Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Popular Vote tally

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

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

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

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

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

As of 10:35 EST:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

County Swing Map

As part of the Results section under the maps subsection, could an extended confirmed user add my map?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._2020_to_2024_presidential_election_swing.svg

Timetorockknowlege (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Added! Catboy69 (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Timetorockknowlege (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Popular vote margin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Last two sentences of lead

The last two sentences of the lead currently read: "Trump won the popular vote by a 1.55% margin, with over 77 million votes. Trump became the best-performing Republican and the second-most-voted-for presidential candidate in U.S. history after Biden." The first sentence is as of now untrue (Trump has 76.9 million votes). The second sentence is a peacock statement. The important number in an election is obviously not the number of votes won (which increases over time as the U.S. population increases), but either the share of the total votes won, or the share of electoral college votes won. By these standards Trump's win in 2024 was narrower than either 40 or 42 previous U.S. presidential elections. (On any other article I would just delete these two uncited sentences; this page is obviously contentious, so instead I'm raising this edit here.) CircleAdrian (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

https://abcnews.go.com/Elections/2024-us-presidential-election-results-live-map/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-elections/president-results

https://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2024/president/

https://www.cnn.com/election/2024/results/president

As you can see, all the alphabet networks and CNN has Trump over 77 million.

As far as the rest of your statement goes, you sound like a disgruntled Harris voter who wants to downplay her loss. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Bjoh249 (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Just FYI, I voted for Harris but I think she's an idiot. I am really trying to not push a partisan agenda here; my goal is that this page reads as equally NPOV & encyclopedic as the pages for elections from 100 years ago. I don't think you should jump to assumptions because you disagree with someone. CircleAdrian (talk) 17:23, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I would say leave them in. English Wikipedia as a whole relies heavily on left-leaning media sources with little wiggle room for those that don't lean that way, even if their information might be more accurate. To give an example, as it stands right now, if Fox News or the New York Post write something in 2030, then Wikipedia wouldn't allow it to be referenced unless CNN or the New York Times say it in 2032. There is a wide ranging sanction regime against sources deemed right-leaning while those considered left-leaning are given less scrutiny. To offset this bias (unless addressed by admins), we should speak in a more positive note for those people or groups who are negatively affected by the current system. An equalization if you will. We already have a paragraph listing in a negative light Donald Trump's actions and statements written by those who accept anti-him talking points at face value and without scrutiny backed up with sources that the people who created the current source regime have carefully selected to further there personal viewpoints while silencing opposing viewpoints in a fascistic style of information control. If we remove the last two sentences using positive phrasing of him, then we should remove the third body paragraph using negative phrasing of him. Or if we want to be bold, writing a negative paragraph about Harris to offset the negative one about Trump. But since no one dares write such a thing, for now this is best. Completely Random Guy (talk) 08:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

That paragraph has been discussed multiple times already and reliable sources need to be reliable to be sources. --Super Goku V (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

As being discussed in the other sections above, there is a difference between the AP VoteCast count and the National Election Pool count. AP VoteCast is at 76.9 million as you said. National Election Pool is at 77.1 million. So the first sentence is true if you are using the National Election Pool count.

(Note for anyone reviewing this in 2028: Set a rule about following either the AP-VC or the NEP when referring to the votes.)

Regarding the final sentence, as far as I can see it is a fact that he is the "second-most-voted-for" candidate in a US presidential election. The "best-performing" part is a bit questionable and there is no source attached to the sentence, so that could be a problem. How does one define "best-preforming" regarding all past elections? As noted, by total number of votes Trump is the best-performing Republican. By the margin of the popular vote, Trump is one of the eight Republican candidates who won without a majority and is significantly below Harding and Coolidge. Going by the margin of the Electoral College, Trump's 2024 result was better than his 2016 result, but it ranks 44th out of 60 and ranks well below Reagan and Nixon's re-election years. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No presidential candidate since has won by as big of a margin as Reagan won in 1984. As far as getting a majority of the popular vote goes, only 3 presidential candidates have got that since 1984. George HW Bush in 1988, George W Bush in 2004, Obama in 2008 and 2012, and Biden in 2020. Bjoh249 (talk) 19:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Even as is, that's four men not three winning with a popular vote majority. Not meant as nitpicking, seriously, just a tiny error on your part.

But additionally it seems to me that to the extent it's a useful thing to examine, the much better way to do it is by number of election victories -- not number of individual candidates, persons -- which gets us to five not four. Iandiareii (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

No presidential candidate since has won by as big of a margin as Reagan won in 1984. I was initially not sure which of the two margins you are referring to, but this is incorrect. George H. W. Bush has a better electoral vote margin by 21% in the 1988 election. Bush's 1988 popular vote margin was also better than Trump's 2024 by 6%. So by two of three potential criteria, Bush is better than Trump.

To make it clearer, the wording that seems problematic is: Trump became the best-performing Republican and the second-most-voted-for presidential candidate in U.S. history after Biden. So saying the best candidate "since X" won't work. He has to be the best candidate for the Republican party to support the wording. (Otherwise, it likely should be attributed to someone or removed.) --Super Goku V (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Look I know you are upset that your candidate Harris lost but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It doesn’t change the fact that Harris also lost the popular vote Bjoh249 (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Last break, Bjoh249. To get back on track, we are not talking about Harris, but the potential peacock sentence. The only thing I see that might be actionable of what CircleAdrian mentioned was the second sentence, of which half of it is fine and half of it is potentially questionable. Do we have something sourced to say he was the best-preforming Republican candidate in U.S. history? Otherwise the sentence should be modified, whether that is by making it clearer that it refers to total votes received or something else.

(Trump became the second-most-voted-for presidential candidate in U.S. history after Biden? Trump became the best-performing Republican by votes received and the second-most-voted-for presidential candidate in U.S. history after Biden? Trump's had the most successful Republican campaign by votes received and is the second-most-voted-for presidential candidate in U.S. history after Biden?) --Super Goku V (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think total votes is fair. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Listen there is a thing called rounding up, so it is a true statement even if it was 76.9M . User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

By that logic of rounding, John Hale (Who ran in 1852) Would've been at 5% in the national percentage. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright my reasoning was wrong after checking, I thought you meant the popular vote percentage, not the total votes, but it's still wrong because it isn't an exact amount. InterDoesWiki (talk) 23:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that AP and the NEP have different counts for an unknown reason. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a better question when is all the vote counting going to be over? States have to certify their results by December 11. Bjoh249 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

States do not have to certify their results by the 11th as it varies by state. Right now there is up to 14 states left, barring any extensions due to recounts or similar.

The 11th is when each state must have the presidential electors certified. None of the states should be at risk of missing this deadline as none of them have a razor-thin margin. The two closest to the margin, Wisconsin and Nebraska's 2nd congressional district, have thousands of votes separating Trump and Harris. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:19, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay there's been a lot of poop flying around since I posted this — and in the meantime the final paragraph has been edited, so this discussion is less relevant now. The two sentences I was referring to have been deleted and replaced with "Trump won the national popular vote with 49.83%, making him the first Republican to do so since George W. Bush in 2004. He improved his vote share among working class voters, particularly among young men, those without college degrees, and Hispanic voters." I think this is much better — I was objecting to the "MOST VOTES EVER" tone of the sentence as it was written before, which seemed to highlight a less relevant fact about the election, i.e., the total number of votes. The paragraph as written now highlights what the Trump campaign *did* achieve in this election in a way that reads to me as balanced. CircleAdrian (talk) 17:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I didn't mind that part of it. We do briefly mention a related situation regarding Biden with the 2020 election. At least this seems to be  Resolved --Super Goku V (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Campaign spending

I can’t find anything about how much each candidate and other involved groups and individuals spend an advertising and other campaign activity. If this kind of information is in the article maybe it should be easier to find. If it is not, it should be. With the amounts being spent it is wrong to ignore the topic. Another-sailor (talk) 20:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Bias needs to be fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you completely 71.210.42.253.

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Economic Issues

What is not being discussed is that the lowest 30-year fixed home mortgage rate in U.S. History occurred on 1/2021, (the last month Trump was President his first term), at 2.65%. The current average home 30-year fixed mortgage rate is at 6.91%, representing a multiplier of this rate of 2.61 times. This raise is the highest percentage raise in U.S. History. The fact is that President Trump when President put pressure on the Federal Reserve not to raise the prime lending rate, and pressure on banks to lower the mortgage rates on homes is not mentioned. The raise in the home interest rates did not reduce the home prices that much during the Biden Administration, and the same home bought 4 years ago would cost over double the monthly amount due to the higher mortgage rates. I think this should be explored more. Easeltine (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree that there are economic issues related to Biden/Harris and they're polices, but I don't think any reliable sources are saying that Biden/Harris did it, if anything they say that Trump did it. So until there are reliable sources that discuss this issue, we will just have to wait. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Percentage

77,048,082 / 154,751,269 does not equal 50.00 percent, but rather 49.79 percent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Jack Nash (talk • contribs) 14:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems like there's kinda an edit war going on with the numbers. I think it's kinda premature to get fixated on this now, since many states still haven't certified their results. I think what makes sense is to wait until that happens, and then post the definitive totals. CircleAdrian (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

As long there are actual vote numbers, the "77,048,082" and "154,751,269" written in that table, then the percentage needs to reflect that to the hundredth place that all the percentages are for each candidate. The person that had changed it to 50.00 percent was being dishonest. It would be ok to have it at 50 percent, and the others at 47 percent, and 1 percent, and 0 percent, if rounding is going to happen to that point for one candidate. luckymustard (talk) 21:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

99.9% of the vote in?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reasoning to add back in hundredth place in the percentages

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

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

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

"Trumps political movement was described by several historians"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Which template should be used?

Hello,

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

For related races, see 2024 United States presidential election.

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

Main article: 2024 United States presidential election

template is used.

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

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

Decisive victory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some RS examples using "decisive":

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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