Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
New Electoral Map: new section
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talkheader}}
{{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}}
{{old AfD multi
{{Contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|topic=ap|1RR=T|protection=ecp}}
|date3 =08 February 2016|result3='''no consensus'''|page3=United States presidential election, 2024
{{Trolling}}
|date2 =13 October 2018|result2='''delete'''|page2=United States presidential election, 2024 (2nd nomination)
{{Controversial}}
|date1 =25 October 2018|result1='''delete'''|page1=United States presidential election, 2024 (3rd nomination)
{{Not a forum}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}}
{{Round in circles
|search=no
|canvassing=yes
}}
}}
{{American English|date=November 2020}}
{{Article history
|action1=AFD
|action1date=07:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
|action1link=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_presidential_election,_2024
|action1result=no consensus
|action1oldid=703890722

|action2=AFD
|action2date=19:20, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
|action2link=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_presidential_election,_2024_(2nd_nomination)
|action2result=deleted
|action2oldid=722228840

|action3=AFD
|action3date=01:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
|action3link=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/United_States_presidential_election,_2024_(3rd_nomination)
|action3result=deleted
|action3oldid=870791904

|itndate=6 November 2024
|itnlink=Special:Diff/1255733553
}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|blp=other|1=
{{WikiProject Politics |importance=High |American=yes |American-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=High|USGov=Yes|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WikiProject United States Presidents |importance=Mid |trump=yes |trump-importance=Top}}
}}
{{Connected contributor|User1=Prcc27|U1-declared=yes| U1-otherlinks= Member-Elect for local Democratic Party leadership.}}
{{refideas|{{cite news |title=Polls showed a race in dead heat. How did prediction markets know Trump would prevail? |first=Hiawatha |last=Bray |work=[[The Boston Globe]] |date=November 8, 2024 |access-date=November 17, 2024 |url=https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/11/08/business/election-2024-prediction-markets-polymarket-predictit-kalshi/ |url-access=subscription}}}}
{{afd-merged-from|International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election|International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election|14 November 2024}}
{{Banner holder|collapsed=yes|
{{merged-from|2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries}}
{{merged-from|2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries}}
{{merged-from|2024 Republican Party presidential primaries}}
{{merged-from|2024 Republican Party presidential primaries}}
{{annual readership}}
{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
{{section sizes}}
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums |class=Future}}
{{info|
{{WikiProject United States|class=Future|USGov=Yes|USPE=yes}}
'''All draft articles relating to this article:'''
{{WikiProject Politics |class=Start |importance=Low |American=yes}}
* [[Draft:Attempted disqualification of Donald Trump]]
* [[Draft:Democratic Party reaction to the Israel–Hamas war]]
* [[Draft:Kamala Harris and the Israel-Hamas war]]
* [[Draft:The Political Machine 2024|Draft:''The Political Machine 2024'']]
}}
{{Top 25 Report|Jul 21 2024 (9th)|Sep 8 2024 (25th)|Oct 20 2024 (10th)|Oct 27 2024 (4th)|Nov 3 2024 (1st)|Nov 10 2024 (6th)|Nov 17 2024 (8th)|Nov 24 2024 (8th)|Dec 1 2024 (18th)}}
}}
}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo=old(90d)
| algo=old(7d)
| archive=Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive %(counter)d
| archive=Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive %(counter)d
| counter=1
| counter=16
| maxarchivesize=150K
| maxarchivesize=250K
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| archiveheader={{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadsleft=5
| minthreadsleft=4
| minthreadstoarchive=2
| minthreadstoarchive=1
}}
}}
{{Auto archiving notice|=Lowercase sigmabot III|age= |units= 90 days}}
{{American English|date=November 2020}}
{{info|

'''All draft articles relating to this article:'''
* [[Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries]]
* [[Draft:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries]]
* [[Draft:2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries]]
* [[Draft:2024 Green Party presidential primaries]]
}}

== Donald Trump ==

If, somehow, Trump were to lose the [[2020 United States presidential election|2020 election]], would he not be a perfectly acceptable candidate for 2024? I was going to simply add him to the "potential candidates" section myself, but I felt the need to have permission first. If so, do I need a source? I'm 95% sure that he'd try to run if he lost next year. [[User:IceKey8297|IceKey8297 is awesome.]]<sup>'''''[citation needed]'''''</sup> 16:55, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

:I see where you're coming from, but I think we should hold back on including Trump as a potential candidate in 2024. While he would be eligible to run in 2024 if he lost (or didn't run at all) in 2020, including him strikes me as being a bit too eager to include things that might not even come to pass. Remember that [[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a crystal ball|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]], so speculating about the possibility of Trump winning or losing in 2020 might not be good to include. There's also the fact that [[Wikipedia:There is no deadline|there is no deadline]], so even if Trump winning or losing in 2020 wasn't speculative, Wikipedia shouldn't be in any rush unless we have a compelling reason to. (When that is said, I personally think it unlikely that he will lose reelection in 2020 simply because incumbent US presidents rarely lose. According to [[List of Presidents who didn't win reelection]], the last US president to lose reelection was Bush the Elder in 1992). To summarize, I would advise against including Trump unless and until he loses in 2020. - [[Special:Contributions/188.176.129.120|188.176.129.120]] ([[User talk:188.176.129.120|talk]]) 02:10, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

::I'm going to be completely honest with you, I came to this self-same conclusion just a few days ago. Thanks, though! [[User:IceKey8297|IceKey8297 is awesome.]]<sup>'''''[citation needed]'''''</sup> 13:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

:::Okay, then. And you're welcome. - [[Special:Contributions/188.176.129.120|188.176.129.120]] ([[User talk:188.176.129.120|talk]]) 23:22, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

::::He won't be able to if he's a convicted felon by then. [[User:Firejuggler86|Firejuggler86]] ([[User talk:Firejuggler86|talk]]) 15:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

:::::AFAIK, there is no legal requirement, constitutional or otherwise, that bars felons from running for president. [[Eugene V. Debs]] ran for president several times, including once from prison in 1920. Most states do take the right to vote away from felons, but as far as I can tell no state also takes away the right of candidacy. When that is said, though, Donald Trump is a piece of shit who has always been morally unfit to be president (or any kind of elected official for that matter). But [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a forum|Wikipedia is not a forum]] for discussing our opinions about things or people, so what you're saying is irrelevant unless you have a source that both a) speculates that Trump will be a convicted felon by Election Day 2024 and b) argues that the Constitution bars felons from running for office which c) would make Trump ineligible in 2024. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 15:27, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::Even though Trump lost in 2020, who told us that Trump doesn't want to run again in 2024? Of course he wants to run again for president in 2024. Can someone please put Trump in the list of republican primaries when the time comes? [[User:Billwang370|Billwang370]] ([[User talk:Billwang370|talk]]) 16:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::He's already in the "Other potential candidates" section; we can't assume Trump will run in 2024; that's [[WP:OR|original research]]. We go by what the [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] indicate. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 16:43, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

== Template edit war ==

There is currently an ongoing edit war on [[Template:2024 United States presidential election]] that I would like you to weigh in on, since it only involves me and one other editor. The edit war started because the other editor added candidates that didn't appear on this page (due to lack of sourcing) and removed Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, even though she has two sources on this page. --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 02:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
: This is another reason why the AfC should be passed. There needs to be more editor activity and input on these articles. --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 02:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
::Or we could just leave it until after the 2020 election... and then we might have an idea of who might actual run. It is unusual to create articles for future elections when one is currently underway. This article is still far from being ready for prime-time.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]])
:::That is just not true, as you can see from [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2020]], the 2020 article had already been created and was pretty much unanimously considered ready for article space by this point in time. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 11:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
::::Yes, and that was unusual. It is extremely rare for articles about American, Australian, British, Canadian or Kiwi elections to be created before the previous election has occurred. It is not unusual to create an article for a future election, but it is unusual to create an article for a future election <u>when the previous election has not yet occurred</u>.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]]) 17:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::This election is far from usual. There is an entire section about Joe Biden being a transition candidate and Donald Trump wanting a third term. --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 20:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
:::::In addition to what Numberguy6 said above, one of the reasons that that is the case is because the dates of those countries aside from America are not known before they are announced, as the Westminster system does not have ironclad election dates. I mean seriously, this article passes [[WP:GNG]] by a country mile even if we remove all the candidates, there is no reason to keep it in draft. Keeping a notable article in draftspace when there are no severe NPOV or Formatting issues is just lunacy. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 21:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
: I agree that we need to move to mainspace ASAP (which is long overdue at this point), but it also feels like that we have set the bar way too low for who is considered a "potential candidate". Having duchess Meghan on the list is bordering on lunacy, no matter how many sources people add to her. We should put much stricter limits on who we include on the candidates list here (and in the template), and only list people who follow some set of criteria. For example, we could limit it to people who either have expressed interest in running themselves (not third-party speculation that this-or-that person might run), or incumbent senators or governors or whatever who have sought the presidency before and who might seek it again in 2024. And no more "X said they might run in the future without talking 2024, so let's add X to this article", only candidates who specifically talked 2024. We should come down hard on any candidate listings that either has third-party speculation sources only or that isn't specifically about 2024. This should trim down the candidate list quite a bit, and set a clear line for who does and who doesn't belong in templates and such. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 11:37, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
::I disagree with some of those proposals, the bit about "Senators and Governors who have sought the presidency before" just seems like it would be [[WP:OR]], and your proposal about "it must be about 2024 specifically" is actually supposed to already be in effect. The bit about Duchess Megan, I also think its dumb, but we must remember that Wikipedia repeats what the sources say, and if the sources say she might run for president we also say that. The bit about potential candidates would ideally be its own discussion, since there has been a previous consensus that potential candidates sections are fine. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 11:47, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
:::For reference, this is the consensus used in 2016 and 2020: "Consensus on the criteria for a potential candidate to be included in the article:
::::The "Publicly expressed interest" section requires only one source from the last six months where the individual is quoted as being interested in running in 2020. Social media posts do not count as public expressions of interest.
::::The "Potential candidates" section requires at least two sources speculating that an individual may run or where an individual talks about the 2020 election from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). The sources must not be a list of several potential candidates nor a persuasive article about why a candidate should run.
::::The "Declined candidates" section requires at least two sources from any point after the 2016 election (since November 9, 2016). One source must be speculative in the same vein as the "Potential candidates" section, while the second must be a quoted denial from the individual in question."
:::[[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 02:48, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
== Scheduling and the RFC ==
Around a year ago, I...well, it was notorious over the rules of who's going to be listed as a major candidate, and it was agreed that an RfC would take place sometime either late next month or December over the rules for 2024. So, I suggest that we put ALL the drafts on the mainspace on or around November 10th. By then we will know if there's going to be a president-elect or chaos and can act accordingly. The RfC can take place here on the talk page soon after. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 15:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
:I think it will be a good idea to list topics for the RFC, since I presume "what is a major candidate" will not be the only topic up for discussion. Also might be a good idea to find a list of users to ping but that's of lesser importance to me. Also I thought this was already resubmitted? [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 17:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
:I think only this main article should go to mainspace since there won't be additional information in the party primary articles beyond what's in the main yet. Or at the least, the candidate lists should obviously be transcluded from one page to the other so there aren't inconsistencies as people/sources are added/removed (and discussed) on one but not the other. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 18:51, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
:I agree with Reywas92, the same thing was done this cycle, the Democratic primaries page was not created until March 2017, for example. With pinging, perhaps just leave notices at the talk page of the 2020 presidential election page as well as the pages for the Republican, Democratic, Libertarian and Green primaries, and leave notices on the talk page of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums]] and [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Politics]]. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 04:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
::One thing I wanted to discuss was a schedule for that sort of thing. When do the articles get on the mainspace and are there are drafts one can work on beforehand? there's a list of links to the various drafts on the top of this page, and maybe we can keep them there, removing them when they go "live."[[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

==The Joe Biden transition article==
As you can see, I just put a link to a draft of the Biden Transition draft on top of this page.

Unless the [[Trafalgar Group]] is right and there's a clear and decisive Trump victory next week, there's going to be a Biden presidential transition, whether or not it's aborted. Technically, there already is one and we have a [[Planned presidential transition of Mitt Romney|Romney presidential transition]] article on the mainspace. It will be an excellent place to put the shenanigans that might take place in the weeks following a week from Wednesday. Should Trump win decisively and Biden concede, then it would either disappear or turn into something like the Romney article, as it was notable during the campaign, generating several articles in the MSM.

Don't bitch about it being [[WP:Crystal]], as it's still a draft..that being said, I need all the help I can get.[[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 11:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

== Home state of Donald Trump and Mike Pence ==

These have been removed several times, even though it has been standard practice to list the home states regardless of the person's previous offices.--[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 18:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
:It's the practice of 'not' showing home states, when it's the incumbent president & vice president. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:32, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
::Not that I'm calling you a liar, GoodDay, but I would like to see a source on that. I'm at the same understanding as Numberguy6, that prior (or current) office is irrelevant to whether we list their home state. And unless there is a consensus for omitting the home state for the POTUS and VP, I can't think of a reason to exclude them. I don't mean to sound combatative, I'm genuinely interested in seeing a source on this. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 00:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

== Now that it's November, when should we move? ==
{{archive top|result= Draft moved to mainspace at 22:38, 8 November 2020 by‎ [[User:Anthony Appleyard|Anthony Appleyard]] ([[User talk:Anthony Appleyard|talk]]). Closure requested at [[WP:ANRFC]] {{diff|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Now that it's November, when should we move?|next|987434651|<small>(permalink)</small>}} '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]'''''&nbsp;&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>01:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)</small>}}.
There are several different options:
# '''Past deadline''' - Last polls close. This would be in the [[Hawaii–Aleutian Time Zone]] sections of Alaska, at 20:00 HST on November 3 (01:00 EST / 06:00 UTC on November 4).
# '''Current''' - Race called by major media outlet.
# Final mail-in ballots received. This would be in California on November 20.
# "Safe-harbor" deadline for resolving election disputes (December 8).
# Electoral College meets (December 14).
# Congress counts electoral votes (January 6).
# Inauguration Day (January 20 at 12:00 EST / 17:00 UTC).
# When a 2024 presidential campaign has begun
# As soon as possible

===Closure===
Please note closure has been requested at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure#Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Now that it's November, when should we move?]]. --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 16:04, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 1===
{{atopr
| status =
| result = '''Past deadline'''
}}


Tally:2
* '''Support''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. It's long overdue. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' Should either be before or after this. Either now or when we have an incumbent. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''', No other election page has been created after November 3 as far as I can tell, and they all seemed to turn out fine. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' - We should wait until there is a call from a major network/paper.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]])
* '''Support''' – it's already a notable topic with reliable coverage (no longer ''just'' speculation); it's pretty overdue. (Typically, I believe we would already have the page up by now.) <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 22:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' This is a chronologically scheduled election; it is not dependent on 2020 results or the presence of a candidate or incumbent, so it should be chronologically added. My second choice is option 2 but at this point it should be as soon as possible. -[[User:TenorTwelve|TenorTwelve]] ([[User talk:TenorTwelve|talk]]) 18:58, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}

===Option 2===
Tally:10
* '''Support''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. It's long overdue. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' We should at least unofficially get an incumbent. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as Option 3. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*:This is option 2, not option 3. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 18:33, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
*::No, as ''my'' third choice behind Options 1 and 9. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' --[[User:Pokelova|Pokelova]] ([[User talk:Pokelova|talk]]) 23:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - This is the right time.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]])
* '''Support''' – it's already a notable topic with reliable coverage (no longer ''just'' speculation); it's pretty overdue. (Typically, I believe we would already have the page up by now.) <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 22:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' I'm in the as-soon-as-possible camp, but how are we going to determine which major source to use if this route is taken? -[[User:TenorTwelve|TenorTwelve]] ([[User talk:TenorTwelve|talk]]) 19:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
**I presume we would use whatever criteria we use to determine whether or not to call the race on the 2020 page. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 01:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - Support making it soon, but it is important to know the incumbent prior to the move. [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 19:26, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support, if not sooner''' - no reason to delay, topic is absolutely something people will be interested in already. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - What exactly should we take to mean that the "race [has been] called by [a] major media outlet"? We're at a point now where some places have called the race for Biden, such as [[Decision Desk HQ]]. If we go with this option, as seems to be the consensus right now, which media outlets should we look at before we move? - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 13:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment 2''' - It was called by basically everyone, what now? [[User:Nojus R|Nojus R]] ([[User talk:Nojus R|talk]]) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' - We're supposed to move the page ASAP, as far as I'm aware. And after a long and grueling 2020 campaign, I would welcome that. I'm not sure who actually has the editing privileges to move to mainspace, but as we wait for someone to do that, I'm gonna make some preparations for moving to mainspace. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 17:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*:What makes you aware of that? Please see [[WP:NORUSH]]. -- [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:15, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*::[[Wikipedia:Consensus|Consensus policy]] is what I base that on. A tally of +8, when the next most supported option is a +3, seems like a pretty clear consensus for moving. That, and [[Wikipedia:The deadline is now|the deadline is now]]. There's gonna be a marked increase in people looking for this page, and getting to work on it should be our highest priority right now. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 17:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. I think we can go ahead and move the article to the mainspace now that the race has been called by multiple major media outlets. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 18:59, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' can an administrator just move it now, we are basically done here. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 21:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support'''. Now's the time. Let's do this.[[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 22:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 3===
Tally:-3
* '''Support''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Too late, need to move sooner. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This will not necessarily give us an incumbent. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', should be moved sooner. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Support''' - It should probably be sooner, but if not before Nov 20, we should do it then.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]])
*'''Oppose''' - Too late, no reason to delay <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 4===
Tally:-3
* '''Support''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Too late, need to move sooner. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This will not necessarily give us an incumbent. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', should be moved sooner. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''If not done already''' - Should be before December.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]])
*'''Oppose''' - Too late, no reason to delay <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 5===
Tally:-6
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Too late, need to move sooner. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' This will not necessarily give us an incumbent. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', should be moved sooner. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Too late, no reason to delay <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 6===
Tally:-4
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Too late, need to move sooner. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' We should officially get an incumbent. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', should be moved sooner. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Too late, no reason to delay <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 7===
Tally:-4
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 17:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Too late, need to move sooner. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' We DEFINATELY should have an incumbent here. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', should be moved sooner. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Too late, no reason to delay <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 8===
Tally:-3
* '''Support''' --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 17:52, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose'''. Too late, need to move sooner. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 20:04, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Conditionally Oppose''' Oppose on grounds of being too late but will support in case of this occurring when the article is still in draft space. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Oppose''', should be moved sooner. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' - Too late, no reason to delay <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

===Option 9===
{{atopr
| status =
| result = '''Basically the same thing as Option 2 now'''
}}
Tally:3
* '''Support''' See discussion below. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' as option 2, though realistically I think we can wait a couple days at this point. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 22:10, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support'''. Let's move the damn page already! - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 02:20, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' per above.--[[User:Darryl Kerrigan|Darryl Kerrigan]] ([[User talk:Darryl Kerrigan|talk]])
* '''Oppose''' The whole point of this discussion is to decide when to move it. A discussion like this probably not be closed until after a week of discussion, unless there is a [[WP:SNOW]] close, in which case some of the options will have already passed. [[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 18:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' – it's already a notable topic with reliable coverage (no longer ''just'' speculation); it's pretty overdue. (Typically, I believe we would already have the page up by now.) <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 22:06, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
* '''Support''' - no reason to delay at all, topic is absolutely something people will be interested in already. <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{abot}}

===Discussion===
I wanted to open up a discussion section so as to explain our support of various options. I think we should move it to main space right now because a page should not be moved based on relations to other pages. The initial reason it was put up for a move to mainspace back in May/August of 2020 was becuase {{tq| A), the 2024 election has clearly received enough coverage as of this point to be a standalone article, B), the lists of candidates have now been purged of unreliable sources, and only candidates sourced to reliable ones remain, and C), As there is really no reason to keep this article as a draft, since all that is doing at this point is depriving it of editing attention and inhibiting it from being improved}}. The reason for denial were the following reasons:

{{tq|* The discussion above [[Draft talk:2024 United States presidential election#Proposal%20to%20move%20this%20article%20to%20mainspace|#Proposal to move this article to mainspace]] has !votes in at 4 support, 4 oppose. Therefore I don't think there is consensus to move it yet}}
{{tq|* I don't believe that the sources speculating on which candidates might run are sufficiently reliable.}}

{{tq|* A lot of them are comment pieces rather than news stories and the articles themselves acknowledge the speculative nature of the claims. One of them is even called "A way-too-early look at the 2024 presidential nominee field"}}
{{tq|* The content of some of them is so vague to almost mean nothing. For example the source for Elizabeth Warren is an article in the New York Post that says "The long and short of it is she has not ruled out a future that involves running for president, one Senate insider told The Post" - This is a commentator reporting that a third party (not even named) says that she hasn't ruled out running. I don't think this has enough substance to even bother reporting on.}}

{{tq|* There are plenty of experienced editors contributing the discussion at the talk page, and I don't see why consensus can't occur here}}

Sourcing for candidates running has significantly improved in reliability so I feel the second point has been adequately improved. Poor sources like the ones mentioned here have long been purged.
For the first and third point, obviously consensus has not been formed yet as this discussion is very new, but most qualms were about it being poorly sourced and too early, both concerns should have improved by now.

For these reasons, I support immediate move to main space.

However, I do admit there is not yet an incumbent and I can understand not wanting to move the article to mainspace until there is an incumbent. Therefor, if we do not want to move now, I support move to mainspace when we have an incumbent, which would be when a major news outlet calls the race, or failing that, when the Electoral College counts votes.

Lastly, I think it may be a good idea to ping users previously involved in this discussion but I tend to use pings very scarcely and will only do so if this discussion is not resolved soon or if prompted by other users. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 20:57, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

:Agree that sourcing has been improved. We have waited more than enough, and we should move to mainspace immediately. Although editing activity on this draft has increased somewhat leading up to Election Day 2020, it is still being deprived of attention for very little discernable reason. I have already made my arguments elsewhere on this talk page that there is no merit to the "2024 is a non-immediate election / we don't know the 2024 incumbent" school of objections. No opinion on pinging. I say move the page, and move it now. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 22:40, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

:I have notified the following WikiProjects of this discussion. [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States Government]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections]], [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics]], and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/American politics]]. --[[User:Emir of Wikipedia|Emir of Wikipedia]] ([[User talk:Emir of Wikipedia|talk]]) 21:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}

== Mark Cuban, Meghan Markle ==

Why are Mark Cuban and Meghan Markle listed under the Green Party? None of the sources for them mention anything about them being associated with the Green Party. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 03:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:I accidentally removed the relevant section header in a previous edit; I've added it back. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 03:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks, but that still leaves open the question of whether they should be listed as potential independent/third party candidates. Nothing in the Meghan Markle cites suggested that she might run as a third-party candidate nor have I seen such a suggestion elsewhere. (Kanye West did run under a new party this year, and Mark Cuban [https://web.archive.org/web/20181210113406/https://www.businessinsider.com/mark-cuban-on-2020-its-bad-parenting-to-run-for-president-but-well-see-2018-12 suggested in the past] that he might run as an independent, so I can understand listing them in this section, but not Meghan.) --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 15:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::Maybe there should be a "Party unknown" section for dealing with situations like Markle? <span style="font-family:Comic Sans">[[User:Chessrat|<span style="color:#C90">Chessrat</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Chessrat|<span style="color:green">talk</span>]], [[Special:Contribs/Chessrat|<span style="color:#f78">contributions</span>]]) </sup></span> 21:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I wouldn't be opposed to changing the heading to independent/third/unknown. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 22:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::I support indicating one way or the other that their party would be unknown. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::FWIW, [[Meghan, Duchess of Sussex#Political views|probably not Republican]]. '''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 06:39, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

== Differences between primary and main page. ==

I have noticed that Pritzker and Warren are listed on the Dem primary page but not this page. Surely the candidates should be the same across pages? [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

==Request for comments on which presidential candidates should be considered "major"==
In past election campaigns, there has been a lot of discussion as to which candidates should be considered major presidential candidates [''Edited to add'': in the Democratic and Republican primaries].

I would like to try to get a consensus now before candidates start declaring for 2024, so that we can establish criteria without editors trying to create criteria in order to have a particular candidate included or excluded. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 03:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

: Depends on what you mean by "major". I would sort candidates into three tiers:
:* Tier 1 is any candidate that could plausibly win the election. That is to say, presumptively the Democrat and the Republican. If anyone else wants to break into this tier, they'd have to have national polling data showing them within something like ten points of whoever's leading, or equivalent state polling in several states.
:* Tier 2 is any candidate that gets on the ballot in every state (with some leeway for weirdness like the Alaska Greens nominating Jesse Ventura instead of Howie Hawkins). That is to say, probably the Libertarian and Green candidates, as well as any Ross Perot or John Anderson-like candidates that do pretty well but not well enough to plausibly win.
:* Tier 3 is any candidate that gets on the ballot in at least one state. Or in other words, candidates from even smaller parties than the Libertarian and Green parties, but not so small they can't swing getting on the ballot in even one state. I think if you can't get on the ballot in even one state you can't meaningfully be said to be running for president at all.
: If you had to divide these into only "major" and "minor", Tier 1 is IMO definitely major and Tier 3 is IMO definitely minor, but I could go either way on Tier 2. [[User:LokiTheLiar|Loki]] ([[User talk:LokiTheLiar|talk]]) 06:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

::Sorry, I forgot to mention that I was thinking of how we determine which are the major candidates for the '''Democratic and Republican primaries''' (I've edited that above now). Generally speaking, I agree with your analysis as to the general election. The criteria I'm suggesting are for Democratic and Republican candidates. They aren't likely to be relevant to candidates of other parties.

::Here are my proposed criteria:
#The candidate has been included as a choice in at least five independent, national polls for their party's nomination since the last presidential election; '''or'''
#The candidate holds, or has previously held, at least one of the following offices:
##[[President of the United States]];
##[[Vice President of the United States]];
##[[United States Senator]];
##[[United States Representative]];
##United States Cabinet member -- specifically, head of one of the [[United States federal executive departments]];
##[[Governor (United States)|Governor]] of a state; or
##[[Mayor]] of one of the [[List of United States cities by population|10 most populous cities]] in the U.S.

::Note that this would not give an automatic pass to state legislators, or to mayors of smaller cities. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 07:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

:::It's good to think our criteria through now, so that people further down the line won't support or oppose sets of criteria solely based on particular candidates they like or dislike. Those seem like reasonable criteria, and I would support those. How about 2020 candidates (that polled over a certain percentage), should we add that to the list of "offices"? - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 09:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

::we should have a schedule of changing criteria. To wit:
**Nov 2020-March 2022: Anyone notable who has been mentioned by two publications.
**April 2022-March 2023; Held federal or statewide office within the past ten years or been in five reputable polls.
*Those already judged a major candidate in May 2023, they remain. Anyone new must...
**April-November 2023: Anyone invited to a Debate.
**November 2023-the conventions 2024: On a primary ballot in a minimum of 12 states, or getting more than 10% in any primary.

I speak from experience. To wit: [[Marianne Williamson]], [[Andrew Yang]] and [[Rocky de la Fuente]].
::: Williamson is a moderate celebrity with a fanbase. No one considered her a serious candidate. However, that fanbase gave her quite a bit of money, and she was noticed, in the late spring of 2019, by some polling companies, who put her name on their list of candidates. As some of you may remember, there was a discussion as to whether or not she was a major candidate or not. She managed to get a slot, much to everyone's surprise. Thus she became a major candidate.
::: Yang is a problematic case. He was one of those nobodies from nowhere who, as a hobby, more than anything else, decided to run for president. As you remember, there was heated discussion as to whether he was a major candidate. He managed to get listed in 5 major polls barely in time to apply for the debates, although he had a rather good fundraising operation. He managed to get into the debates, but barely.
:::Then there's Rocky de la Fuente. He nearly got me kicked out of Wikipedia for championing his cause. Ol' Rocky was a hobbyist spending his grandkid's inheritance on some pointless runs for the White House. He didn't deserve any respect except for one thing: He figured out how to get on state ballots. He wound up being listed in 20 primaries by the end of 2019, and ended up getting over a hundred thousand votes. He didn't get listed in any polls until late November. But he got it eventually.
::::Finally there's those nobodies who only became notable because they managed to get over 20% in at least one primary running against Barack Obama in 2012. [[John Wolfe, jr]] and somebody sitting in jail at the time. Wolfe got 21% in Louisiana and 41% in Arkansas. This did not make headlines like [[Pat Buchanan]] getting a mere 35% in New Hampshire in 1992, mainly it was because the party had fixed the race in most places and it was too late.

In 2016, a number of non-notable candidates got on the ballot in 10 but less than 15 primaries. Rocky's son got on 12. Getting on 15 or more deserves the respect of a mention, plus when it comes to the charts on the results page, it looks far, far better. The more information the better.

To conclude: change the criteria on a planned schedule...and oh yeah...

Unless Trump is still president this February, in which case there may not BE a set of primaries in '24, there will be an incumbent (Biden) or a semi-incumbent (Harris) in the primaries. In 1996 and 2012, everybody either stood down voluntarily, or was arm-twisted into it, and Lyndon Larouche and the aforementioned nobodies in '12 were denied their rightfully allocated delegates. The DNC tried to put their thumb on the scales for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, and it came back to bite them both times. A fixed race is acceptable when there's an incumbent. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 18:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
:Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm content with whatever ya'll choose. More importantly it's good that we're deciding on an inclusion criteria now, rather then wait until 2023 or later. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 04:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

:I agree with the criteria proposed by Metropolitan90, as this was the basic consensus achieved last year, and think an RfC for the Libertarian/Green parties, as well as a few other topics, would be a good idea as well. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 05:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I mostly agree with the proposed rules, but I also disagree on some things, so I also think that these should also be included:

* State Senators, State Attorneys General and State Secretaries of State, per the inclusion of [[Richard Ojeda]] and the fact that [[Nina Turner]] or [[Alex Padilla]], for example, would clearly be taken seriously if they ran.
* Mayor of any city with over 100,000 people. [[Wayne Messam]] easily getting inclusion in five polls shows that even mayors of cities far smaller than the top 10 get treated as legitimate candidates by the media [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 07:05, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:I agree with you here. This is largely the same set of criteria we used for the 2020 election, and I see little reason to change it. '''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 02:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

It's ''really'' not that hard to see who the media covers and who it doesn't. Look, I don't think there was a single edge case in this year's major party candidates: even Messam was in all the graphics they made of who all was running and had adequate coverage. It's a bit petuelent that we would have to spell out to our readers that members of Congress and statewide elected officials are likely to be major candidates. The article certainly doesn't have to have the full list enumerated and should just say "has held federal office or major state office". A note on polls: they need to come from multiple pollsters, not one firm using the same biweekly list. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 07:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
*On the contrary, there ''were'' edge cases in the 2020 primaries. Example: Wayne Messam, as far as I can tell, was [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/tiebreakers-might-decide-who-makes-the-second-democratic-debates-and-it-could-get-complicated/ never considered a major candidate] by FiveThirtyEight.com. Richard Ojeda [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/heres-how-were-defining-a-major-presidential-candidate/ didn't qualify as a major candidate] to FiveThirtyEight.com either. As shown [[Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 6#Proposed design with new criterion|here]], Andrew Yang started out as a minor candidate seemingly comparable to [[Jeff Boss]] and [[Robby Wells]], well before he gained recognition and was accepted as a major candidate; one anonymous editor commented, "I think we ought to make a certain level of notable endorsements grounds for makings someone a major candidate. Yang has four, so maybe five?" FiveThirtyEight also [https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-andrew-yang-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/ commented], "While many long shots would run for president, we would focus our coverage on candidates who had previously held elected office; others would have to earn enough media attention to prove they should be taken seriously. When businessman Andrew Yang, a political rookie, launched his presidential campaign with a New York Times profile in February 2018, he didn’t meet our standard for coverage. But Yang now looks likely to qualify for the Democratic primary debates this summer, so here is our belated [''March 19, 2019''] take on the strengths and weaknesses of his candidacy." When [[Brad Thor]] was ostensibly running for president, another editor commented, "I've also seen a proposal for adding the requirement to have the candidate receive some sort of news coverage for their campaign. That ... would include Brad Thor, who doesn't have a campaign website but definitely stirred up a lot of media attention and received the endorsement of a Never-Trumper." And as indicated [[Talk:2020 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 2#De La Fuente and polls|here]], when Rocky De La Fuente qualified as a major candidate by our criterion of being included in 5 polls, that was controversial too. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
*:And if we just follow cues of 538, WaPo, or NYT on who ''they'' consider major candidates then, we're golden. There is no need for us to ask arbitrary questions like "Is a city of 122,000 big enough for its mayor to be major?", "Is one term in the state senate enough to be major?", "Does a single pollster asking the same question a certain number of times make someone major?". Let's ''not'' play stupid games and instead say that if they consider them major, we can too. They will certainly be making pages like [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/2020-presidential-candidates.html] and [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/politics/2020-presidential-hopefuls/?utm_term=.8d1ee3725474] when the first candidates announce. Yang did absolutely have considerable coverage in major sources [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22andrew+yang%22&biw=1280&bih=602&sxsrf=ALeKk01SP5NaHS5N16deVLlMTh9bAwsf4Q%3A1604990786787&source=lnt&tbs=cdr%3A1%2Ccd_min%3A11%2F6%2F2017%2Ccd_max%3A11%2F6%2F2018&tbm=nws throughout the first year of his (early) candidacy], and to compare him to Boss and Wells is insulting to our intelligence. That was such mistake to give a goddam conspiracy theorist a row in the table. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 06:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::I support following [[WP:RS]]. That's a core Wikipedia approach. We should not be applying our own made-up criteria. [[User:Bondegezou|Bondegezou]] ([[User talk:Bondegezou|talk]]) 11:32, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
*Choice two wouldn't include someone like Trump from running (the first time; even though no-one took him seriously, he still made it). If, someone like him runs again (maybe Mark Cuban), then they wouldn't be included. I support '''choice 1'''. Thanks, <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]<sup>[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]]</sup><sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>[[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]</sub></span> 22:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

== Future or present status for images ==

Should we continue to use ''present tense'' or go with 2024 tense, for office holder descriptions, under the images. I can't remember how it was done 4 years ago, at the Draft:2020 US presidential election article. In otherwords for this draft, should we be using President Donald Trump or ''Former'' President Donald Trump. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:11, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
*I would say, keep it "President" until January 20, 2021, then change it to "former President". The article should describe people by their descriptions at the time we are reading it, not what their descriptions are going to be later on. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 18:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

==Request for Comments on a schedule for putting stuff up==
Timeline of the 2024 United States presidential election (now—it should go up with the mainpage)
:2024 Republican Party presidential primaries (November 2022) Enough information will be known by then to split off.
:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries (November 2022)
:2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries (July 2023)
:2024 Green Party presidential primaries (July 2023)
:2024 Republican National Convention (July 2022) Bids will have been solicited by then.
:2024 Democratic National Convention (July 2022)

:The results pages should be spun off around October of 2023.
:The Candidates pages should be spun off around June of 2023.
:The Timelines for the primaries should each be spun off in January of '22. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 18:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
*I don't think we should fix the schedule now for when these articles should be created. They should be created when there is enough information to make it worthwhile to spin them off, keeping in mind that many editors prefer to create articles sooner rather than later. For example, at the comparable stage of the 2020 election, [[2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries]] already looked like [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=2020_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=866676465 this] as of Oct. 31, 2018. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 19:31, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::I agree that this should be a case by case issue for the future. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 05:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

== There's consensus to move the page now. Can an admin move it, please? ==

There's a consensus in the discussion above to move the page NOW (especially now that we know who won 2020). We'd typically have the next presidential election page up by now, but the title is locked. Can an administrator please move the page now? <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 21:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
:Yes, someone please do this already! - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 21:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
::Thanks for requesting the move here, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Uncontroversial_technical_requests], [[User:Paintspot|Paintspot]]. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 22:10, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
[[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 01:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

==Dispute on whether Joe Biden should be the democratic nominee despite his age==
:I certainly doubt that Biden will ever become the democratic presidential nominee for 2024 because according to news sources, Biden chose to not run for second term, and that it's Kamala Harris that should be the main democratic nominee under the section public interests for the 2024 presidential election. [[User:Billwang370|Billwang370]] ([[User talk:Billwang370|talk]]) 05:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
::The sourcing for Biden states that Biden is at least willing to try and run for 2 terms, of course whether or not that actually happens is another story but there is speculation from reliable sources and that should be documented in this article. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 05:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:::His campaign advisor said that Biden is only planning to serve as a one-term president. [[User:Haris920|Haris920]] ([[User talk:Haris920|talk]]) 15:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Let's wait until/if Biden actually announces he ''won't'' be a candidate for the 2024 Democratic presidential nomination. Ok folks? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 07:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

== Mention of Trump's eligibility in the lead ==

"President-elect Joe Biden and outgoing President Donald Trump are both eligible to run for a second term." Is this necessary/appropriate? I mean, so is [[Jimmy Carter]], but that'd be unnecessary to mention in the lead, now wouldn't it? [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 05:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:There was some brief speculation over Carter, but he has stated he has absolutely no intention of running. There is already speculation over a Trump 2024 run such as here [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/03/if-trump-loses-2020-could-come-back-2024-column/4597353002/], and there are no indications from Trump that he will not run in 2024, given that he is still trying to win in 2020. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 05:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
::We should start "Wikipedians for Carter 2024". Hell, let's bring back Mondale while we're at it. '''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
But I think with elections that we typically only mention the eligibility of the officeholder anticipated to be the incumbent at the time of the election, not previous officeholders. [[User:SecretName101|SecretName101]] ([[User talk:SecretName101|talk]]) 08:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

== Trump publicly expressed interest ==
Are there any [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that say that Trump has expressed interest in running for president for his (potential) '''second''' term..? If not, Trump must be removed from the publicly expressed interest section. I'm pretty sure Trump has only discussed running in 2024 with the implication that he would be seeking a third term, not a second one. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
*It's hard to believe that Trump would only be interested in running if he was ''ineligible'' to do so, and not if he actually were legally eligible to serve. But even if we don't have a consensus to keep him in the "publicly expressed interest" category, he would at least belong in the "Other potential candidates" category, per sources such as these: [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2020/11/07/trump-run-2024-what-his-next-steps-after-loss-biden/6189382002/ USA Today], [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election/trump-run-2024-election-biden-b1613385.html The Independent], [https://www.mediaite.com/politics/trump-has-privately-floated-2024-run-to-advisers-if-he-loses-to-biden-nyt/ Mediaite]. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 15:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
**I support moving him to the potential candidates section. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 19:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

== Map infobox==
Should we add a map to the infobox? If so, we could either add the 2020 electoral map or we could add a blank 2012-2020 electoral map. If we choose the latter, we should make clear that for 2024, the map will be different due to the 2020 Census. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

== Present tense, is annoying. ==

Kinda discouraging, that some ''seem'' intent on pushing ''present tense'' into this article, which deals with a future event. By 2024, Biden will be the ''president'' & Harris the ''vice president'', so let's show them that way. ''If'' something occurs to change that? we can make the required updates. If yas aren't in agreement with me? then move this article back to Draft, until Biden's inauguration is held. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 11:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
*I already commented on this in answer to your similar question above ([[#Future or present status for images]]). I think that we should assume, when we write the article, that people are going to be reading it today. We shouldn't write this article from the perspective of four years from now. Thousands of Wikipedia editors may be reading this article between now and Jan. 20, 2021, and we shouldn't be telling them that Biden and Harris are ''already'' the president and VP; that's what the words "president-''elect''" and "vice president-''elect''" are there for. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 15:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
*It's not 2024 (or January 2021) yet. Unless this article is intended for time travellers, we should write about things as they are now. That is how it is in every article. We'd be lying to people if we started calling Biden the "president" rather than "president-elect" pre-January 20. And please stop vilifying people for disagreeing with you. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 16:25, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

== Ilhan Omar ==

There is a few news articles mentioning that Ilhan Omar , could run in 2024. Is she able to run as she was born in a foreign country and is not a natural born citizen of the United States?
If she can run, it might be worth adding her. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Haris920|Haris920]] ([[User talk:Haris920#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Haris920|contribs]]) 15:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*According to her article, [[Ilhan Omar]] isn't a [[Natural-born-citizen clause|natural-born citizen]]. The Constitution requires that the US president be 35 years of age or older, a resident of the US for the past 14 years, and a natural-born citizen. Therefore she isn't eligible for the presidency, unless the [[Equal Opportunity to Govern Amendment|Arnold Amendment]] is passed between now and 2024. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 16:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


== Popular Vote tally ==
::Thanks for clearing that up for me [[User:Haris920|Haris920]] ([[User talk:Haris920|talk]]) 10:51, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
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. [[User:Hans100|Hans100]] ([[User talk:Hans100|talk]]) 21:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)


:::Glad I could help. - [[Special:Contributions/188.182.13.127|188.182.13.127]] ([[User talk:188.182.13.127|talk]]) 11:06, 11 November 2020 (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. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk:Bjoh249|talk]]) 22:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
::He won but he is under 50% so that is a fact. [[User:Hans100|Hans100]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Longestview|<span color="FAA61A" size="2px">'''LV'''</span>]] <sup> [[User talk:Longestview|<span color="151721" size="2px">✉</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Longestview|<span color="151721" size="2px">✎</span>]]</sup> 03:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
::::Per [[WP:DUE]], we need to be reporting what those sources say. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Longestview|<span color="FAA61A" size="2px">'''LV'''</span>]] <sup> [[User talk:Longestview|<span color="151721" size="2px">✉</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Longestview|<span color="151721" size="2px">✎</span>]]</sup> 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. [[Special:Contributions/2601:647:4D7C:BD20:65E7:C04D:CD3E:8678|2601:647:4D7C:BD20:65E7:C04D:CD3E:8678]] ([[User talk: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. [[Special:Contributions/2601:243:2681:74E0:6DB5:4E4C:2261:E6B4|2601:243:2681:74E0:6DB5:4E4C:2261:E6B4]] ([[User talk: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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 21:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
::[[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]], you made [[Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 16#Popular vote total|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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:Thx.thx.goodbye|Thx.thx.goodbye]] ([[User talk: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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|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. [[User:Topcat777|Topcat777]] 19:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Correct, this is why I think that it is unnecessary to update the tally. [[User:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|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. [[User:Hans100|Hans100]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk:Bjoh249|talk]]) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Or if the current consensus changes. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 08:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:I would say it is clear enough that he only has a plurality, per [https://www.factcheck.org/2024/11/trump-won-the-popular-vote-contrary-to-claims-online/ FactCheck], [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/22/trump-win-popular-vote-below-50-percent-00190793 Politico], and [https://www.msnbc.com/top-stories/latest/trump-mandate-win-agenda-rcna181039 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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk: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% [[User:Hans100|Hans100]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::I do not recall using the words 'ticked off' nor 'intentionally fudging' in any way [[User:Bjoh249|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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk: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 [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:9D40:86:A9CC:8491:447A:24F4|2600:6C56:9D40:86:A9CC:8491:447A:24F4]] ([[User talk: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.[[Special:Contributions/84.54.70.113|84.54.70.113]] ([[User talk:84.54.70.113|talk]]) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Hum, hadn’t thought of that. Thanks for pointing that out. [[Special:Contributions/2600:6C56:9D40:86:6D1C:FE38:1CD9:691F|2600:6C56:9D40:86:6D1C:FE38:1CD9:691F]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Topcat777|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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
== College_voted parameter ==
::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. [[User:Bobtinin|<span style="font-family:Cursive; color:#FF6600; text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em;">Bobtinin</span>]] [[User talk:Bobtinin|<span style="font-family:Cursive; color:#00BFFF">''(talk)''</span>]] 18:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I replaced the "ongoing" parameter with the "college_voted" parameter, and explained in the edit summary, that this parameter will allow the infobox to display "projected electoral votes" instead of "electoral votes" on election day (per what we currently have on the 2020 presidential article). But a user reverted the edit and said to quit messing things up.. How is that messing things up, and can we please restore my edit..? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:I wish you would '''STOP''' forcing that into the infobox & get a consensus here ''first''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 23:57, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:::Correct, we should not be in too much of a hurry, we are not a news source, we are an encyclopedia. [[User:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
::There is already consensus for it at the 2020 article, and you have literally not provided ''any'' reason why we should not continue to implement that consensus on this article. You are the one that needs consensus for the "ongoing" parameter. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::We can use the CNN totals and do our own rounding. We do not need to stick with AP for that reason. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::The AP count has been used since election day. It's more reliable than CNN. [[User:Topcat777|Topcat777]] 02:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
:::We ''didn't'' use the college parameter at [[2020 United States presidential election]], before the 2020 election was held. We used the ongoing parameter. You can change to the college parameter ''after'' the 2024 election is held. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::We used "college_voted" several days before we added any projected electoral vote totals to the 2020 infobox. Can you please explain why you are trying so hard to push an outdated parameter on this article? The "college_voted" parameter is exactly the same as the "ongoing" parameter, except it actually gives us the ability to do more (i.e. display projected electoral vote totals). [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Know what? You go right ahead & mess it up in anyway you wish. Why? Because I'm tired of fighting with you and others, to maintain consistency & neatness on these articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::You have not explained ''how'' the college_voted parameter messes up the infobox. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Because we've ''never'' used it before, when dealing with ''future'' elections. So ''please'' get a consensus for it, which you haven't gotten yet. We don't want to see '''Elected President''' at the bottom of the infobox. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
*What is the "college_voted" parameter for, anyway? I looked at [[Template:Infobox election]] and I didn't see an explanation there. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 05:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
**{{reply|Metropolitan90}} It was a parameter created in 2016 so that the infobox would read "projected electoral votes" before the electors cast their votes instead of "electoral votes". GoodDay changed the parameter to "ongoing" on both this article and the 2020 article. And now the 2020 article says "electoral vote" in the infobox. Consequently, the "projected electoral vote" heading is no longer displayed. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:20, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
:::We use ''"ongoing=yes"'' for future elections & have been for years. If you don't like it? Get a consensus for the change. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
::Indeed, the template calls for the usage of ''"ongoing"''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:04, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
::{{Reply|GoodDay}}Then why did you change it at the 2020 article..? The 2020 article isn't a future election! You are being disruptive. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:27, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
:::Get a consensus, for the changes you want made in an article, both here & there. PS - It's you who's being disruptive because you're [[WP:IDHT| not listening]] to what others are pointing out to you. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:31, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
:::*Last time I checked, you are the only person who has expressed opposition to the college_voted parameter.. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 18:34, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::We've reached a compromise until January 20, 2021. I suggest that in the meantime, you start up an RFC for this article concerning whether or not we use ''"ongoing"'' or ''"college_voted"'', after January 20, 2021. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:40, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::Maybe I'll start an RfC, so that we could get consensus preemptively to use the "college_voted" parameter at the very least on election day. The "college_voted" parameter is mainly needed from election day until the electors vote (although there is nothing wrong with using it after the electors vote). In the meantime, we should at the very least add a hidden note that says we should switch to the "college_voted" parameter once we want the infobox to say "projected electoral vote". [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::But why are you ''forcing'' the college_voted parameter into the article ''now''? The template doesn't call for that. At least wait until November 5, 2024. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:01, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::*I asked you how the parameter was "messing things up" as you put it, and you refused to answer that simple question. If you would have told me that the college_voted parameter affected the "elected president" heading, I would have been more likely to yield on adding the parameter. Instead, you threw a big fit, and didn't explain how it "messed up" the infobox until several days later. Up until today, I thought that the only difference between the two parameters was the "Electoral college" heading. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:59, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::::Why are you using it 'now'? We don't need it ''until'' states are projected for any candidates & that won't be until November 5, 2024. Once Biden takes office, we show him here as the ''Incumbent President'' at the bottom of infobox, which is what the ''ongoing=yes'' parameter, will do. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 15:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


== Inclusion of primary election polls on main page ==


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%.... ; --[[User:Crazyseiko|Crazyseiko]] ([[User talk:Crazyseiko|talk]]) 10:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
In previous elections, primary election polls were only included on the primary election pages. --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 18:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:I'm okay with removing it. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 19:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
::I'm not. The reason is this: it's too early for a primaries page and the polls exist. When they are put on the mainspace, THEN move them. We need the info available. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 15:53, 10 November 2020 (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 [[User:Longestview|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.
== Infobox Biden ==
: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). --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 03:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC))
Can we please agree on what Biden's title will be in the infobox? I don't think we need to say "elect" twice by the way. I'd prefer if it said "president-elect" instead of just "elect". [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 22:36, 9 November 2020 (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. [[User:Cullen328|Cullen328]] ([[User talk:Cullen328|talk]]) 19:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
:I think "elect" is fine, "president-elect" is a bit too much mark-up and would look a fair bit worse. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 23:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
::Someone removed the word "elect" from the infobox. At the very least, that should be re-added. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 10:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC) (Fixed at 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC))
::The reason it shouldn't is that Biden will either be president in 77 days or he will be in jail as the symbolic leader of the resistance. In '24, he will either be the incumbent or be the first 1-term president to decline to run in over 130 years. Either way he'll be president, not president-elect. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 15:58, 10 November 2020 (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%. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk:Bjoh249|talk]]) 06:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Those are not the only possible outcomes. Biden could die before taking office, some of the electors pledged to him could vote for someone else (like Trump) which could deny him the presidency. I am not going to [[WP:CRYSTAL|speculate]] that any of these scenarios will happen. But adding "elect" isn't speculation- it's the reality. The fact is, Biden is not the president, yet. I just feel like readers quickly glancing at the infobox might get the false impression that Biden has already taken office. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 16:19, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::Please stop. [[User:Longestview|<span color="FAA61A" size="2px">'''LV'''</span>]] <sup> [[User talk:Longestview|<span color="151721" size="2px">✉</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Longestview|<span color="151721" size="2px">✎</span>]]</sup> 06:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
=== Sidebar ===
{{archive top|The parameter issue is already being discussed at the [[#College_voted parameter|College_voted parameter]] section. Please direct discussion with regards to which parameter we should use there. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 06:17, 10 November 2020 (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? [[User:Grifspdax|Grifspdax]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 11:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
If you're going to keep trying to push the ''college parameter'' into the infobox? Then I'd say we completely leave Biden 'out' of the infobox, until his 2021 inauguration. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:*{{Reply|GoodDay}} That sounds like a violation of [[WP:POINT]]. Please do not be disruptive, I would rather not see you get blocked again. The consensus for the college_voted parameter at the 2020 article is binding on this article. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:24, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::We didn't use the ''college parameter'' at the 2020 US prez election page, from November 2016 to November 2020. So, please wait until the 2024 election is held & then you can go with the ''college parameter''. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:::*{{Reply|GoodDay}} Wrong. It was added in October with no objections at the talk. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 00:32, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Mess it up anyway you want. I'm tired of trying to maintain consistency & neatness, on these articles. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 00:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
{{archive bottom}}


: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. --[[User:Spiffy sperry|Spiffy sperry]] ([[User talk:Spiffy sperry|talk]]) 16:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
== 2024 Party Articles ==
::There seems to be something wrong with the AP source we are using. Is the page no longer live and not being updated? [https://www.npr.org/2024/12/03/nx-s1-5213810/2024-presidential-election-popular-vote-trump-kamala-harris 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. [[User:BootsED|BootsED]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk:Bjoh249|talk]]) 22:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Are we close to ''all'' votes being counted & certified? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 22:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)


:<nowiki>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. </nowiki> [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 23:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Should the party drafts be accepted into article space? At this point, we have an inconsistency, which is that I accepted the [[2020 Republican Party presidential primaries]] draft, but the [[2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries]] article, which had been in article space, has been cut down to a redirect. We should be consistent at least as to the Democratic Party and the Republican Party (two of the oldest political parties in the world). I think that there is definitely enough information for separate articles on the two major parties, but I don't want to start a move war by re-accepting the Democratic Party article. If we have articles on the two major parties, then we might as well have articles on the Libertarian and Green Parties.
::Illinois is supposed to certify election results tomorrow and California on Saturday. Keeping an eye on those states (especially California). [[Special:Contributions/107.204.246.18|107.204.246.18]] ([[User talk:107.204.246.18|talk]]) 03:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::IL is now done certifying their results. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::California was supposed to be done today. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 21:04, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
::::FWIW - we're still waiting on CA, OR & WV to certify their results. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Well, the California vote is set to be certified tomorrow. There shouldn’t be anymore counting. Oregon was supposed to have it done two days ago. There shouldn’t be anymore counting anywhere now. [[User:Bjoh249|Bjoh249]] ([[User talk:Bjoh249|talk]]) 20:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Have we got 100% of the vote, yet? [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 02:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:All states (except maybe WV?) have certified their results. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 03:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the percentage bar from the infobox. AFAIK, there'll be no more popular votes to count. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 21:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::I finally got a hold of a WV official result, and that has been added to the state table - it just added less than 200 votes for "other" candidates, so I updated the grand totals at the end of the table for that as well. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 22:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::If that does indeed complete the count, then perhaps someone now reconcile the discrepancies I mentioned way down near the bottom of this Talk page:
:::(A) the information box at the top shows Trump with 77,269,255 (49.9%) and Harris with 74,983,555 (48.4%)
:::(B) the fifth paragraph of the lead says that Trump has "a plurality of 49.8%"
:::(C) the box at the top of Results section shows Trump with 77,302,169 (49.74%), Harris with 75,015,834 (48.27%), Stein with 861,141 (0.55%), Kennedy with 756,377 (0.49%), Oliver with 650,142 (0.42%), and Other with 833,975 (0.54%), for a total of 155,419,638
:::(D) the Total line in the Results by State table shows Trump with 77,302,170 (49.8%), Harris with 75,015,837 (48.3%), Stein with 860,142 (0.6%), Kennedy with 756,377 (0.5%), Oliver with 650,142 (0.4%), and Others with 619,233 (0.4%), for a total of 155,206,823
:::That is: the state table has a total with 212,815 fewer votes than the top Results box, and this is based mostly on "Other(s)" having 214,742 fewer votes in the state table than in that box. (Based on copying the Results by State table to an Excel spreadsheet, I think there are also some small math errors in the table here: see the columns for Jill Stein (short by 85) and for Others (short by 2,939) and the row for Utah (over by 33). Is a formula here skipping one or more cells?)
:::That top box in Results here sources its totals to "The Green Papers" (which does seem to be a treasure trove of useful information), but apparently hasn't been updated here since Dec. 2. Checking that Green Papers source now (Dec. 17), I see a total of 155,627,481, i.e., 207,843 more votes than on the Results box and 420,658 more votes than in this article's Results by State table. Here's how that breaks down by state between this article's table ("Wiki") and The Green Papers ("TGP"), with the differences shown indicating the shortfall (it's a shortfall in all but one case) in this article's table:
:::Colorado: 3,190,873 (Wiki) vs. 3,192,745 (TGP) = -1,872
:::Delaware: 511,697 (Wiki) vs. 512,912 (TGP) = -1,215
:::District of Columbia: 325,869 (Wiki) vs. 328,404 (TGP) = -2,535
:::Georgia: 5,250,047 (Wiki) vs. 5,250,905 (TGP) = -858
:::Hawaii: 516,701 (Wiki) vs. 522,236 (TGP) = -5,535
:::Idaho: 904,812 (Wiki) vs. 917,466 (TGP) = -12,654
:::Iowa: 1,663,506 (Wiki) vs. 1,674,011 (TGP) = -10,505
:::Maine: 830,989 (Wiki) vs. 842,447 (TGP) = -11,458
:::Massachusetts: 3,473,653 (Wiki) vs. 3,512,866 (TGP) = -39,212
:::Minnesota: 3,253,920 (Wiki) vs. 3,254,890 (TGP) = -970
:::Montana: 602,984 (Wiki) vs. 602,990 (TGP) = -6
:::New Hampshire: 826,189 (Wiki) vs. 831,033 (TGP) = -4,844
:::New York: 8,262,495 (Wiki) vs. 8,380,458 (TGP) = -117,963
:::North Carolina: 5,699,145 (Wiki) vs. 5,699,156 (TGP) = -11
:::Utah: 1,488,043 (Wiki) vs. 1,693,398 (TGP) = -205,355
:::Vermont: 369,422 (Wiki) vs. 372,885 (TGP) = -3,463
:::West Virginia: 762,584 (Wiki) vs. 762,575 (TGP) = +9
:::Wyoming: 269,048 (Wiki) vs. 271,123 (TGP) = -2,075
:::The one exception is West Virginia, which you note you just updated today. By comparison to the Certificate of Ascertainment from West Virginia which is the source for that line in this article's table, it turns out the reason that The Green Papers has 9 fewer votes than shown here is that it doesn't include the votes of five candidates who each received fewer than 10 votes. So Wikipedia was more accurate than The Green Papers for West Virginia.
:::But what about the other states? The biggest discrepancy is Utah, so I'm checking that one first. Here it seems The Green Papers has a significant error. I've written to that site to suggest a correction, so it may be fixed by the time I finish typing this. The Green Papers shows 204,904 in Invalid Write-In votes in Utah (votes for people who were not registered in advance as write-in candidates), but the state's canvas indicates that The Green Papers added a zero, and the correct number of such votes is 24,904:
:::https://vote.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2024/11/2024-General-Election-Statewide-Canvass.pdf
:::On the other hand, that state page (1) doesn't include those 24,904 votes in its total votes cast and (2) also doesn't include anything to the right of the column showing 33 votes for candidate Steve M. Johnson: it's missing the 1 vote for Andre R. McNeil, the 441 votes for Peter Sonski, and the 9 votes for "Future Madam Potus." The state seems to have cut off the sum function on the Excel table on which that pdf is based (a table which, in contrast to the 2020 results, is not available online) so that it didn't count the last five columns. Accordingly, Utah's correct totals should be as shown on Wikipedia for Trump, Harris, Stein, Kennedy, and Oliver (all of which match the state's totals) but the number for Utah in the Others column should be increased from 16,502 to 41,890 as the sum of the following:
:::24,904 -- Invalid Write-In
:::8,402 -- Joel Skousen
:::3,189 -- Claudia de la Cruz
:::2,653 -- Lucifer J. Everylove
:::2,199 -- Cornel R. West
:::441 -- Peter Sonski
:::59 -- Jay J. Bowman
:::33 -- Steve M. Johnson
:::9 -- Future M. Potus
:::1 - Andre R. McNeil
:::Most of the invalid write-in votes in Utah were presumably for RFK Jr., who was not on the ballot there.
:::That brings Utah's total to 1,513,398.
:::I'm going to pause here before looking into New York, Massachusetts, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, and the other states whose totals on the state table here differ from The Green Pages. [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 01:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Welp. The Certificate of Ascertainment submitted by Utah simply omits those 24,904 "invalid write-in" votes altogether. Should that fact at least get a footnote? [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::OK, briefly on New York: the difference between the Green Papers total of 8,380,458 and the total of 8,262,495 on the state table here is that The Green Papers includes 71,559 blank ballots (which obviously should not be counted) and 46,404 "void" ballots. The latter probably consists mostly of disallowed write-in votes for RFK Jr. and some other candidates, but some could be simply illegible. That number seems large enough to merit a note of some sort here. [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 02:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::And finally, it's clear from checking Massachusetts that the approximate difference of 39,000 votes between The Green Papers and this article's state totals is that The Green Papers listed 39,262 "blank" ballots. [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 02:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


*The results in the state-by-state table aren't calculated at all by some script - they have been placed there by someone (mostly me, but a few other people as well). Anyone can change them, if they have a valid source for an updated number. Like I've said before, [https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2024 the National Archives] will likely be the best clearinghouse for official 2024 state results. The table here uses that link as a reference in a few spots already. I dunno why you're comparing results with the Green Papers (that's a source I haven't heard of in years - didn't know they were still around even), and I lot of the discrepancies that you've noted can likely come down to how the various states have treated "blank votes" (which aren't votes) or write-in/also-rans which had little to do with the outcomes of those elections. When the states report their official results, they have to account for all votes, while many secondary sources don't tend to care about that kind of minutiae. I do remember the (current?) state source for results in MA treating blank ballots in an odd way. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Paging [[User:Numberguy6]], [[User:PutItOnAMap]], [[User:Reywas92]], [[User:Primus01]], [[User:KylieTastic]]
*:If your question is directed at me (I can't tell), then the reason that I was comparing the state table to The Green Papers is that this article itself already linked to The Green Papers as the source for the information in the top box of the Results section. I was suggesting that someone who has the ability to edit here (this article shows for me as locked) make those numbers consistent. Right now, for example, the state table says that Donald Trump received 49.8% of the vote but the Results box says that he received 49.74% of the vote. (And the information box at the top of the article says that he received 49.9%.)
*:As for the disallowed write-ins, I agree that they won't change any outcome, but I wonder how to account for them when reporting the national popular vote, especially when there are so many. The "invalid write-in" votes from Utah and the "void" write-in votes from New York add up to more than 70,000 votes overall. If someone checks this article to learn how many votes were cast for president nationally in 2024, is that 155,206,823 as currently shown in the state table? Or is the "correct" number closer to 155,277,000? [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 18:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Is there any actual reliable source for the national popular vote numbers? The current listed source is the AP, but all I can find on there is vote totals for Trump and Harris and percentages, but nowhere does it list how many 'other' votes there are or the total number of votes cast, so we can do an actual calculation of the percentage ourselves. [[User:Bomberswarm2|Bomberswarm2]] ([[User talk:Bomberswarm2|talk]]) 09:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Bias needs to be fixed ==
[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 23:38, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
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. [[User:Yasarhossain07|Yasarhossain07]] ([[User talk:Yasarhossain07|talk]]) 11:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
: Hi, it looks like you linked to the 2020 primaries articles. Did you mean the [[2024 Republican Party presidential primaries]] and [[2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries]]? I tend to think there is enough information and sourcing to justify having both be standalone articles, although I don't think there is enough about the Libertarian and Green parties at this point.[[User:Jacoby531|Jacoby531]] ([[User talk:Jacoby531|talk]]) 23:44, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
:I don't think we should have 2024 D/R primary articles quite yet, but if they are in main, they ''must'' have the stupid hypothetical speculative conjectured candidate list transcluded to/from the main article so we aren't maintaining two different lists. The L/G parties certainly do not warrant separate articles yet. [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 00:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I concur with Reywas92, there is not enough information for seperate articles on the Democratic and Republican primaries yet. And if they are created, transclusion from here to there is a must. It is hard enough as is keeping cruft out of the potential candidates sections. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 00:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:[[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]], do you mind if I revert your creation of a redirect for the [[2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries]] article? I agree that tranclusions should be used to reduce duplication. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 00:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::Please go ahead with whatever people decide! [[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]<sup>[[User talk:Reywas92|Talk]]</sup> 01:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I see the [[Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries]] still exists as well. What's the best way forward, since there are two versions of the 2024 Democratic primaries article? [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 00:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:Likely a revert of the redirect, and we can transpose more party-centered background in lieu of COVID and other general background. ([User talk:Primus01|]])
::[[User:Primus01|Primus01]], after looking at the history of the reverted redirect ([[2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries]]) and the draft article ([[Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries]]), I think it's better to just leave the revert as it is. The current draft article is more developed. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 03:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::See [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Republican Party presidential primaries]]. The AFD is a reasonable vehicle for the community to decide whether we want party articles at this time or whether they are [[WP:TOOSOON]]. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 04:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


: The current one is not even over/finalised, isn't the next just speculation, [[WP:TOOSOON]] and [[WP:CRYSTALBALL]] at this point? However, I haven't actually looked at them and have no inclination to do so... [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|talk]]) 09:11, 10 November 2020 (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]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 14:18, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Khajidha|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.
::@[[User:Yasarhossain07|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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|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]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|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. [[Special:Contributions/71.210.42.253|71.210.42.253]] ([[User talk: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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|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]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 21:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Khajidha|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. [[User:Big Thumpus|Big Thumpus]] ([[User talk:Big Thumpus|talk]]) 23:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::They are bias because they are quoting Trump? --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Big Thumpus|Big Thumpus]] ([[User talk: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]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|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. [[User:Big Thumpus|Big Thumpus]] ([[User talk: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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|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. [[Special:Contributions/209.23.50.16|209.23.50.16]] ([[User talk:209.23.50.16|talk]]) 15:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
::That was said tongue in cheek. [[Special:Contributions/2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B|2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B]] ([[User talk:2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B|talk]]) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
::If everyone is complaining about bias in the article, then it’s a problem. [[Special:Contributions/67.0.238.217|67.0.238.217]] ([[User talk:67.0.238.217|talk]]) 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
::You have no sources listed proving what trump said so I’ll just be lazy like you, not doing any research and believe everything I hear from my echo chamber while spending hours angrily attacking trump supporters online from the comfort of my own basement, only ever leaving to get my hot Cheetos and that one gross energy drink because I can’t accept I’ve lost [[Special:Contributions/67.0.221.236|67.0.221.236]] ([[User talk:67.0.221.236|talk]]) 22:51, 24 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]]. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Big Thumpus|Big Thumpus]] ([[User talk: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:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 15:51, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
::*{{tq|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 {{tq|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. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 19:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
:"Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence."
:How can an opinion be false? [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
::When your opinion is contrary to facts, it is false. It may be "your opinion" that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not flat. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 12:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It's not a fact that it wasn't "rigged" or "election interference". It's an opinion based on your own interpretation. Scientific facts aren't open for interpretation like the motivations behind a criminal trial. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
::::When someone commits crimes, prosecuting them for them is not "rigging" anything. If being prosecuted for your own criminal acts interferes with your electoral chances, that is on YOU. Not the prosecutor. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 15:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::I agree with you if they did commit the crime. And while I know that he has been found guilty I hold the opinion that he was charged due to political motivations. The reasons for me thinking that are these:
:::::# Why now? This happened 15+ years ago.
:::::# Why did she say that it did not happen when it first came out years ago?
:::::# Why so many felony counts? Sure he may have made 32 payments, '''but they are for one advent''' not 32 advents.
:::::# Why did they allow a judge that had so much prejudice against him?
:::::# Why did they only have people that were against Trump speak in court?
:::::All of this seems like there was prior motive for this court case. I understand that this is '''only my opinion'''. I am fine if someone else has their own opinion and they are free to state it if they wish.
:::::@[[User:Khajidha|Khajidha]] Please try to keep it civil, you using the ALLCAPS makes it seem that you are shouting. A better way would have been to use ''Italic's'' or '''Bold''', they don't give the impression that you are shouting but still give force/meaning to what you say. Just a recommendation. [[User:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::1. & 2. When sex is involved, people quite often don't make accusations at the time. Look at all the rape and sexual assault cases that come out years later. They also often deny it. Even to themselves. There are elements of personal shame involved.
::::::3. Separate payments = separate charges. I don't see a problem here.
::::::4. From my vantage point, the judge showed far too much deference to him. Any other defendant would have spent multiple nights in lock up for contempt.
::::::5. This is a blatant falsehood. Both Daniel Sitko and Robert Costello testified for the defense.
::::::I hardly think that using caps for a single word would indicate shouting. That would just be silly. Why would I shout a single word? --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Ok after review you are correct on 1.,2. & 5. but it still seems to me like they went over board with 32 charges. The event is what mattered - would it have been any better if he payed 1 large amount rather then 32 smaller amounts? My point is the fact there were 32 payments does not increase the amount of damage that was done. And that judge had it in for him right from the start - which is unconstitutional "you are innocent until proven guilty" and the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other in cases, but that is a lot harder to do when you are wildly known and liked or hated as Trump is.
:::::::I do not mean to get you upset - I just was pointing it out as it is harder to gauge how people are trying to use ALLCAPS in relation to angerly shouting at you. [[User:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 23:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::: "the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other" Sounds like a [[fairy tale]]. The judges typically side with specific political factions or with whoever offers the best [[bribe]]s. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 01:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


:Exactly. Whoever wrote this article about the 2024 election made it no secret that he/she is a registered democrat/Harris supporter. The claim that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is completely false and misleading. And that's just one example of the biased tone of this article. [[User:AstrosFan30|AstrosFan30]] ([[User talk:AstrosFan30|talk]]) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
==Trying to stop an edit war: LBJ '68==
::The statement that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is very well sourced. There is a little superscript (a) beside the words, which links to ten different sources. This is how Wikipedia works. If reliable sources say something, we can say it here. [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
President [[Lyndon Johnson]] was running in 1968. He had an authorized campaign in New Hampshire [https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/03/12/eugene-mccarthy-vs-lbj-the-new-hampshire-primary-showdown-that-changed-everything/][https://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/mccarthy-nearly-upsets-lbj-in-new-hampshire-primary-march-12-1968-220521], which he WON, and also in Wisconsin, which was only two days away when he withdrew in his famous speech. [https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/iowa-view/2016/04/04/when-wisconsin-primary-changed-american-politics/82619616/]. So yes, that counts. [[President Truman]] also had an [[1952 Democratic Party presidential primaries#The decline and fall of President Truman|active campaign in New Hampshire in 1952,]] and he lost that one outright.
:::But that's an opinion about him. There's a big difference between whoever at the NYT is of the opinion that Trump engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering and stating it as a matter of fact.
:::If you took an opinion from a right wing source about the Harris campaign engaging in fear mongering stating their opponent is a threat to democracy it would be equally incorrect.
:::Just because a reliable source expresses an opinion doesn't mean you state it as a matter of fact. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
::::FFS. It's TEN reliable sources!!!!!! [[User:HiLo48|HiLo48]] ([[User talk:HiLo48|talk]]) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Then you state that whoever from wherever is of the opinion that he engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering. You don't state the opinions of journalists as facts. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 02:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::::::That's not "opinion", it's "reporting". Do you understand the difference? &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::::It's both if a journalist is reporting their opinions on a presidential candidate. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. Not a collection of opinions.
:::::::Saying that this journalist claimed a candidate engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering is a statement of fact.
:::::::Taking their opinion and presenting it as a matter of fact is something else.
:::::::If you take a journalist claiming that Kamala is "pushing a radical far-left agenda" and state it as Kamala Harris pushed a radical far-left agenda during her campaign you can't expect anyone to think that's a legitimate encyclopedic entry or not biased. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 01:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::So he didn't say that they were eating the pets? He didn't say that they would cut your throat? Or that they were murdering women? Or that immigrant gangs had taken over cities? --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::It is not the question of did he say those things, but are they happening. [[User:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Which they aren't. --[[User:Khajidha]] ([[User talk:Khajidha|talk]]) ([[Special:Contributions/Khajidha|contributions]]) 20:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Then show what he said. Not add an opinion about what he said as a statement of fact. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::@Sheriff U3 You’re right, they are happening but good luck getting through any of these liberal biased moderators and getting anything not liberal opinion on Wikipedia articles. It doesn’t help that the majority of the MSM are just as biased. There isn’t a separate Liberalpedia like there is a conservapedia because Wikipedia is Liberalpedia. [[Special:Contributions/107.204.246.18|107.204.246.18]] ([[User talk:107.204.246.18|talk]]) 02:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
::AstrosFan30, does your user name refer to [[astroturfing]]? [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Probably refers to the [[Houston Astros]]. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 01:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)


== Edit request from [[WP:Requests for page protection/Edit]] ==
As to presidents running for reelection, [[Bill Clinton]] and [[Barack Obama]] didn't officially announce until the week of their conventions. They were officially "exploring" through the entire primary season. incumbents can do that. Trump filed on his first day in office and didn't announce until well over a year later.
{{edit protected}}


In the [[2024 US presidential election#Results_by_state|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.
So please, keep it as Rutherford Hayes. ([[Grover Cleveland]] was in his second presidency, which is the same as a second term, so he doesn't count.)[[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 15:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
:I think Johnson should be mentioned as having failed to win re-nomination in [[1968 presidential election|1968]] and [[Calvin Coolidge]] in [[1928 presidential election|1928]] should be mentioned as the last eligible president [[I do not choose to run|to not seek re-election]]. [[User:Rogl94|Rogl94]] ([[User talk:Rogl94|talk]]) 12:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


This should be trivial, at least for Margin, but the inability to sort by margin has been annoying me for a week now. [[User:LoganStokols|LoganStokols]] ([[User talk:LoganStokols|talk]]) 19:23, 15 November 2024 (UTC)
== Transclusion of candidate lists ==


: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. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 06:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, this is standard procedure for ongoing election articles, especially since they have exactly the same format. This has the benefit of us only having to edit one page instead of two. However, my edit adding transclusions was reverted. --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 22:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
::From what I can see one the 2020 page, the swing is positive if the state swung in the direction of the winning candidate. By that metric all states should have a positive swing, and so should all districts bar NE-1. Mentioning this instead of editing because I still dont have 500 edits. [[User:Fili999999|Fili999999]] ([[User talk:Fili999999|talk]]) 15:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
:I've reverted that edit; thanks for adding the tranclusions; it should help since a lot of people would keep adding names to just one list and didn't update the other. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 00:24, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:::I think someone else did this editing. Correctly? Who knows... [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:Given that both individual primary articles are up at AfD and are looking quite likely to be redirecting, I find transcluding as of right now to be irresponsible. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 11:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


== Nina Turner ==
== Results are now official ==
I have checked every state's official counts, and they have all now been certified. Under the "Results by state" header I plan to remove the disclaimer line "Preliminary results; only states reported by the Associated Press as being more than 99% complete counting are included" considering that these are no longer preliminary results. I am also planning to add US totals under the "Votes" and "%" columns. Will do this later tonight or tomorrow unless someone has a good objection (or gets to it before I do). [[User:Potosino|Potosino]] ([[User talk:Potosino|talk]]) 01:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)


:Question: Should we update the "box score" totals, now that the results are final? At the moment we are still using the AP totals, but AP stopped updating a few weeks ago. Specifically, they have never updated their totals for Illinois, Kansas, and Oregon. This puts their grand total for each of the two top candidates about 30,000+ votes short of the actual figures. [[User:Potosino|Potosino]] ([[User talk:Potosino|talk]]) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Can we get some sort of consensus about the inclusion of Nina Turner, because there seems to be a lot of reverting going on, and not much discussion? I don't think the TYT video justifies her inclusion. For one, this seems to go against the stated policy of "expressions of interest via social media do not count." For second, I don't think a Young Turks YouTube video counts as a reliable or notable source. Anyone could make a YouTube video and say they're running for president, that isn't notable. If it was truly a notable occurrence, better sources would have picked up on it. (i.e. If Amy Klobuchar went on some random YouTube channel and said she was probably running in 2024, you can bet your bottom dollar some other, better sources would have written about it.) If they have done this about Nina Turner, then all of these people who really love Nina Turner should bring out those sources. If they haven't, I feel she should be removed from the article. (But I want to check with other people before an edit war begins.) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:SouthwestChief90|SouthwestChief90]] ([[User talk:SouthwestChief90#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/SouthwestChief90|contribs]]) </small>
::I’m pretty sure every state is done counting votes. [[User:Blackmamba31248|Blackmamba31248]] ([[User talk:Blackmamba31248|talk]]) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
:Not quite sure what you’re talking about, [[The Young Turks]] is clearly not "some random YouTube channel", its an actual legitimate organisation, and expressing interest in running for president while being interviewed on it is hardly an expression of interest via social media. An expression of interest via social media would be something like a tweet. Clearly, Nina Turner meets the criteria for inclusion. [[User:Devonian Wombat|Devonian Wombat]] ([[User talk:Devonian Wombat|talk]]) 11:50, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
:::At this stage of the game, anyone notable who has made a noise on the subject is eligible. [[Jack Fellure]] was on the page for over a year. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 11:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
::::I'm not familiar with the Young Turks' use of YouTube. Is this within of the main purview of the Young Turks' general affairs or is this outside of the primary scope of the Young Turks? If this is something that is coming down one of the main channels of the Young Turks I would be more inclined to support inclusion and vice versa. [[User:Przemysl15|Przemysl15]] ([[User talk:Przemysl15|talk]]) 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::TYT has a large YouTube following, and also a following on select TV channels. I think it would be alright to include Nina Turner. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::So... Don't we have consensus to add her? [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 06:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::There is no solid reason to remove her. I call on my fellow editors to at least have a vote on her inclusion before she is removed again on the basis of criterion that is not applied to the other candidates as has been the case for the past several removals. [[User:NDACFan|NDACFan]] ([[User talk:NDACFan|talk]]) 23:29, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


::: No one can still explain why there is different vote come, from different source.. I don't think you can Use AP total as the final total its not matching up, and no one also can explain why Al Jazeera has million extra votes https://www.aljazeera.com/us-election-2024/ H: 75,444,983: 48.36% V T 77,958,031 49.98% A newspaper is not a proper source for election certification. I think we might have to wait until the US government rubber stamps the final numbers. Could the missing votes be oversea votes??? --[[User:Crazyseiko|Crazyseiko]] ([[User talk:Crazyseiko|talk]]) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== Expanding the list of potential Democratic candidates ==


*The only state that *might* not have an official tally still is likely just WV - their [https://sos.wv.gov/elections/Pages/HistElecResults.aspx Secretary of State's website] still links to results that are labelled "Unofficial". The best catch-all site for official results that I've seen is: [https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2024 here] at the National Archives. It should eventually fill-out as the states send their official results there for posterity. I think we're well past using what amounts to second-hand info about what the national results are - each state's totals (when added together) should speak for themselves. The numbers are what the numbers are. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 19:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
The list of potential Democratic candidates is woefully small in comparison to the Republicans. I found a list of potential Democratic candidates from [https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2024#cite_note-PoliticoJan-1 Ballotpedia] that has pretty good sources. We should draw a few candidates from the list and add them to this article. Here are the ones who aren’t on the current list. Thoughts?


:When there is an agreed-upon final total, this article will need updating in multiple places. Currently:
*[[Stacey Abrams]]
:(1) The information box at top right has Trump 77,269,255 = 49.9% and Harris 74,983,555 = 48.4%.
*[[Michael Bennet]]
:(2) The introductory text to the left of that says Trump has "a plurality of 49.8%".
*[[Andy Beshear]]
:(3) The box at the top of Results section has Trump 77,302,169 = 49.74% and Harris 75,015,834 = 48.27%.
*[[Cory Booker]]
:(4) The state-by-state box in Results has a total of 77,302,170 = 49.8% and Harris 75,015,837 = 48.3%.
*[[Pete Buttigieg]]
:(Does the one additional vote for Trump in #4 vs. #3 push his total from 49.74% to 49.75% and thus rounding to 49.8%?) [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
*[[Jay Inslee]]
::I have checked into this some.
*[[Joe Kennedy III]]
::The correct number of Trump votes is is 77,302,170.
*[[Amy Klobuchar]]
::The information box at top right is supposed to be using the AP numbers, but the AP numbers are not even as close to accurate as the boxes below.
*[[Michelle Lujan Grisham]]
::The box at the top of the Results section is based on the Green Papers.
*[[JB Pritzker]]
::The reason for the discrepancy with the Green Papers is North Carolina, so I looked at North Carolina.
*[[Gretchen Whitmer]]
::The Green Papers numbers for North Carolina in the box at the top of Results section are all goofy, and I do not know where they come from.
*[[Oprah Winfrey]]
::The Green Papers numbers numbers short Trump one vote. The numbers short Harris three votes, which is reflected at the box at the top of the Results section. They then give Claudia De la Cruz two extra votes. They then add in 13 write-in votes, which do not appear in the official North Carolina numbers. This puts North Carolina off 11 votes from the official numbers, which are accurately reflected in the state-by-state box.
::The numbers for the state-by-state box for North Carolina are the ones that are with the National Archives. The numbers from the Green Papers are wrong.
::This does not explain the entirety of the discrepancy, but I would hazard to guess that the state-by-state box is more accurate, and that the error lies with the Green Papers.
::The three boxes should be made to match.
::Also, the state-by-state box should be expanded to the hundredths of a percent, like all other Presidential Election state-by-state boxes. The 2024 election is the only one that only displays the result to the tenth. I believe that this is because the information is so new. But it still should be corrected eventually. I started the process yesterday, but I did want to verify that the numbers in the state-by-state box were correct before proceeding and causing more mischief. [[User:Wilkyisdashiznit|Wilkyisdashiznit]] ([[User talk:Wilkyisdashiznit|talk]]) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Thanks for this. As noted in my several replies near the top of the page, The Green Papers has some quirks and should only be cited with care (e.g., making sure not to include "blank" ballots). So as you indicate, the Results by State table here, allowing for a few final minor adjustments, is basically correct, and the main Results box, and the information box at the top of the article should be adjusted to match. And it seems the table will show totals, once formatted to show hundredths as you indicate is the norm for prior elections, of 49.81% Trump, 48.33% Harris, 0.55% for Stein, 0.49% for Kennedy, 0.42% for Oliver, and 0.40% for Others.
:::That just leaves the question of whether the 24,904 "invalid write-in" votes in Utah and 46,404 "void" votes in New York are significant enough, compared to such votes in past elections, to merit a note of some kind. (Although even if those are indeed votes for Kennedy, and even if they had been counted as such, there wouldn't be much difference: the percentages would become 49.78% Trump, 48.31% Harris, 0.55% Stein, 0.53% Kennedy, 0.42% Oliver, and 0.40% Others. Although if the same reason explains why Idaho, Maine, and Iowa each vary by more than 10,000 votes between The Green Papers and this page, it might have been enough to put Kennedy ahead of Stein overall.) [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 02:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


Question: What was the turnout as a percentage of eligible voters? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.36.193.221|70.36.193.221]] ([[User talk:70.36.193.221#top|talk]]) 05:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
[[User:The Image Editor|The Image Editor]] ([[User talk:The Image Editor|talk]]) 00:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


== Image of Trump ==
:I didn't go through all the candidates, but some of the refs on the Ballotpedia don't meet the Wikipedia criteria; one criterion here is that a ref must be more recent than six months. At least these refs don't make the cut: [https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/01/03/2024-presidential-election-candidates-091055], [https://www.axios.com/2024-election-poll-democrats-d9007292-27a0-487b-994c-f1555bb7816f.html], [https://www.politico.com/news/2020/04/02/coronavirus-governors-2024-election-160125]. The formatting in this talk page section is all messed up and I don't know how to fix it. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 01:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
::{{ping|David O. Johnson}} I've fixed the formatting for you. Just press the 'enter key' several times, using the "show preview" button to see if you've done it enough (I'm sure there's another, easier way to do it, and one that doesn't leave so much empty space in the editing window, but I'm unaware of exactly what that may be.). And {{ping|The Image Editor}} I'm not sure the pictures are necessary here, a simple list of candidates would've sufficed. --'''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 01:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
:::I see what you mean with all the white space. Thanks for the fix. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 01:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Yup, you're welcome. --'''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 01:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::I have removed the photos and blank space. --'''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 02:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
None of these people should be added to the article without better sources. Ballotpedia is not a reliable source. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 00:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


The Image used for Donald Trump is his presidential portrait from 2017. I just think it would be better to replace this with a more recent image, until his 2025 portrait is released. [[User:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)]] ([[User talk:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|talk]]) 18:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
== The Infobox ==


:See [[#Why such an old photo of Trump?]]
Very early before the election, the (TBD) Libertarian and (TBD) Green were added next to Trump and (TBD) Democrat, why aren't they included in this infobox? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.231.194.182|67.231.194.182]] ([[User talk:67.231.194.182#top|talk]]) 02:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:In short, there were nearly a dozen discussions about the image. There was a consensus not to use the 2017 photo, but never a consensus on what to use instead. Hence the wait for 2025 in some of those old discussions. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 02:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
:The discussion about that can be found [[Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 12|here]]. --'''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 02:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
::What about this image? It's early November 2024, it would work until January.
::File:President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, on the South Portico of the White House (cropped).jpg [[User:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)]] ([[User talk:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|talk]]) 04:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Woops, here's the actual link:
:::[[:File:President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, on the South Portico of the White House (cropped).jpg]] [[User:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)]] ([[User talk:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|talk]]) 04:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
::::Truthfully I don't see the point in doing this, it's a temporary image that'll be there for a month until he's sworn in, let's just wait for the official portrait. [[User:TheFellaVB|TheFellaVB]] ([[User talk:TheFellaVB|talk]]) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
:::::Alright. [[User:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)]] ([[User talk:WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it)|talk]]) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2024 ==
:Actually the only thing that should be in the infobox, is the map & nothing else. That's always been the practice until anybody won a party prez nomination. 02:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|2024 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}
== Trump 2024 ==
Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence.


Trump and many Republicans have claimed Trump's criminal trials are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 20:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
What section should [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-election-2020/trump-2024-election-campaign-biden-b1722521.html this] go in? --'''[[User:Squeeps10|<span style="color: navy">Squeeps10</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Squeeps10|<span style="color: maroon">''Talk to me''</span>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Squeeps10|<span style="color: darkgreen">''My edits''</span>]]</sub>''' 18:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
:That would go in the potential candidates section. We could replace one of the sources we already have in the article with that one. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 20:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
::I've done it. [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 01:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
:Recently in the news, Trump mentioned that he will not be a major candidate in the 2024 presidential elections. [[User:Billwang370|Billwang370]] ([[User talk:Billwang370|talk]]) 23:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::[[User:Billwang370|Billwang370]], have a source for that? [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 23:53, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
::Of course I do and the link is https://apple.news/ArH6VPvzyQw-hjv-SE5gXtg?articleList=AS03SOR0ERCKh0I7jHYHHKw&campaign_id=E101&campaign_type=c9cc0ac5-c9bd-4d64-c299-10d50049c17e:default&creative_id=bullet_list_entry-2-5:bulletEntry. [[User:Billwang370|Billwang370]] ([[User talk:Billwang370|talk]]) 22:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
:::Where in the article does he say he isn't running in 2024? All I'm seeing is an acknowledgement that Biden will take over in on January 20. I may be missing something. [[User:Jacoby531|Jacoby531]] ([[User talk:Jacoby531|talk]]) 23:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


[[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:EEp --> [[User:PianoDan|PianoDan]] ([[User talk:PianoDan|talk]]) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Carter ==


I doubt that Carter (who will be 100 years old) will even want to run in 2024; I vote that this article shouldn't promote him as a possible candidate. Any opinions here?? [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 23:03, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
:Change the original text to the new text below it with the same source. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 02:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:I agree and if for some reason he is the first centenarian to run we can change the article then.--[[Special:Contributions/65.92.160.124|65.92.160.124]] ([[User talk:65.92.160.124|talk]]) 23:15, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
::No, we won't be doing that. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 03:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:::Ok keep the editorial and opinions instead of stating factual information. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, but we should still mention him being technically able but obviously not willing to run when we mention Presidents Clinton, Bush, and Obama being ineligible to run again. <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 23:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
::::It's a fact that {{tq|Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements}} about the criminal trials and elections. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Muboshgu|Muboshgu]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Muboshgu#top|talk]]) 20:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::No we don't need to mention Carter. That's useless trivia. There are thousands of politicians (or other people) who are very unlikely to run, but we don't mention them unless there is significant coverage of the possibility in reliable sources. There's an infinitesimal chance that the mayor of Podunk, Idaho might run, but unless it gets some real news coverage it doesn't belong in this article. The chances are virtually zero that Carter will run. He has even suggested that he is too old to run again. If by some bizarre change of circumstances he ends up expressing an interest, we can change the article. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 03:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::Is believing a trial is rigged or election interference a fact or an opinion? [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 00:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::We're not listing him as a "potential candidate" or anything. Instead we're basically just saying, "every former president except Carter and Trump can't run again, by the way. Carter ''can'', but there's no way he will, so he's out of the picture." <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 04:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::You can even say it's an unverified or unproven opinion. But to say an opinion about an election or criminal trial is false shows bias. [[User:Rxm1054|Rxm1054]] ([[User talk:Rxm1054|talk]]) 00:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
:::What it said before was something was this: "The [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution|Twenty-second Amendment]] states that an individual cannot be elected to the presidency more than twice (or once, if they served more than half of a presidential term that someone else was elected to). This prohibits former presidents [[Bill Clinton]], [[George W. Bush]], and [[Barack Obama]] from being elected president again.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.pressherald.com/2020/06/22/the-curse-of-the-22nd-amendment/|title=The curse of the 22nd Amendment|website=Portland Press Herald|last1=Rooks|first1=Douglas|date=June 22, 2020|accessdate=August 5, 2020|archive-date=August 22, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200822125903/https://www.pressherald.com/2020/06/22/the-curse-of-the-22nd-amendment/|url-status=live}}</ref> One-term former president [[Jimmy Carter]] is eligible to run for a second term, but is unwilling to do so due to his age;<ref name="cartersecondterm">{{cite news|url=https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/i-hope-there-s-age-limit-jimmy-carter-says-he-n1055836|title='I hope there's an age limit': Jimmy Carter says he couldn't have handled presidency at 80|work=[[NBC News]]|date=September 18, 2019|author=Associated Press|access-date=September 21, 2020|archive-date=September 12, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200912032113/https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/i-hope-there-s-age-limit-jimmy-carter-says-he-n1055836|url-status=live}}</ref> he would be 100 years old if still alive at the time of the 2024 election." <small>[[User:Paintspot|Paintspot Infez]] ([[User talk:Paintspot|talk]])</small> 04:40, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
::::Again, its worthless trivia for this article. If we're saying that he can run but he won't, we don't need to say anything at all. As I said above, there are thousands of people who ''could'' run but won't; we don't need to include them either. This article is about the 2024 election, not the intricacies of the U.S. Constitution. Neither the article nor the reader is deprived of anything worthwhile if there is no mention of Carter. If it belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it would be [[Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution]]. That article is linked in this article for those who would like to know more details about what the Constitution says on this matter. But I wouldn't even put it there. [[User:Sundayclose|Sundayclose]] ([[User talk:Sundayclose|talk]]) 05:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)


== Popular vote margins ==
:::::I am in full agreement with Sundayclose that the Carter mention is worthless trivia that serves no useful purpose for this article. Refer to [[WP:SYNTH]]. Unless multiple reputable independent sources are making a thing of his eligibility to run, there's no compelling reason to include it here. [[User:A. Randomdude0000|A. Randomdude0000]] ([[User talk:A. Randomdude0000|talk]]) 18:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
::::::I agree with Sundayclose, its worthless and very unneeded. Its might be redundant to basically say: "yeah technically Carter can run again since he's a one term president but won't because or advanced age (100 years old and let's face it a 100 year old will not run) or he'll be deceased to put it bluntly. --[[User:TDKR Chicago 101|TDKR Chicago 101]] ([[User talk:TDKR Chicago 101|talk]]) 11:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::Every morning (depending on what time zone you live in) [[User:82.6.211.197]] keeps adding Carter back in and there appears to be no way to stop this from happening. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] ([[User talk:Georgia guy|talk]]) 12:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::*{{Reply|Georgia guy}} First we need to put an official edit warring warning on their talk page. If they do it again, move to a level 2 warning. Eventually, we should report them for edit warring if they continue to not stop adding what the consensus has already rejected. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
:::::::*I just put a warning on their talk page, and it looks like there is no level 2 for edit warring. Next time they revert the consensus, they should be reported. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 17:35, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}


Certificates of ascertainment submitted do not match numbers on chart for popular vote margin. [[User:Jjf392|Jjf392]] ([[User talk:Jjf392|talk]]) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
== Previous consensus on potential candidate inclusion ==


:https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2024 [[User:Jjf392|Jjf392]] ([[User talk:Jjf392|talk]]) 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Posting the following invisible comments here so that everyone is on the same page as far as the baseline for a potential candidate's inclusion on this list. Obviously this will change when we get closer to the election, however.
:Wish I'd seen that before I started my long reply above! [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Infobox: Electoral College tally ==
'''For candidates publicly expressing interest:'''


When all the electors have cast their ballots today. Do we remove "projected" from the infobox? or does that only occur after the joint session of Congress certifies them, next month. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
*Candidates in this section only need one source, but expressions of interest via social media do not count
*Sources in this section can go back a maximum of six months


:I think we can remove “projected” after today, but I’m open to either. But we may need a footnote explaining that the results will not be certified until January 6th. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
'''For potential candidates:'''
:Hawai'i just finished voting, the last group of electors to finish voting. In all 50 states and the District of Columbia, there were no faithless electors. All of the electors voted for who they pledged to vote for. [[User:Wilkyisdashiznit|Wilkyisdashiznit]] ([[User talk:Wilkyisdashiznit|talk]]) 00:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024 ==
*Potential candidates must have at least TWO separate references from reliable sources that focus primarily on them as a potential candidate
*Sources should provide substantive discussion of individuals, not a "kitchen sink" listing of numerous people or a minor sentence saying they could possibly run, or where the candidate themselves talks about the 2024 race
*Sources should be no older than 6 months


{{edit extended-protected|2024 United States presidential election|answered=no}}
'''For declined candidates:'''
I'm not sure "the green papers" is a good source for the popular votes request. [[User:Bjcoop23|Bjcoop23]] ([[User talk:Bjcoop23|talk]]) 01:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:Their numbers are pretty accurate as long as citation to them doesn't just pull from their bottom-line totals, which in some cases includes blank ballots. And as noted above, in one respect, The Green Papers was more accurate about Utah's totals than Utah's own official results were (because the latter had an Excel summation error). [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 03:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
*Please only include people who have at least one source that speculates primarily on the candidate, and one additional source where the candidate states he/she is not running
<!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Curbon7|Curbon7]] ([[User talk:Curbon#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Curbon7|contribs]]) 02:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)</span>


==Electoral college==
== Has Hawkins Publicly Expressed Interest? ==
The pledged electors voted for on November 5 convened today and opted to confirm Trump/Vance. There were no faithless electors. https://www.270towin.com/2024-vote-of-electors/ https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-cabinet-transition-news-12-17-24#cm4t2nsq8000s3b6np06gk3me The main sidebar's references should be updated to reflect this. I can't edit the main page because it's extended-protected. [[User:Bervnka|Bervnka]] ([[User talk:Bervnka|talk]]) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:You should make a edit request, that way people can find your request and complete it sooner. I would due it my self but I have the same restriction. [[User:Sheriff_U3|User Page]] [[User talk:Sheriff U3|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Sheriff_U3|Contributions]] Sheriff U3 20:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Since Gary Johnson and Jill Stein ran as third party candidates twice in a row, should Howie Hawkins (the Green Party's nominee in 2020) be under publicly express interest instead of potential candidates? <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.231.194.182|67.231.194.182]] ([[User talk:67.231.194.182#top|talk]]) 22:05, 21 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: Has he expressed any interest in running in 2024? I don't see how Johnson and Stein are relevant to where Hawkins is placed. The fact that they both ran in 2012 and 2016 seems to be a coincidence. [[User:Jacoby531|Jacoby531]] ([[User talk:Jacoby531|talk]]) 23:53, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
::Per [[WP:NOR]], we can't add him unless there are [[WP:RS|reliable sources]] that say he publicly expressed interest. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 11:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)


== Josh Hawley ==
== No turnout figure yet ==
When will a figure for total turnout be available?[[User:Amyzex|Amyzex]] ([[User talk:Amyzex|talk]]) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)


:@[[User:Amyzex|Amyzex]]: According to AP News, it seems Kansas, Illinois and Indiana are ''still'' counting votes. So we can expect a finalised figure for turnout when they finish. --[[User:Grnrchst|Grnrchst]] ([[User talk:Grnrchst|talk]]) 10:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Josh Hawley hasn't publicly said he won't run in 2024. I suggest taking him off the list of those who have. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/128.92.151.217|128.92.151.217]] ([[User talk:128.92.151.217#top|talk]]) 17:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::How can states still be counting votes ''after'' the electors already voted? Probably an error on AP’s part. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 16:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, he has publicly declined. This cited ref [https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/02/politics/republican-2024-trump-reaction/index.html], states
:::The fact that AP doesn't show 100% for a state doesn't mean that state is still counting. It just means AP hasn't updated yet. They're not in a rush even if some Wikipedia editors are. They have updated Kansas now, to the numbers that have been known for over two weeks. [[User:Spiffy sperry|Spiffy sperry]] ([[User talk:Spiffy sperry|talk]]) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
::::The usefulness of the AP for actual vote counts ended a while back, since all of the various states' websites &/or the National Archives has had actual vote counts available for a while now. One can peruse those individual state websites if one would like to get a turnout rate for every state. I think the number of actual valid votes cast for POTUS was down around 2% from 2020? Whatever that is worth... [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2024 ==
:"Hawley, a 40-year-old former Missouri attorney general, also threw cold water on a possible 2024 run, telling CNN: "I'm not" considering a White House bid in four years. Asked if a run were in the cards, Hawley said flatly: "It's not." [[User:David O. Johnson|David O. Johnson]] ([[User talk:David O. Johnson|talk]]) 18:56, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
{{edit extended-protected|2024 United States presidential election|answered=yes}}
Trump won 49.9% of the article not 49.7% according the citation for the popular vote and AP.


https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P [[Special:Contributions/188.30.168.61|188.30.168.61]] ([[User talk:188.30.168.61|talk]]) 07:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
== McLaughlin & Associates/Newsmax ==
: We're pretty much all done using secondary sources for vote counts at this late date. The individual state numbers are (combined) whatever they say that they are. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
:And that something is neither 49.9% nor 49.7%. It seems to be 49.8% (as indicated by the state table). But all three numbers are still being used at one place or another in this article at the moment. [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2024 ==
I suggest taking these off the list. They're highly unreliable, and Newsmax is Fox News 2.0 (not that Fox's polls are unreliable, but Newsmax just has a reputation for spreading conspiracies, so I don't know if anything would spill into their polls). Additionally, [https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/house-races/209327-national-republicans-dont-use-cantors-pollster the GOP told] candidates not to use McLaughlin after their numbers were way off (though the article is from 2014). <span style="font-family:Avenir, Segoe UI; color:navy">[[User:Thanoscar21|'''Thanoscar21''']]<sup>[[User talk:Thanoscar21|talk]]</sup><sub style='position: relative; left: -1.5em;'>[[Special:Contributions/Thanoscar21|contribs]]</sub></span> 22:34, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
==Publicly expressed interest==
Shouldn't the publicly expressed interest section only be for candidates that have '''publicly''' expressed interest..? It looks like Rubio, Trump, and possibly others have only expressed interest '''privately'''.. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 07:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


{{edit extended-protected|2024 United States presidential election|answered=no}}
::Yea also, I added Nikki Haley to that category since she just launches a superpac for 2024 pretty clearly showing she wants to raise funds for a potential run and has interest: https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicholasreimann/2021/01/13/nikki-haley-launches-pac-ahead-of-rumored-2024-presidential-run/?sh=39a03dce2ace.[[User:Anish631|Anish631]] ([[User talk:Anish631|talk]]) 09:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Anish631
Remove italics from next election [[User:Vlklng|Vlklng]] ([[User talk:Vlklng|talk]]) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Some votes are still being counted on Dec. 20 ==
==Trump underplayed==
According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, today, Dec. 20, 2024 -- three days after all states' electors were chosen -- Kentucky amended its totals to add another 4,382 votes.* That's a net gain of 2,858 votes for Kamala Harris. Obviously, that doesn't affect the overall result in Kentucky or nationally, but I wanted to note that here so that those folks who are editing this article know to double-check each state again at some later date when this is all really done. (After Jan. 6?)


Wasserman, by the way, says that Trump's national lead is 2,284,347 votes. Currently the state-by-state counts in this Wikipedia article have a difference of 2,286,333. So he's missing something included here.
Why is Trump underplayed? He will most likely be a republican candidate, and will be the first to launch his campaign, on the inauguration day of Biden, which is likely to happen. He is most likely winner of 2024, in the Primaries 66% of Republicans support him already, and he will have popular support while Biden or Kamala will be drownded in the tide of popular unrest as they will surpass Trump in incompetency, warmongering and leaving the workers forgotten and unemployed. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.30.183.44|78.30.183.44]] ([[User talk:78.30.183.44#top|talk]]) 09:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::This is not really worth answering, except for one thing, there are indeed reliable reports that he is contemplating a run in '24. [[User:Arglebargle79|Arglebargle79]] ([[User talk:Arglebargle79|talk]]) 12:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
:::You are not really worth paying attention to, except as an exemplary case of narrow-minded Trump derangement syndrome POV that poisons the main article. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/78.30.183.44|78.30.183.44]] ([[User talk:78.30.183.44#top|talk]]) 12:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Yeah, remember [[Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball|Wikipedia is not a crystal ball]]. Just because you hope something is going to happen, doesn't mean it will. [[User:Bkatcher|Bkatcher]] ([[User talk:Bkatcher|talk]]) 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
:Calm down, IP. To date, Trump has ''not'' announced that he's going to run for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. [[User:GoodDay|GoodDay]] ([[User talk:GoodDay|talk]]) 17:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


*source: https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1870202633241166217
== Favorability ratings among primary voters ==
[[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


Many of the polls in the Democratic favorability section look like they sample the entire electorate and not strictly potential Democratic primary voters. [[User:Poguetry|Poguetry]] ([[User talk:Poguetry|talk]]) 18:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
:Very weird if true. [[User:Prcc27|Prcc27]] ([[User talk:Prcc27|talk]]) 21:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
::For what it's worth, the Kentucky State Board of Elections website shows that the certification was amended on Dec. 9, which is ''before'' the electors voted (https://elect.ky.gov/results/2020-2029/Pages/2024.aspx). Just because someone reports on it today doesn't mean it happened today. --[[User:Spiffy sperry|Spiffy sperry]] ([[User talk:Spiffy sperry|talk]]) 21:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*I'm not sure what suggests that. The favorability ratings for the Democrats in those polls are too high to represent a poll that includes Republicans. More importantly, though, I don't think that a favorability poll is particularly useful in this context; I have a favorable opinion of [[Betty White]], but that doesn't mean I want her to run for President. Since we have actual presidential preference polls, and more will appear, we don't need to include favorability polls too. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 07:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
**Well, for example, AOC's favorability number in the Harvard-Harris poll is from all voters according to the tabular data.[[User:Poguetry|Poguetry]] ([[User talk:Poguetry|talk]]) 03:04, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
:::Ah, thanks for looking into that more closely. [[User:NME Frigate|NME Frigate]] ([[User talk:NME Frigate|talk]]) 04:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
***In any case, though, can we remove the favorability ratings? They're not an adequate substitute for presidential preference polls, and we already have some of those. --[[User:Metropolitan90|Metropolitan90]] [[User talk:Metropolitan90|(talk)]] 20:03, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
::In the past vote totals have been adjusted well into the following year because ballots were found someplace, or after lawsuits, so this isn't entirely unusual. [[User:Peter NYC|Peter NYC]] ([[User talk:Peter NYC|talk]]) 21:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
*I've updated the KY results with the pdf from the National Archives, which is from December 9, 2024. [[User:Guy1890|Guy1890]] ([[User talk:Guy1890|talk]]) 01:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)


== Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2024 (2) ==
== Gillibrand in polling table/"Want to run" questions ==


{{edit extended-protected|2024 United States presidential election|answered=no}}
Given that Senator Gillibrand has been included in every democratic poll so far, should she be taken out of the "other" box and given her own column? Additionally, why are polls asking if people want Trump to run again being included in the table? In my opinion, "Do you want x to run?" and "Would you vote for x?" are fundamentally different questions. There are many reasons someone could want a candidate to run for a certain office, but would not want to vote for that candidate for that office. Someone could want candidate x to run to dilute the support of the candidate y who opposes their preferred candidate z. Someone could want a candidate to run for the sake of fostering better debate. Someone could want a candidate to run for office x to prevent them from running for office y. Someone could want a candidate to run because they have a non-political/personal stake in that person running for office (gambling, campaign position, etc.) <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:2601:547:d00:1630:e1ca:283e:a449:aea5|2601:547:d00:1630:e1ca:283e:a449:aea5]] ([[User talk:2601:547:d00:1630:e1ca:283e:a449:aea5#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/2601:547:d00:1630:e1ca:283e:a449:aea5|contribs]]) </span>
Please change the turnout reference:
:Her results aren't notable enough to justify a separate column. Poll questions that are only whether or not Donald Trump should contest the election should probably be in a separate table. [[User:Onetwothreeip|Onetwothreeip]] ([[User talk:Onetwothreeip|talk]]) 20:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
| turnout = 63.9% ({{decrease}}2.7 [[percentage point|pp]])<ref>https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers</ref>
</syntaxhighlight>
to:
<syntaxhighlight lang="wikitext">
| turnout = 63.9% ({{decrease}}2.7 [[percentage point|pp]])<ref name="Lindsay2024">{{Cite news |last1=Lindsay |first1=James M. |date={{date|2024-12-18|MDY}} |title=The 2024 Election by the Numbers: With the Electoral College votes now cast, here is a recap of how Americans voted in 2024. |url=https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241218210711/https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers |archive-date={{date|2024-12-18|MDY}} |access-date={{date|2024-12-20|MDY}} |work=[[Council on Foreign Relations]] |language=en-US |quote=In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020 [...]}}</ref>
</syntaxhighlight>
Fixes [[:WP:BURL]]. [[Special:Contributions/83.28.247.254|83.28.247.254]] ([[User talk:83.28.247.254|talk]]) 21:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)


== Adding templates ==
== Dan Behrman Has Expressed Interest In Running ==


In response to previous concerns about content neutrality,
[https://twitter.com/DanForTexas/status/1264284171897364486 Dan Behrman has publicly expressed interest to run for president in 2024] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.231.194.182|67.231.194.182]] ([[User talk:67.231.194.182#top|talk]]) 02:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
there was a suggestion to add a neutrality template improvement template after the presidential election results came out.


I think it is time to add one to improve the article.
== Other Potential Democrat Candidates==
See the links below for related information. [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election/Archive]] [[User:Goodtiming8871|Goodtiming8871]] ([[User talk:Goodtiming8871|talk]]) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Since it is very plausible President-Elect Joe Biden might not run again given his age and since he describes himself a "transitional president", there is a good chance the next democrat primary will be very competitive, since such is the case I'm adding a few more candidates that are in contention for the 2024 democrat primary since earlier there were only 3, Kamala Harris, Gavin Newsom, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Especially since on the republican aisle, theres all types of figures from Will hurd to Dan Crenshaw to Larry Hogan to Charlie Baker. There's definitely a similar share of democrats to republicans that will seek the nomination in 2024 if Biden chooses not to run again. [[User:Anish631|Anish631]] ([[User talk:Anish631|talk]]) 04:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Anish631


:What suggestion and what links? I only see one that is broken. --[[User:Super Goku V|Super Goku V]] ([[User talk:Super Goku V|talk]]) 07:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
== Sean Hannity ==
Can we take Sean Hannity of the publicly expressed interest category because if you look at the link cited it says "The comments came as Hannity opened his show on Tuesday night while exchanging jokes with Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade, who quipped about taking over his popular nightly programme.'A few year years, it’s all yours,” Hannity said in response. “Who knows, I might run for president. You never know!'" If you watch the program its pretty obvious they were both just joking around and it gave more of a "you never know, anything could happen" vibe than a serious consideration for running for president. He was just playing around and saying anything could happen. [[User:Anish631|Anish631]] ([[User talk:Anish631|talk]]) 09:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Anish631


== Nancy Mace and stating the obvious. ==
==Trump 3rd Party run?==
<ref>https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/534952-trump-has-talked-to-associates-about-forming-new-political-party</ref>
Trump may be planning to run in 2024 under a new "Patriot Party". Regardless if he's eligible at that time will not matter until he is deemed ineligible, if he is at all.
I propose adding him to the 3rd Party and/or Independent Potential Candidates ion addition to the Republican Part.
-User but not a editor. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2601:1C2:500:D890:6CB8:32B0:9231:CFD6|2601:1C2:500:D890:6CB8:32B0:9231:CFD6]] ([[User talk:2601:1C2:500:D890:6CB8:32B0:9231:CFD6#top|talk]]) 03:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: I agree with the above, as this is now reflected in some sources. Donald Trump is listed as a potential Republican candidate, but has also been reported as [https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/534952-trump-has-talked-to-associates-about-forming-new-political-party discussing the possibility of starting a new political party], to be called the "Patriot Party", to contest the 2024 election. Do we list him under both headings? [[User:BD2412|<span style="background:gold">'''''BD2412'''''</span>]] [[User talk:BD2412|'''T''']] 04:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
: As there is currently a consensus to add this article, I am going to add it. If the consensus changes, then it may be removed. --[[User:Numberguy6|Numberguy6]] ([[User talk:Numberguy6|talk]]) 04:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
{{reflist talk}}


Trans rights have once again become under attack after Trump won. Why do we persist with [[LGBTQIA+]] rights as oppose to [[Trans]] Rights when it's clear Trans people have been the ones targeted by the Right wing media in this particular election cycle? [[Special:Contributions/68.189.2.14|68.189.2.14]] ([[User talk:68.189.2.14|talk]]) 18:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
== New Electoral Map ==


:With respect, I think the answer to your question is multifaceted. Part of why certain topics don't get immediately updated is just because Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, needs time for events to unfold and become history. Another part is that some people probably still feel that many American conservatives hold political opinions that would affect more than just the T element of LGBTQIA+. Only time will tell what Trump's second presidency will be like. [[User:Big Thumpus|Big Thumpus]] ([[User talk:Big Thumpus|talk]]) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
The Electoral College should have a different map, following the results of the 2020 census. Should the map that is currently featured on this page (simply grey states) be replaced with this new map?

Latest revision as of 02:56, 25 December 2024

In the news Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 8, 2016Articles for deletionNo consensus
May 26, 2016Articles for deletionDeleted
November 27, 2018Articles for deletionDeleted
In the news A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on November 6, 2024.

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
He won but he is under 50% so that is a fact. Hans100 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Per WP:DUE, we need to be reporting what those sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Or if the current consensus changes. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Don't forget the people who voted for Jill Stein.84.54.70.113 (talk) 09:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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


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)[reply]

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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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))[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Please stop. LV 06:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
IL is now done certifying their results. Guy1890 (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
California was supposed to be done today. Bjoh249 (talk) 16:24, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
FWIW - we're still waiting on CA, OR & WV to certify their results. Guy1890 (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the California vote is set to be certified tomorrow. There shouldn’t be anymore counting. Oregon was supposed to have it done two days ago. There shouldn’t be anymore counting anywhere now. Bjoh249 (talk) 20:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Have we got 100% of the vote, yet? GoodDay (talk) 02:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All states (except maybe WV?) have certified their results. Guy1890 (talk) 03:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the percentage bar from the infobox. AFAIK, there'll be no more popular votes to count. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got a hold of a WV official result, and that has been added to the state table - it just added less than 200 votes for "other" candidates, so I updated the grand totals at the end of the table for that as well. Guy1890 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If that does indeed complete the count, then perhaps someone now reconcile the discrepancies I mentioned way down near the bottom of this Talk page:
(A) the information box at the top shows Trump with 77,269,255 (49.9%) and Harris with 74,983,555 (48.4%)
(B) the fifth paragraph of the lead says that Trump has "a plurality of 49.8%"
(C) the box at the top of Results section shows Trump with 77,302,169 (49.74%), Harris with 75,015,834 (48.27%), Stein with 861,141 (0.55%), Kennedy with 756,377 (0.49%), Oliver with 650,142 (0.42%), and Other with 833,975 (0.54%), for a total of 155,419,638
(D) the Total line in the Results by State table shows Trump with 77,302,170 (49.8%), Harris with 75,015,837 (48.3%), Stein with 860,142 (0.6%), Kennedy with 756,377 (0.5%), Oliver with 650,142 (0.4%), and Others with 619,233 (0.4%), for a total of 155,206,823
That is: the state table has a total with 212,815 fewer votes than the top Results box, and this is based mostly on "Other(s)" having 214,742 fewer votes in the state table than in that box. (Based on copying the Results by State table to an Excel spreadsheet, I think there are also some small math errors in the table here: see the columns for Jill Stein (short by 85) and for Others (short by 2,939) and the row for Utah (over by 33). Is a formula here skipping one or more cells?)
That top box in Results here sources its totals to "The Green Papers" (which does seem to be a treasure trove of useful information), but apparently hasn't been updated here since Dec. 2. Checking that Green Papers source now (Dec. 17), I see a total of 155,627,481, i.e., 207,843 more votes than on the Results box and 420,658 more votes than in this article's Results by State table. Here's how that breaks down by state between this article's table ("Wiki") and The Green Papers ("TGP"), with the differences shown indicating the shortfall (it's a shortfall in all but one case) in this article's table:
Colorado: 3,190,873 (Wiki) vs. 3,192,745 (TGP) = -1,872
Delaware: 511,697 (Wiki) vs. 512,912 (TGP) = -1,215
District of Columbia: 325,869 (Wiki) vs. 328,404 (TGP) = -2,535
Georgia: 5,250,047 (Wiki) vs. 5,250,905 (TGP) = -858
Hawaii: 516,701 (Wiki) vs. 522,236 (TGP) = -5,535
Idaho: 904,812 (Wiki) vs. 917,466 (TGP) = -12,654
Iowa: 1,663,506 (Wiki) vs. 1,674,011 (TGP) = -10,505
Maine: 830,989 (Wiki) vs. 842,447 (TGP) = -11,458
Massachusetts: 3,473,653 (Wiki) vs. 3,512,866 (TGP) = -39,212
Minnesota: 3,253,920 (Wiki) vs. 3,254,890 (TGP) = -970
Montana: 602,984 (Wiki) vs. 602,990 (TGP) = -6
New Hampshire: 826,189 (Wiki) vs. 831,033 (TGP) = -4,844
New York: 8,262,495 (Wiki) vs. 8,380,458 (TGP) = -117,963
North Carolina: 5,699,145 (Wiki) vs. 5,699,156 (TGP) = -11
Utah: 1,488,043 (Wiki) vs. 1,693,398 (TGP) = -205,355
Vermont: 369,422 (Wiki) vs. 372,885 (TGP) = -3,463
West Virginia: 762,584 (Wiki) vs. 762,575 (TGP) = +9
Wyoming: 269,048 (Wiki) vs. 271,123 (TGP) = -2,075
The one exception is West Virginia, which you note you just updated today. By comparison to the Certificate of Ascertainment from West Virginia which is the source for that line in this article's table, it turns out the reason that The Green Papers has 9 fewer votes than shown here is that it doesn't include the votes of five candidates who each received fewer than 10 votes. So Wikipedia was more accurate than The Green Papers for West Virginia.
But what about the other states? The biggest discrepancy is Utah, so I'm checking that one first. Here it seems The Green Papers has a significant error. I've written to that site to suggest a correction, so it may be fixed by the time I finish typing this. The Green Papers shows 204,904 in Invalid Write-In votes in Utah (votes for people who were not registered in advance as write-in candidates), but the state's canvas indicates that The Green Papers added a zero, and the correct number of such votes is 24,904:
https://vote.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2024/11/2024-General-Election-Statewide-Canvass.pdf
On the other hand, that state page (1) doesn't include those 24,904 votes in its total votes cast and (2) also doesn't include anything to the right of the column showing 33 votes for candidate Steve M. Johnson: it's missing the 1 vote for Andre R. McNeil, the 441 votes for Peter Sonski, and the 9 votes for "Future Madam Potus." The state seems to have cut off the sum function on the Excel table on which that pdf is based (a table which, in contrast to the 2020 results, is not available online) so that it didn't count the last five columns. Accordingly, Utah's correct totals should be as shown on Wikipedia for Trump, Harris, Stein, Kennedy, and Oliver (all of which match the state's totals) but the number for Utah in the Others column should be increased from 16,502 to 41,890 as the sum of the following:
24,904 -- Invalid Write-In
8,402 -- Joel Skousen
3,189 -- Claudia de la Cruz
2,653 -- Lucifer J. Everylove
2,199 -- Cornel R. West
441 -- Peter Sonski
59 -- Jay J. Bowman
33 -- Steve M. Johnson
9 -- Future M. Potus
1 - Andre R. McNeil
Most of the invalid write-in votes in Utah were presumably for RFK Jr., who was not on the ballot there.
That brings Utah's total to 1,513,398.
I'm going to pause here before looking into New York, Massachusetts, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, and the other states whose totals on the state table here differ from The Green Pages. NME Frigate (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welp. The Certificate of Ascertainment submitted by Utah simply omits those 24,904 "invalid write-in" votes altogether. Should that fact at least get a footnote? NME Frigate (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, briefly on New York: the difference between the Green Papers total of 8,380,458 and the total of 8,262,495 on the state table here is that The Green Papers includes 71,559 blank ballots (which obviously should not be counted) and 46,404 "void" ballots. The latter probably consists mostly of disallowed write-in votes for RFK Jr. and some other candidates, but some could be simply illegible. That number seems large enough to merit a note of some sort here. NME Frigate (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And finally, it's clear from checking Massachusetts that the approximate difference of 39,000 votes between The Green Papers and this article's state totals is that The Green Papers listed 39,262 "blank" ballots. NME Frigate (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The results in the state-by-state table aren't calculated at all by some script - they have been placed there by someone (mostly me, but a few other people as well). Anyone can change them, if they have a valid source for an updated number. Like I've said before, the National Archives will likely be the best clearinghouse for official 2024 state results. The table here uses that link as a reference in a few spots already. I dunno why you're comparing results with the Green Papers (that's a source I haven't heard of in years - didn't know they were still around even), and I lot of the discrepancies that you've noted can likely come down to how the various states have treated "blank votes" (which aren't votes) or write-in/also-rans which had little to do with the outcomes of those elections. When the states report their official results, they have to account for all votes, while many secondary sources don't tend to care about that kind of minutiae. I do remember the (current?) state source for results in MA treating blank ballots in an odd way. Guy1890 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If your question is directed at me (I can't tell), then the reason that I was comparing the state table to The Green Papers is that this article itself already linked to The Green Papers as the source for the information in the top box of the Results section. I was suggesting that someone who has the ability to edit here (this article shows for me as locked) make those numbers consistent. Right now, for example, the state table says that Donald Trump received 49.8% of the vote but the Results box says that he received 49.74% of the vote. (And the information box at the top of the article says that he received 49.9%.)
    As for the disallowed write-ins, I agree that they won't change any outcome, but I wonder how to account for them when reporting the national popular vote, especially when there are so many. The "invalid write-in" votes from Utah and the "void" write-in votes from New York add up to more than 70,000 votes overall. If someone checks this article to learn how many votes were cast for president nationally in 2024, is that 155,206,823 as currently shown in the state table? Or is the "correct" number closer to 155,277,000? NME Frigate (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any actual reliable source for the national popular vote numbers? The current listed source is the AP, but all I can find on there is vote totals for Trump and Harris and percentages, but nowhere does it list how many 'other' votes there are or the total number of votes cast, so we can do an actual calculation of the percentage ourselves. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 09:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bias needs to be fixed

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
They are bias because they are quoting Trump? --Super Goku V (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
That was said tongue in cheek. 2603:8001:3400:3E:E9E5:5612:8CB5:C45B (talk) 02:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If everyone is complaining about bias in the article, then it’s a problem. 67.0.238.217 (talk) 12:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have no sources listed proving what trump said so I’ll just be lazy like you, not doing any research and believe everything I hear from my echo chamber while spending hours angrily attacking trump supporters online from the comfort of my own basement, only ever leaving to get my hot Cheetos and that one gross energy drink because I can’t accept I’ve lost 67.0.221.236 (talk) 22:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
"Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence."
How can an opinion be false? Rxm1054 (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When your opinion is contrary to facts, it is false. It may be "your opinion" that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not flat. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a fact that it wasn't "rigged" or "election interference". It's an opinion based on your own interpretation. Scientific facts aren't open for interpretation like the motivations behind a criminal trial. Rxm1054 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When someone commits crimes, prosecuting them for them is not "rigging" anything. If being prosecuted for your own criminal acts interferes with your electoral chances, that is on YOU. Not the prosecutor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you if they did commit the crime. And while I know that he has been found guilty I hold the opinion that he was charged due to political motivations. The reasons for me thinking that are these:
  1. Why now? This happened 15+ years ago.
  2. Why did she say that it did not happen when it first came out years ago?
  3. Why so many felony counts? Sure he may have made 32 payments, but they are for one advent not 32 advents.
  4. Why did they allow a judge that had so much prejudice against him?
  5. Why did they only have people that were against Trump speak in court?
All of this seems like there was prior motive for this court case. I understand that this is only my opinion. I am fine if someone else has their own opinion and they are free to state it if they wish.
@Khajidha Please try to keep it civil, you using the ALLCAPS makes it seem that you are shouting. A better way would have been to use Italic's or Bold, they don't give the impression that you are shouting but still give force/meaning to what you say. Just a recommendation. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. & 2. When sex is involved, people quite often don't make accusations at the time. Look at all the rape and sexual assault cases that come out years later. They also often deny it. Even to themselves. There are elements of personal shame involved.
3. Separate payments = separate charges. I don't see a problem here.
4. From my vantage point, the judge showed far too much deference to him. Any other defendant would have spent multiple nights in lock up for contempt.
5. This is a blatant falsehood. Both Daniel Sitko and Robert Costello testified for the defense.
I hardly think that using caps for a single word would indicate shouting. That would just be silly. Why would I shout a single word? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok after review you are correct on 1.,2. & 5. but it still seems to me like they went over board with 32 charges. The event is what mattered - would it have been any better if he payed 1 large amount rather then 32 smaller amounts? My point is the fact there were 32 payments does not increase the amount of damage that was done. And that judge had it in for him right from the start - which is unconstitutional "you are innocent until proven guilty" and the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other in cases, but that is a lot harder to do when you are wildly known and liked or hated as Trump is.
I do not mean to get you upset - I just was pointing it out as it is harder to gauge how people are trying to use ALLCAPS in relation to angerly shouting at you. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other" Sounds like a fairy tale. The judges typically side with specific political factions or with whoever offers the best bribes. Dimadick (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Whoever wrote this article about the 2024 election made it no secret that he/she is a registered democrat/Harris supporter. The claim that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is completely false and misleading. And that's just one example of the biased tone of this article. AstrosFan30 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The statement that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is very well sourced. There is a little superscript (a) beside the words, which links to ten different sources. This is how Wikipedia works. If reliable sources say something, we can say it here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's an opinion about him. There's a big difference between whoever at the NYT is of the opinion that Trump engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering and stating it as a matter of fact.
If you took an opinion from a right wing source about the Harris campaign engaging in fear mongering stating their opponent is a threat to democracy it would be equally incorrect.
Just because a reliable source expresses an opinion doesn't mean you state it as a matter of fact. Rxm1054 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FFS. It's TEN reliable sources!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you state that whoever from wherever is of the opinion that he engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering. You don't state the opinions of journalists as facts. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not "opinion", it's "reporting". Do you understand the difference? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's both if a journalist is reporting their opinions on a presidential candidate. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. Not a collection of opinions.
Saying that this journalist claimed a candidate engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering is a statement of fact.
Taking their opinion and presenting it as a matter of fact is something else.
If you take a journalist claiming that Kamala is "pushing a radical far-left agenda" and state it as Kamala Harris pushed a radical far-left agenda during her campaign you can't expect anyone to think that's a legitimate encyclopedic entry or not biased. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So he didn't say that they were eating the pets? He didn't say that they would cut your throat? Or that they were murdering women? Or that immigrant gangs had taken over cities? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the question of did he say those things, but are they happening. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which they aren't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then show what he said. Not add an opinion about what he said as a statement of fact. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sheriff U3 You’re right, they are happening but good luck getting through any of these liberal biased moderators and getting anything not liberal opinion on Wikipedia articles. It doesn’t help that the majority of the MSM are just as biased. There isn’t a separate Liberalpedia like there is a conservapedia because Wikipedia is Liberalpedia. 107.204.246.18 (talk) 02:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AstrosFan30, does your user name refer to astroturfing? Dimadick (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably refers to the Houston Astros. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
From what I can see one the 2020 page, the swing is positive if the state swung in the direction of the winning candidate. By that metric all states should have a positive swing, and so should all districts bar NE-1. Mentioning this instead of editing because I still dont have 500 edits. Fili999999 (talk) 15:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone else did this editing. Correctly? Who knows... Guy1890 (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Results are now official

[edit]

I have checked every state's official counts, and they have all now been certified. Under the "Results by state" header I plan to remove the disclaimer line "Preliminary results; only states reported by the Associated Press as being more than 99% complete counting are included" considering that these are no longer preliminary results. I am also planning to add US totals under the "Votes" and "%" columns. Will do this later tonight or tomorrow unless someone has a good objection (or gets to it before I do). Potosino (talk) 01:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Should we update the "box score" totals, now that the results are final? At the moment we are still using the AP totals, but AP stopped updating a few weeks ago. Specifically, they have never updated their totals for Illinois, Kansas, and Oregon. This puts their grand total for each of the two top candidates about 30,000+ votes short of the actual figures. Potosino (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m pretty sure every state is done counting votes. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No one can still explain why there is different vote come, from different source.. I don't think you can Use AP total as the final total its not matching up, and no one also can explain why Al Jazeera has million extra votes https://www.aljazeera.com/us-election-2024/ H: 75,444,983: 48.36% V T 77,958,031 49.98% A newspaper is not a proper source for election certification. I think we might have to wait until the US government rubber stamps the final numbers. Could the missing votes be oversea votes??? --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only state that *might* not have an official tally still is likely just WV - their Secretary of State's website still links to results that are labelled "Unofficial". The best catch-all site for official results that I've seen is: here at the National Archives. It should eventually fill-out as the states send their official results there for posterity. I think we're well past using what amounts to second-hand info about what the national results are - each state's totals (when added together) should speak for themselves. The numbers are what the numbers are. Guy1890 (talk) 19:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When there is an agreed-upon final total, this article will need updating in multiple places. Currently:
(1) The information box at top right has Trump 77,269,255 = 49.9% and Harris 74,983,555 = 48.4%.
(2) The introductory text to the left of that says Trump has "a plurality of 49.8%".
(3) The box at the top of Results section has Trump 77,302,169 = 49.74% and Harris 75,015,834 = 48.27%.
(4) The state-by-state box in Results has a total of 77,302,170 = 49.8% and Harris 75,015,837 = 48.3%.
(Does the one additional vote for Trump in #4 vs. #3 push his total from 49.74% to 49.75% and thus rounding to 49.8%?) NME Frigate (talk) 20:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked into this some.
The correct number of Trump votes is is 77,302,170.
The information box at top right is supposed to be using the AP numbers, but the AP numbers are not even as close to accurate as the boxes below.
The box at the top of the Results section is based on the Green Papers.
The reason for the discrepancy with the Green Papers is North Carolina, so I looked at North Carolina.
The Green Papers numbers for North Carolina in the box at the top of Results section are all goofy, and I do not know where they come from.
The Green Papers numbers numbers short Trump one vote. The numbers short Harris three votes, which is reflected at the box at the top of the Results section. They then give Claudia De la Cruz two extra votes. They then add in 13 write-in votes, which do not appear in the official North Carolina numbers. This puts North Carolina off 11 votes from the official numbers, which are accurately reflected in the state-by-state box.
The numbers for the state-by-state box for North Carolina are the ones that are with the National Archives. The numbers from the Green Papers are wrong.
This does not explain the entirety of the discrepancy, but I would hazard to guess that the state-by-state box is more accurate, and that the error lies with the Green Papers.
The three boxes should be made to match.
Also, the state-by-state box should be expanded to the hundredths of a percent, like all other Presidential Election state-by-state boxes. The 2024 election is the only one that only displays the result to the tenth. I believe that this is because the information is so new. But it still should be corrected eventually. I started the process yesterday, but I did want to verify that the numbers in the state-by-state box were correct before proceeding and causing more mischief. Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. As noted in my several replies near the top of the page, The Green Papers has some quirks and should only be cited with care (e.g., making sure not to include "blank" ballots). So as you indicate, the Results by State table here, allowing for a few final minor adjustments, is basically correct, and the main Results box, and the information box at the top of the article should be adjusted to match. And it seems the table will show totals, once formatted to show hundredths as you indicate is the norm for prior elections, of 49.81% Trump, 48.33% Harris, 0.55% for Stein, 0.49% for Kennedy, 0.42% for Oliver, and 0.40% for Others.
That just leaves the question of whether the 24,904 "invalid write-in" votes in Utah and 46,404 "void" votes in New York are significant enough, compared to such votes in past elections, to merit a note of some kind. (Although even if those are indeed votes for Kennedy, and even if they had been counted as such, there wouldn't be much difference: the percentages would become 49.78% Trump, 48.31% Harris, 0.55% Stein, 0.53% Kennedy, 0.42% Oliver, and 0.40% Others. Although if the same reason explains why Idaho, Maine, and Iowa each vary by more than 10,000 votes between The Green Papers and this page, it might have been enough to put Kennedy ahead of Stein overall.) NME Frigate (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: What was the turnout as a percentage of eligible voters? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.36.193.221 (talk) 05:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image of Trump

[edit]

The Image used for Donald Trump is his presidential portrait from 2017. I just think it would be better to replace this with a more recent image, until his 2025 portrait is released. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See #Why such an old photo of Trump?
In short, there were nearly a dozen discussions about the image. There was a consensus not to use the 2017 photo, but never a consensus on what to use instead. Hence the wait for 2025 in some of those old discussions. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What about this image? It's early November 2024, it would work until January.
File:President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, on the South Portico of the White House (cropped).jpg WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, here's the actual link:
File:President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, on the South Portico of the White House (cropped).jpg WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Truthfully I don't see the point in doing this, it's a temporary image that'll be there for a month until he's sworn in, let's just wait for the official portrait. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 23:51, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2024

[edit]

Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements regarding Trump's criminal trials, including false claims that they are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party, of which there is no evidence.

Trump and many Republicans have claimed Trump's criminal trials are "rigged" or "election interference" orchestrated by Biden and the Democratic Party. Rxm1054 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 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. PianoDan (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change the original text to the new text below it with the same source. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, we won't be doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok keep the editorial and opinions instead of stating factual information. Rxm1054 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a fact that Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements about the criminal trials and elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is believing a trial is rigged or election interference a fact or an opinion? Rxm1054 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can even say it's an unverified or unproven opinion. But to say an opinion about an election or criminal trial is false shows bias. Rxm1054 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Certificates of ascertainment submitted do not match numbers on chart for popular vote margin. Jjf392 (talk) 03:38, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/2024 Jjf392 (talk) 04:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wish I'd seen that before I started my long reply above! NME Frigate (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: Electoral College tally

[edit]

When all the electors have cast their ballots today. Do we remove "projected" from the infobox? or does that only occur after the joint session of Congress certifies them, next month. GoodDay (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can remove “projected” after today, but I’m open to either. But we may need a footnote explaining that the results will not be certified until January 6th. Prcc27 (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hawai'i just finished voting, the last group of electors to finish voting. In all 50 states and the District of Columbia, there were no faithless electors. All of the electors voted for who they pledged to vote for. Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 00:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 December 2024

[edit]

I'm not sure "the green papers" is a good source for the popular votes request. Bjcoop23 (talk) 01:50, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Their numbers are pretty accurate as long as citation to them doesn't just pull from their bottom-line totals, which in some cases includes blank ballots. And as noted above, in one respect, The Green Papers was more accurate about Utah's totals than Utah's own official results were (because the latter had an Excel summation error). NME Frigate (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral college

[edit]

The pledged electors voted for on November 5 convened today and opted to confirm Trump/Vance. There were no faithless electors. https://www.270towin.com/2024-vote-of-electors/ https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/trump-cabinet-transition-news-12-17-24#cm4t2nsq8000s3b6np06gk3me The main sidebar's references should be updated to reflect this. I can't edit the main page because it's extended-protected. Bervnka (talk) 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should make a edit request, that way people can find your request and complete it sooner. I would due it my self but I have the same restriction. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No turnout figure yet

[edit]

When will a figure for total turnout be available?Amyzex (talk) 23:05, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amyzex: According to AP News, it seems Kansas, Illinois and Indiana are still counting votes. So we can expect a finalised figure for turnout when they finish. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can states still be counting votes after the electors already voted? Probably an error on AP’s part. Prcc27 (talk) 16:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that AP doesn't show 100% for a state doesn't mean that state is still counting. It just means AP hasn't updated yet. They're not in a rush even if some Wikipedia editors are. They have updated Kansas now, to the numbers that have been known for over two weeks. Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The usefulness of the AP for actual vote counts ended a while back, since all of the various states' websites &/or the National Archives has had actual vote counts available for a while now. One can peruse those individual state websites if one would like to get a turnout rate for every state. I think the number of actual valid votes cast for POTUS was down around 2% from 2020? Whatever that is worth... Guy1890 (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 December 2024

[edit]

Trump won 49.9% of the article not 49.7% according the citation for the popular vote and AP.

https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/?office=P 188.30.168.61 (talk) 07:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty much all done using secondary sources for vote counts at this late date. The individual state numbers are (combined) whatever they say that they are. Guy1890 (talk) 17:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And that something is neither 49.9% nor 49.7%. It seems to be 49.8% (as indicated by the state table). But all three numbers are still being used at one place or another in this article at the moment. NME Frigate (talk) 18:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2024

[edit]

Remove italics from next election Vlklng (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some votes are still being counted on Dec. 20

[edit]

According to Dave Wasserman of the Cook Political Report, today, Dec. 20, 2024 -- three days after all states' electors were chosen -- Kentucky amended its totals to add another 4,382 votes.* That's a net gain of 2,858 votes for Kamala Harris. Obviously, that doesn't affect the overall result in Kentucky or nationally, but I wanted to note that here so that those folks who are editing this article know to double-check each state again at some later date when this is all really done. (After Jan. 6?)

Wasserman, by the way, says that Trump's national lead is 2,284,347 votes. Currently the state-by-state counts in this Wikipedia article have a difference of 2,286,333. So he's missing something included here.

NME Frigate (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very weird if true. Prcc27 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the Kentucky State Board of Elections website shows that the certification was amended on Dec. 9, which is before the electors voted (https://elect.ky.gov/results/2020-2029/Pages/2024.aspx). Just because someone reports on it today doesn't mean it happened today. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for looking into that more closely. NME Frigate (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the past vote totals have been adjusted well into the following year because ballots were found someplace, or after lawsuits, so this isn't entirely unusual. Peter NYC (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2024 (2)

[edit]

Please change the turnout reference:

| turnout = 63.9% ({{decrease}}2.7 [[percentage point|pp]])<ref>https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers</ref>

to:

| turnout = 63.9% ({{decrease}}2.7 [[percentage point|pp]])<ref name="Lindsay2024">{{Cite news |last1=Lindsay |first1=James M. |date={{date|2024-12-18|MDY}} |title=The 2024 Election by the Numbers: With the Electoral College votes now cast, here is a recap of how Americans voted in 2024. |url=https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20241218210711/https://www.cfr.org/article/2024-election-numbers |archive-date={{date|2024-12-18|MDY}} |access-date={{date|2024-12-20|MDY}} |work=[[Council on Foreign Relations]] |language=en-US |quote=In relative terms, voter turnout nationally in 2024 was 63.9 percent. That is below the 66.6 percent voter turnout recorded in 2020 [...]}}</ref>

Fixes WP:BURL. 83.28.247.254 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding templates

[edit]

In response to previous concerns about content neutrality, there was a suggestion to add a neutrality template improvement template after the presidential election results came out.

I think it is time to add one to improve the article. See the links below for related information. [[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What suggestion and what links? I only see one that is broken. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Mace and stating the obvious.

[edit]

Trans rights have once again become under attack after Trump won. Why do we persist with LGBTQIA+ rights as oppose to Trans Rights when it's clear Trans people have been the ones targeted by the Right wing media in this particular election cycle? 68.189.2.14 (talk) 18:53, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I think the answer to your question is multifaceted. Part of why certain topics don't get immediately updated is just because Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, needs time for events to unfold and become history. Another part is that some people probably still feel that many American conservatives hold political opinions that would affect more than just the T element of LGBTQIA+. Only time will tell what Trump's second presidency will be like. Big Thumpus (talk) 00:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]