96% of the race, not the 99.9% currently listed and is at 49.97% and not 50%. It also lists The U.S. Election Atlas as putting Trump's totals at 49.78%, which puts it much closer to what other sources are already saying. BootsED (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Although that article from NPR is clearly a liberal biased article trying to take jabs at Trump, I can’t help but wonder if their claim about the vote count being at 96% may be right. Nobody has sourced the vote counter in the wiki article which is supposedly from the AP. I still lean towards the AP being right because counting should be mostly over by now as states are now certifying their results, but I would like to see the vote count percentage on the wiki article sourced. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Are we close to all votes being counted & certified? GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

CA, IL, IN, NY, OR & WV are either not done counting or have not released certified 2024 results online (that I've seen so far), yet. The deadlines still to come for certification go all the way thru the 12th of this month. Guy1890 (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Illinois is supposed to certify election results tomorrow and California on Saturday. Keeping an eye on those states (especially California). 107.204.246.18 (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IL is now done certifying their results. Guy1890 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

California was supposed to be done today. Bjoh249 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

And today hasn't ended yet. They have until 07:59 UTC if my math is right. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

FWIW - we're still waiting on CA, OR & WV to certify their results. Guy1890 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote margin

“Trump won the popular vote by a 1.58% margin of the vote,[needs update?] one of the smallest since 1888 and roughly a half percent smaller than Hillary Clinton's national vote total over Trump in 2016.”

More like the smallest since the 2000 United States Presidential election not the 1888 election. JFK in 1960 and Nixon in 1968 won the popular vote by smaller margins than Trump.Bjoh249 (talk) 03:03, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That isn't covered by the source, so we would need a new one preferably. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Nice to see someone else has notice this oddity! 2000 United States Presidential election was the smallest at 0.5% Just seems like a pointless fact. --Crazyseiko (talk) 10:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

PolitiFact might work: "At the same time, Trump’s margins — both in raw votes and in percentages — were small by historical standards, even for the past quarter century, when close elections have been the rule, including the 2000 Florida recount election and Trump’s previous two races in 2016 and 2020. (...) Trump’s margins of victory in those seven states were wider — easily — than the margins of the seven closest states in the 2020 Trump-Biden election, and every close presidential contest this century. Including votes counted through Nov. 19, Trump’s collective margin in this year’s seven battleground states was about 760,000. By comparison, the 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore — which the Supreme Court decided after a weekslong Florida recount — produced collective margins of about 46,000 in the seven closest states, or about one-sixteenth as much as in 2024." --Super Goku V (talk) 10:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This statistic is covered in the body. This is why the lead says it is "one of the smallest" since 1888. Mentioning the JFK and Nixon elections made the sentence too long. The sentence as covered is accurate as it stands. BootsED (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

It’s been changed and deservedly so. Bjoh249 (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias needs to be fixed

looks so biased. Remove the paragraph where you baselessly talk about Trump’s. There was more fearmongering from the other side with threats of fascism and Hitler and end of democracy. Yasarhossain07 (talk) 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, maybe there wouldn't be such talk if he hadn't said that he'd "be a dictator on day one", that we "wouldn't have to vote again", and that he would "terminate the Constitution". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Khajidha Can you provide a reliable source for Trumps claims? From what I see those terms have been said by his opponents, which is not uncommon for the opponent to talk about the other side in such manner. Both sides do that to each other just go back in history.

@Yasarhossain07 If you have any suggestions that can be backed up with reliable sources, then just suggest them and see if others agree with you. But this topic is a hot spot right now so I would just lay back and watch. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Every one of the things I mentioned are direct quotes from Trump himself. I do not have time right now, but will look tomorrow for the exact sources.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think you will find in your research that the phrases you provided were taken completely out of context. I don't like Trump either but the media did themselves no favors leading up to this election. For example, this is the "dictator on day one" quote with the rest of the statement:

“We love this guy,” Trump said of Hannity. “He says, ‘You’re not going to be a dictator, are you?’ I said: ‘No, no, no, other than day one. We’re closing the border, and we’re drilling, drilling, drilling. After that, I’m not a dictator.’”

The president of the US doesn't need to literally be a "dictator" to do these things, so this is a great example of hyperbolic campaign rhetoric. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 14:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you completely 71.210.42.253.

In the US the president can issue policies and orders to an extent without breaking the constitution. And if you think that this is some crazy idea look at all the orders and polices that Biden and Harris gave during their presidency.

And the the claims as stated by 71.210.42.253 are taken in to context then it makes perfect sense that he is saying he wants to get things done as soon as he is in office. You need context for everything, without it nothing would make sense, if you could take words out of any sentence and rebuild that sentence then you are just making them say what you want. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Even if we write those off as "hyperbole" or "jokes" (despite my finding his ease of use of such jokes disgusting and worrying in itself), he also made claims that immigrants were poisoning the blood of the nation. This is a phrase that was actually used by Hitler in Mein Kampf. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trump-says-immigrants-are-poisoning-blood-country-biden-campaign-liken-rcna130141

--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

@Khajidha, with all due respect, and I genuinely mean that because you aren't being rude or anything and I see you make tons of great edits elsewhere, I think you have too strong of a personal political bias to edit this article in a fair way. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

They are bias because they are quoting Trump? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Accurately quoting someone requires the full context of their statement. It is certainly fair for someone to disagree with the rather ugly language, and it's not something I would ever say myself, but making the now-tired jump all the way to "Trump is Hitler" points to a level of personal political bias that has real potential to impact the neutrality of edits. I would have no issue saying the same thing about an editor who compared Biden to an equally distasteful figure.

A politician suggesting that "immigrants", in general, are negatively affecting the country would surely be condemned by any reasonable person. However, when the statement is not simply about all immigrants but specifically immigrants who enter the country illegally and commit serious crimes, the statement means something entirely different. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Negatively affecting the country" is not the same as "poisoning the blood". Whether it is made about legal or illegal immigrants is immaterial here. "Poisoning the blood" is an explicit, racist statement. It is literally a Nazi belief. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I respect your opinion but we are not having the same conversation. You would be more likely to sway the opinions of others if, say, black and brown voters found Trump's words so repugnant that they did not vote for him, but that is simply not the case as we can see with the results of this election. Big Thumpus (talk) 17:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree, I am fine with immigrants that come legally and would treat them like any other American, but if they come illegally then they have already broken the law and see no reason why they should not be deported or sent to jail, with deported the better option since they should not be in the US.

If you want to come to a country - any country do so legally, it is a lot easier.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

So instead of arguing that there isn't bias, you argue that the bias is warranted? Sounds like proof that there's bias that needs to be addressed. 209.23.50.16 (talk) 15:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

That was said tongue in cheek. 2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

• The focus and balance of the article reflects the focus and balance of coverage among the mainstream media; putting our thumb on the scale to "correct" that balance just because some editors disagree with it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. --Aquillion (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

  What happens when the mainstream media coverage has a thumb on the scale? Simply parroting their viewpoints is not enough to build a neutral encyclopedia. I think it is fair to say that there are enough Americans, not just Wikipedia editors, who disagree with mainstream, left-leaning outlets that the reliability of coverage from those outlets should be reevaluated after this election cycle, at the least.

  I've seen multiple attempts to discuss the reliability of these sources shut down before they could even start; that is not doing ourselves any favors. As encyclopedia editors our job is not to just copy over what sources at WP:RS/P say, but to critically analyze what those sources say and compare it to reality. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

  Why should we put our thumb on the scale? If we did that then we are just as bad right? If this was a market and the person that we purchased our meat from put his thumb on the scale, then should we do like wise? No cause when the police found out we would be charged just the same as the other person. So that is why we don't put our thumb on the scale. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 15:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

• As encyclopedia editors our job is not to just copy over what sources at WP:RS/P say, but to critically analyze what those sources say and compare it to reality. This is specifically untrue. An encyclopedia summarizes what the best sources say, with balance based on their relative weight; it does not perform new research or "correct" the record. We have numerous policies to that effect, including WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. WP:NPOV itself is specifically worded to make it clear that neutrality, from the perspective of an encyclopedia, means reflecting the sources. Additionally (and this may be one reason why you feel our coverage doesn't reflect what you're personally seeing), we are not just supposed to reflect what Americans believe - as Wikipedia:Systemic bias says, our goal is to be an international encyclopedia; we actively try to avoid giving undue weight to American perspectives. If you take a step back and think about how the international community views the 2024 election (and especially the international academic community, which, as an encyclopedia, would be our main focus), it's clear that our coverage is pretty closely in alignment with what's written there. You say that you know a lot of Americans who disagree with Wikipedia; but this is ultimately by design - our goal is not to reflect the world-view of nationalists within any specific country, but to reflect an international perspective, which many nationalists in particular are inevitably going to take issue with. --Aquillion (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

99.9% of the vote in?

Is the counter in the article coming from the AP? According to this writer who put out this article today, AP has 96% of the vote in: https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris This writer may just be behind in the times but I think we need to have a source for the vote counter because I’m not seeing any on the AP Bjoh249 (talk) 19:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

There does seem to be around million votes still outstanding going by other sources... https://www.aljazeera.com/us-election-2024/ We have No idea where Al Jazeera got there HIGHER totals from.. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I don’t know if Al Jazeera knows more than we do or is just plain wrong? They’ve been ahead all this time. Bjoh249 (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly how many votes are left to count? GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Assuming all numbers by the AP are accurate, including the reporting number in the infobox: 1,690,817 or fewer votes remain to count in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, and West Virginia. If the NPR article is correct, then the states are the same with the number of votes remain being up to 6,302,151. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said above the other day, CA, IL, IN, NY, OR & WV are either not done counting or have not released certified 2024 results online (that I've seen so far - as of yesterday), yet. The deadlines still to come for certification go all the way thru the 12th of this month. Guy1890 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

IL is now done certifying their results. Guy1890 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Illinois, Washington, and Maryland have certified their vote counts. New Jersey was supposed to certify their’s yesterday but I haven’t found any info on it. The deadline for counting all votes for California is tomorrow. That should end all the big states with the exception of New York (which is supposed to certify theirs Monday).There shouldn’t be any votes left to count anywhere (unless someone is trying to mess with the vote count. Bjoh249 (talk) 01:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

NJ is done counting, and they have certified their results as Official. It's in the article with this link as a reference. OR's deadline is the 12th of this month. Guy1890 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Oregon is not a highly populated state and shouldn’t have millions of votes left to count. Bjoh249 (talk) 16:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

and shouldn’t have millions of votes left to count And they don't, Bjoh249.

Using AP, the total votes cast for the candidates were 1,228,410 + 910,702 + 33,357 + 18,807 + 8,926 + 5,563 + 1,827 = 2,207,592. AP claims that they believe this is 97% of the vote, so the remaining 3% is approximately 68,276 votes. Using CNN, the total votes cases for the candidates were 1,240,007 + 919,028 + 33,706 + 19,083 + 9,053 + 5,640 + 0 = 2,226,517. CNN claims that they believe this is 99% of the vote, so assuming whole percentages, the remaining 1% is approximately 22,490 votes.

Presumably, these estimation didn't count any number of votes that needed to be cured after the election or tied to some recall or under some other situation. Since not ever 70k votes would change who would win the state, it doesn't matter much here. It should be noted that AP hasn't updated the Oregon number since November 27th and CNN since December 3rd for some reason. Regardless, we just need to wait about a week. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment in any way, I doubt that there is 6 million votes unreported as I think the NPR article might have been off. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

NPR is off in more ways than one. Bjoh249 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

And as of my reply on the 3rd in a separate discussion, I am aware of that. Just answering GoodDay's question based on what AP is showing. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

According to the state's website, CA is apparently just about done with it's counting - there are only 26,918 votes left to possibly "cure". Guy1890 (talk) 19:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

While winning the popular vote, Trump did not win a majority of the popular vote,

BUT Why? its not mention in 1992, 1996 or 2000 page when Neither Bill Clinton or bush jr never got majority of the popular vote, IF this page has it then the other 3 should? Crazyseiko (talk) 16:04, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It should be removed from this article. The language currently contains entirely too many partisan jabs. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

It is worth mentioning in this article because many news outlets reported in the days following the election that Trump had won the majority of the popular vote. It turns out that was not true. He won a plurality, not a majority.

That they own fault for not waiting for all the results, Infect we still don't know if this is the actually case as were still waiting on all the results, and it could come down to 0.4%. Ive notice alot of news outlets, just jumping the gun and I would say anything written before all the votes are counted should be kicked off this page. --Crazyseiko (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

You mean it could come down to a 0.4 win instead of 1.5? Where are you hearing this at? Just curious. I would think everybody would have counted their votes by now as they have had a whole month to do it. Most states can count their votes in one night. Something isn’t right here. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a common misconception that states generally have their votes counted on election night. States can usually fairly easily determine who the winner of the state is on election night, but may take some time to get to a final count of the exact numbers because there may be challenged votes that require examination, or absentee votes mailed on time but received after election day. At the end of the day, however, winning the election is winning the election. A trickle of votes one way or the other that has no bearing on how a state comes out is of no legal significance. BD2412 T 19:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I was asking where you got the 0.4 margin at? All votes should have been counted by now. It’s been a month.Bjoh249 (talk) 03:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We discussed this in a different discussion, but not all states have certified their results. That is part of the issue. As BD2412 said, there is also challenges to deal with.

Also, you got the wrong user as BD2412 never said a margin of 0.4. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

It was me, what I was trying to say is Trump getting 50.01% is possible, but there seems to be come down to 0.04 of a margin. Especial if you look at Al Jaz, so Trump could still get it but it also possible he will be very very close. AGain I will say Maybe everyone needs to wait until 100% vote comes in.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 12:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I know, but I was making it clear for the other user that they were replying to the wrong person to see if they would fix it. Regarding election results, right now I don't trust Al Jazeera on them. Maybe they are digging deeper and getting partial county results, but they claim their source is AP and their numbers differ from AP's numbers. I guess we will see in the end and I do agree that patience is best. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Vote counting can take a surprisingly long time. I find that focusing on the exact percentage of the vote (before every vote has been tallied) is not exactly the most productive, as Trump could be either above or below the 50% mark when the votes are all counted. Varioprasium (talk) 01:40, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Ross Perot was a significant third party candidate in 1992 and 1996, winning almost 20 million votes in 1992 when the electorate was much smaller, with about 104 million votes cast. This year, it is 155 million. Ralph Nader got close to three million votes in 2000. No minor candidate got even one million votes this year. Cullen328 (talk) 23:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

A "plurality" is also known as a "relative majority". This is splitting hairs. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

"Relative majority" is British English and this article is written in American English. Cullen328 (talk) 00:53, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

If it were in British English, the current presentation would have to read something like "Trump won the relative majority not the absolute majority" which is still a needless quibble. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 01:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Fun fact, out of the 56 United States presidential elections that have been held, only 34 have produced a winner who received more than 50% of the vote at all. One had a candidate receive more than 50% of the vote and lose. This means that nearly 40% of the time, the winning candidate falls below 50% of the vote. BD2412 T 04:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if an edit to this article has occurred, but it is mentioned at 1992 as Clinton won a plurality in the popular vote and a majority of the electoral vote and at 1996 as On election day, Clinton defeated Dole by a wide margin, winning 379 electors to Dole's 159 and taking 49.2% of the national popular vote to Dole's 40.7%. As in 1992, Perot's strong candidacy held both major party candidates below 50% nationwide. The 2000 article uses the sentences, It was the fourth of five U.S. presidential elections, and the first since 1888, in which the winning candidate lost the popular vote, and Ultimately, Bush won 271 electoral votes, one vote more than the 270 required to win, while Gore won the popular vote by 543,895 votes (a margin of 0.52% of all votes cast).

Thus, we do mention a candidate only receiving a plurality in some form the last few times that it has happened. Putting it as Trump won the national popular vote with a plurality of 49.83%, making him the first Republican to do so since George W. Bush in 2004 is just another form of that while keeping it less repetitive. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Reasoning to add back in hundredth place in the percentages

With the first two candidates not going to the hundredth place, but only the tenth place, it makes it look like the numbers aren't adding up to 100 percent accurately. See my spreadsheet here

Thoughts? luckymustard (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

While it does make it look like they don't add up right. I would stick with tenths due to almost all other presidential articles using tenths. The ones that did not were also a very small margin. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:58, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

"Trumps political movement was described by several historians"

Who are these historians and why are they mentioned like they have significant power or are well known to the point of celebrity status. A historian is simply a job. That would be like me saying "Several Construction workers said that trumps plan on blah blah blah would hurt there work experience". Its just adding as much information as possible even if that information is hardly relevant to the topic of who trump is in the article. Why are these people who just have a standard job and are not considered celebrity or even noteworthy enough to have there names AND do not represent a majority of historians considered to be put on here. At this point it can be reasonably considered defamatory and shows obvious bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:1C60:1090:796D:908D:B24B:65C9 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Please see notes b and c, where there are many references to reliable sources quoting specific historians drawing those conclusions. I am a construction worker and construction workers are great but their personal assessments do not belong in an encyclopedia article. It is not possible to write an article about a historical event without citing the work of historians. That is what we do on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the point being made is that even when considering the notes you mention, if someone carries the hopefully-honorable title of "historian" that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't have personal political biases that render their commentary inappropriate for use as a source for a claim in an encyclopedia. That's one of our most important jobs as editors, to realize when a particular source's bias crosses the line into inaccuracy. 71.210.42.253 (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The proper way to do that is to bring forth references to reliable sources by other notable historians who describe Trump's political movement differently, not to describe the assessments of notable historians as no better than comments by random construction workers. And I am a construction worker. Cullen328 (talk) 01:01, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

See WP:BIASED. We don't remove sources based on bias (though we do sometimes attribute them); if you think it makes them inaccurate then you would have to demonstrate this, but these are generally high-quality sources, so it'd be an uphill climb. More generally the underlying problem is that removing stuff simply because an editor feels it is biased would result in them putting their gut feelings into the article - what is your basis for believing these specific historians are biased? You can't simply say "this is a biased thing to say", since that amounts to imposing your own preconceptions about the topic onto the article. --Aquillion (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

I think if we're working from the definition that bias is "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair" then it is fairly easy to determine bias in the context of political commentary, since many of these commentators openly align themselves with one political party over another. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Historians write about stuff from at least a generation ago. That allows them to view the full picture of the event and all the related sub-events, people and organizations involved, causes, consequences, motivations, goals, achievements or failures, etc. Not to mention, it also helps them to avoid making it personal. For their very nature, they can't write about recent events, much less about events that took place in the last month. Even if a certified historian does so, he's not doing so as a historian, but as just another political commentator. But I digress. Pointing only one opinion held by "several historians", and not any other, heavily implies that there is an academic consensus on that opinion. And we would need a reference that says exactly that, not that just "several historians" think that way. Either list all the opinions, or just remove the opinions and stick to the facts. Cambalachero (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

100% agree 71.210.42.253 (talk) 11:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

I would support the removal of this statement, historians should focus on older topics that are 10+ years old at least. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no time limit or restriction where a historian must wait so much time to pass by before doing any sort of analysis or assessment. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

That is the entire point of WP:RECENT, though. Time has to pass before something can be considered "history" and not just "current events". 71.210.42.253 (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, there are historians who treat history like a science (the reliable ones), and historians who treat history as a means to advance political ideas in the modern day (the unreliable ones). Talking about modern events that are still ongoing as if they were "history" is one of the most clear red flags of the second type of historians. Cambalachero (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree completely with that, we must watch the historians we site to make sure they are not politicly motivated to say one thing about people. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think it comes down to 3 things. 1. Are the historians actually famous or well known in the field. The answer to that question is no. They are not considered for a Wikipedia article do not have one and also are not as known. In fact they were not well known enough to get there citation 2. Do a majority or large number of historians come out and stated that trump is a fascist. This is also a no. Most historians have not come out to all agree and say trump is a fascist. 3. Does it come of as biased. Yes, I understand including parts about the former trump administration saying trump is a fascist but but just some random part with some uncited text saying "well some historians also said trump is a fascist" does not come of as encyclopedia standard

Which template should be used?

Hello,

I've noticed that there's two separate templates being used at the beginning of individual state articles and was wondering which one should be used. On some articles (for example, Virginia), the

For related races, see 2024 United States presidential election.

template is being used. However, on other articles (for example, Colorado), the

Main article: 2024 United States presidential election

template is used.

I initially thought that the "for|related races" template was correct since it's being used on the main article, but when I edited them, some of the templates were reverted back to "main".

Thanks, Ozwow (talk) 02:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Having taken some time to look into this, I think main is the better template here. Since these articles only cover the presidential election, there are no related races to mention. Contrast that with this article, which uses {{For}} to link to 2024 United States elections; the coverage at that article is the Presidential, House, Senate, various state, various local, various tribal, and two territorial races. Finally, prior Virginia articles use {{Main}} instead of For. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for helping me out with this! Your logic makes sense here. I'll go ahead and edit the applicable articles accordingly. If anyone else has any opposing thoughts feel free to add to this discussion. Ozwow (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Decisive victory?

The removal and re-addition of the "decisive victory" wording in the last paragraph of the lede has been going back-and-forth lately. Should we call this result decisive? I say no; aside from blatant partisan spin, this characterization is mainly found in the earliest wave of news stories, marked by surprise at how quickly the election was called for Trump. But now, with nearly all the votes counted, it is objectively clear that the margins in the EC, the PV, and the decisive swing states were all relatively modest by historical standards (e.g., see [1] and [2]). The 2020 article doesn't use the term "decisive," and such wording was removed (rightly so, in my opinion) a long time ago from the page for 2012—a larger presidential victory than 2024 by any reasonable measure—until being reinstated yesterday. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 12:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is somehow partisan to refer to a victory as "decisive". Even the articles you reference highlight the significance of Trump's win before they try to downplay it and tell readers how to interpret the statistics. Winning all seven swing states certainly "settles an issue with a definitive result" which is the very definition of "decisive". 71.210.42.253 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Did he though? Harris won New Hampshire by a slimmer margin than Trump won North Carolina by. NH was arguably a swing state. We don’t really know which states will have the closest margin until after the election happens. Arizona might as well have been lean Republican, but the polls said otherwise. Also, Biden lost key “swing” states in 2020 (Florida, Iowa, and Ohio) and still had a similar margin to what Trump has this time around. A “swing state sweep” isn’t really a sign of a decisive victory. Trump’s margin was relatively normal, if not, close. Either way, it’s not up to us to decide, leave it to the sources. Prcc27 (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

A Republican hasn't won the presidential election in New Hampshire since 2000. The last time any of the major polls considered the state a toss up was in 2012. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

NH was contested and very close in 2016! -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I concur. Unless the sources say it is decisive, we should probably not use that kind of wording. Prcc27 (talk) 14:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Here are some RS examples using "decisive":

[3] [4] [5] 71.210.42.253 (talk) 15:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Well now the sources are backtracking. Those are old sources you cited. [6] Prcc27 (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Are they, though? Even that article has to admit that the electoral college margin was the widest since 2012. And I think if we're being honest, the tone of that article in particular comes across as a thinly-veiled criticism of Trump and his win. Saying things like Trump "only" received tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands, more votes in staunchly blue states is not exactly the most neutral interpretation. 172.59.219.152 (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

How does using the phrase "decisive victory" contribute to this article? Wikipedia's article on Decisive victory refers to military conflict. I understand that the AP source uses that phrase, but that's their editorialization and shouldn't necessarily be stated in Wikivoice. My suggestion is to replace "Trump achieved a decisive victory," with "Trump won the election by", which is a more neutral phrasing (the complete sentence would become "Trump won the election by obtaining 312 electoral votes to Harris' 226.")--JasonMacker (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I should also note that the "decisive victory" phrasing is used in the 2008 United States presidential election and 2012 United States presidential election articles, while the 2004 United States presidential election is phrased as "narrow margin" instead. I'm not completely opposed to using the phrase in this article, especially since a reliable source like AP is using the phrase. However, I think this election is different from Obama's victories, given that he won the popular vote by a much wider margin, and earned a higher number of electoral votes. JasonMacker (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I can support "Trump won the election by obtaining 312 electoral votes to Harris' 226." and agree that it comes across as more neutral. To your point about the phrasing in the other articles, it seems like "decisive" is being used to convey the significance of the turnout in certain areas, and I think Trump winning all seven swing states is indeed notable, but as long as that is highlighted somehow I can still support this edit. 172.59.219.152 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

He has not obtained any electoral votes yet, since the electoral haven’t voted yet. So we should specify that those are projected electoral votes he won. Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Any victory that isn't disputed, is 'decisive'. A decision was made, full stop. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

If "decisive" applies to nearly every election result (except 2000 and 1876, I guess?), then what use is it to include it in the lede? Looking at this from a historical perspective, I personally don't see the value in portraying any margins closer than 2008 as wide or decisive. Our 2012 page didn't say "decisive" for many years either until yesterday. Fine to just say Trump won/is projected to win both the EV and PV by (margins) and swept the seven most contested swing states, I think. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 04:55, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that "decisive" is problematic, making the article sound non-neutral. 192.230.221.22 (talk) 14:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 December 2024

you are knownly spreading dishonest and false statments about the candidates. You will either remove them now or I will do it myself. I won't repeat my statement again. 2601:647:4D7C:BD20:65E7:C04D:CD3E:8678 (talk) 08:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Harris campaign record

• HArris raised total of record.......$1,000,000,000.00[48]
• Harris campaign spent a record... $654,000,000.00 on advertisements[49]
• Harris campaign spent a record... $530,000,000.00 on TV Adds[50]
• Harris spent on staff private flights $2.6,000,000.00 [51]
• Harris spent LAs Vegas picture/herself $900,000.00 (it had to be torn down because it wasnt safe)
• HArris had her picture put on Ben & Jerry Uber ice cream cartons
• Harris sent money to Interviewers before sitting down for interviews
• $500,000 for Rev Al Sharpton [total of 2 payments]
• $350,000 payment to Nu Vision Media
• Harris spent every month ............ $100,000,000.00
• Harris campaign ended a record of $20,000,000.00 in debt

Vice President Kamala Harris’ defunct campaign, meanwhile, had just $1.8 million remaining in its bank accounts after spending more than $1 billion in a failed effort to defeat Republican Donald Trump. The Harris campaign reported no debts.But the filings with the Federal Election Commission overnight – which cover fundraising and spending between October 17 and November 25 – offer just a snapshot of the financial outlook for a party working to regroup after losing the White House and the Senate and failing to flip the House last month. Aides to key committees say they are still dealing with outstanding invoices and other accounting issues as they close the books on the costly presidential contest. A full view of Democrats’ finances might not be apparent until January when candidates, parties and outside groups file their year-end reports with the FEC. But the filings with the Federal Election Commission overnight – which cover fundraising and spending between October 17 and November 25 – offer just a snapshot of the financial outlook for a party working to regroup after losing the White House and the Senate and failing to flip the House last month. Aides to key committees say they are still dealing with outstanding invoices and other accounting issues as they close the books on the costly presidential contest. A full view of Democrats’ finances might not be apparent until January when candidates, parties and outside groups file their year-end reports with the FEC. The filings show Harris burned through money during the final, intense home stretch of the campaign, plowing more than $270 million into the effort to win the presidency from October 17 through the post-election period.That frenzied spending in the final weeks of the campaign and Democrats’ aggressive efforts to secure donations after the election drew intense scrutiny and raised alarms that her campaign was grappling with unpaid bills. But after record-breaking fundraising, Harris’ campaign reported $1.82 million in cash on hand as of November 25. On 4 Dec 2024 DNC committee reported $47 million remaining in the bank and no debts – However the main super PAC that backed Harris’ candidacy for the White House, which ended the post-election period with nearly $50 million in unpaid bills, the FEC reports show. The group, Future Forward, listed $47.3 million in debts as of November 25, largely related to advertising expenses. https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/harris-campaign-ends-race-with-1-8-million-part-of-a-mixed-financial-picture-for-democrats/ar-AA1vpO8W?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=866c69a42ccb470bad55a2dfe38b6ef2&ei=11

• Kamala Harris interviewers received large campaign donations to their groups ahead of sit-downs (msn.com) 11/18/2024

2603:6010:BB00:288B:6533:7D83:795A:98C8 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/watters-what-did-kamala-harris-do-with-her-billions/vi-AA1ukvzA?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e69d69642b724e9c9cb860473618ae2f&ei=7 11/19/2024
• https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/washington-post-columnist-says-media-spun-for-democrats-under-threat-of-blowback-from-left/ar-AA1uknJU?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=e69d69642b724e9c9cb860473618ae2f&ei=13— Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.98.170.14 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

2603:6010:BB00:288B:34D9:D250:3214:B689 (talk) 15:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

The signatures seem incorrect as this was posted today and I am not seeing any edit request here. That aside, MSN should fall under WP:SYNDICATED. Granted, none of those links are currently working due to some apparent MSN outage, but it is better to provide links to the original article instead. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit

In the state results table, I would like to request that the columns labeled Margin and Margin swing be filled in, for those rows/states in which the relevant data has already been entered. Obviously not every state has data, but most do.

This should be trivial, at least for Margin, but the inability to sort by margin has been annoying me for a week now. LoganStokols (talk) 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Every state does have a percentage Margin filled in, even though (for a few states) that number is a preliminary number - since a few states haven't certified their election results, yet. As for the other parameter, I still have a hard time wrapping my mind around what that metric even means. If Biden won a state by a certain amount (percentage) in 2020, but Harris won that same state by a lesser amount in 2024 - does that mean that parameter is negative? What if Biden won a state in 2020, but Harris lost that state in 2024? Does that mean that "swing" is positive? I've been leaving that metric blank for now - some one else can figure that stuff out. Guy1890 (talk) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias

Language used in the introduction describing the Trump campaign is very bias in its language, and has no positive or neutral spin on the redirect of his campaign. In addition there is no negative coverage of the Kamala campaign, nor talk of some of the redirect she and her campaign put out. I understand that Wikipedia is left-leaning in its bias, and left-leaning moderators gate-keep popular page edits, but this just tarnishes the site’s credibility. You people should be ashamed, and embarrassed to walk around here acting like you’re not bias. Your ivory tower is much less stable than you think. 2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

"Bias" is a noun, not an adjective. HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

And it's not an "Ivory tower", but more of an "Space needle" to be more correct.213.230.87.177 (talk) 03:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Which language specifically do you think should be changed? What you're suggesting isn't impossible at all but it would require material from sources Wikipedia has on WP:RS/P. Big Thumpus (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Why such an old photo of Trump?

What? No photos newer than 2017? 109.175.105.196 (talk) 15:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

There was a talk page consensus that was reached a bit before the election. The current picture was recommended since it was an official portrait, however give it a few months and it'll be replaced with Trump's newer official portrait. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 15:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Why would we replace this photo with one taken after the election? That's silly. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

he might get a new presidential portrait (idk how it works), and if he does, we can hopefully put this conversation to rest Catboy69 (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

that being said, it'd make sense to update Second presidency of Donald Trump, not this one when that happens Catboy69 (talk) 17:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

phrasing in ""Stolen election" conspiracy theories" section

For the record, I agree that these claims are BS, but the verbiage here hammers it in to the point of coming off as almost hostile or even combative. I'm looking at this from the perspective of our readers. The excessive WP:DOUBT uses are stylistically displeasing. I don't think we need to state the same claims are false in every single sentence, and using falsely and what reads as "scare quotes" in succession reads as petty. The repeated fronting of adverbs ("falsely claimed" rather than "claimed falsely") gives almost an emotional emphasis which breaks the business-casual to business-formal verbiage wikipedia usually uses. "Claim" is already an expression of doubt, so "false claim" is redundant. I don't know if there was an RFC on how to address false claims and this will likely be a contentious edit. Not wanting to the reckless, I'll give a suggested starting place.

Following Trump's victory, some Harris supporters on X shared election denial conspiracy theories, claiming that millions of ballots were "left uncounted", and that something was "not right" with the election. Such posts which claimed that Trump fraudulently won the election peaked at noon the day after at 94,000 posts per hour, with many receiving amplification and gaining over a million views each. According to Gordon Crovitz, the CEO of the media rating system NewsGuard, the phrase "Trump cheated" received 92,100 mentions on the platform from midnight until the Wednesday morning after. Additionally, some Trump supporters alleged the disparity between other years, the 2020 election, and a then-incomplete 2024 voting total indicated voter fraud in the 2020 election.

I don't think this breaks the message that "yeah these claims are false" without repeatedly stating that ad nauseam.

As for the second paragraph, I only think we should change "basis" to premise DarmaniLink (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC) DarmaniLink (talk) 04:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I support this edit and appreciate the effort to make the tone more neutral regardless which party is being discussed Big Thumpus (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this is a great improvement! As @Big Thumpus said we need to sound neutral no matter which party we discus, that is part of being an encyclopedia.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:27, 10 December 2024 (UTC)