Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Popular Vote tally

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

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

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

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

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

As of 10:35 EST:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Donald Trump won the popular vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Bias needs to be fixed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with you completely 71.210.42.253.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

"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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because it was true at the time and may be true again as the vote total changes. Rxm1054 (talk) 20:32, 14 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)

"Trumps political movement was described by several historians"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from WP:Requests for page protection/Edit

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

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

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

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)

Bias

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

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

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

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

Why such an old photo of Trump?

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

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

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

Because we generally do based on the other election articles. The only reason we are using a 7+ year photo was because there was no consensus on what to change it to. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

For context, I am referring to these discussions: Biden and Trump pictures, Donald Trump photo in infobox, Trump image RfC, Trump Portrait, RfC: Trump infobox photo. The first one was that we should replace the official photo and the rest go on from there. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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

phrasing in ""Stolen election" conspiracy theories" section

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

Counties

https://econotimes.com/Kamala-Harris-Breaks-a-90-Year-Record-Not-a-Single-County-FlippedWhat-Went-Wrong-in-2024-1695747

Should be noted that Harris was the first presidential candidate since 1932 to not flip a single county, a significant factoid. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

It is a interesting fact, it may have a place some where. The question would be how to word it, without sounding biased. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest something like what I said, "Harris was the first candidate since 1932 to not flip a single county." I wouldn't say it was biased. That is objectively the election result and objectively a pretty stunning feat considering there are over 3000 counties, and there are other much smaller points included that imply bias anyways. We don't need to editorialize it as Trump being some great candidate or mention him at all. 141.154.49.21 (talk) 06:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that your phrasing is good, it does not sound biased at all. We just will need to add it now. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Seems like WP:UNDUE trivia. Are there any other sources that touch on this? Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 December 2024

Requesting typo corrections in the by-state results:

• The Green vote tally in Nebraska from 2,877 to 2,887

• The Libertarian vote tally in Texas from 68,577 to 68,557 Sorumachi (talk) 02:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Done - thanx for catching those numbers. Guy1890 (talk) 03:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

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). 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. Potosino (talk) 13:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I’m pretty sure every state is done counting votes. Blackmamba31248 (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (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??? --Crazyseiko (talk) 18:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

• 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)

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)

Image of Trump

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)

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)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 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. Rxm1054 (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 December 2024 (2)

Add Patrick Bet-David as one of the host that had Donald Trump on his podcast before the election part of right-wing "manosphere".

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/watching-the-trump-victory-among-the-podcasters Avaldcast (talk) 23:45, 14 December 2024 (UTC)