Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Not only does it show an obvious false balance to only quote historians and scholars from a certain part of the political spectrum hired by corporate media, possibly to hurt a candidate whose program goes against their interests, but it's so hyperbolic that its factualness is at least as debatable as Trump's public statements.

You're telling me that he is as dehumanizing as the myriad of American political candidates who advocated ethnic cleansing of Natives, owned slaves or supported segregation? Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Strom Thurmond, George Wallace etc etc? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

For what feels like the eighty-millionth time an editor has had to respond to additions of this nature, see the top two sections, "Bias in lead once again" and "Article shows signs of democratic bias". BarntToust 15:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Okay, and? Does that make my viewpoint invalid? Shoshin000 (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your viewpoint is your viewpoint, which you are entitled to. It's not our WP:CONSENSUS view. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I feel like there needs to be a RfC on this to really say that though. Almost half of the comments on here are complaining about what they feel is an apparent bias. Unless I missed it, I don't see consensus discussions: please show me if I am mistaken. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC) (talk) 18:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This whole article has massive issues, but they are not being addressed at all for some reason. Im not even that political or conservative but this article feels like a stain on Wikipedia because it presents itself as unreliable due to its all-consuming bias. DuneEnjoyer333 (talk) 18:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arguing with these people about why this ridiculous, untrue, and biased quote isn’t needed in the article is like arguing with a wall. It is bias, and it definitely has no place in this article. CavDan24 (talk) 20:42, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree with you. But the editors here always revert to the "Our consensus position is ..." so any edit different from that of the "consensus" of the overwhelming number of liberal-minded editors will never be allowed. And only left-leaning, "mainstream" sources are allowed to be cited. Anyone who pushes for an unbiased, balanced, neutral point of view will be warned, and then silenced and banished.TopShelf99 (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The problem with that sentence is that "populist, authoritarian, fascist, unlike anything a political candidate has ever said in U.S. history" is presented as an attributed opinion, but "embrace of far-right extremism, as well as increasingly violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric against his political opponents" is presented in wikivoice as if it was an undisputed fact. Besides, I doubt that historians and scholars (good historians and scholars, that is) would fall so easily to the popular temptation to use Fascist (insult) as a description of a governor who, even if they find him authoritarian, is still nowhere near the actual fascism of Hitler or Mussolini. Cambalachero (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What about this: Some historians and scholars have characterized Trump’s rhetoric and behavior as embracing far-right extremism and exhibiting increasingly authoritarian and dehumanizing language toward his political opponents, likening it to populist and authoritarian movements, with some even comparing it to fascism in ways they consider unprecedented for a U.S. political candidate Shoshin000 (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What about it? It's true. Are you suggesting it's WP:UNDUE?

And Trump did embrace the far-right, and used violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric. Are you suggesting that's UNDUE? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trump did embrace the far-right, and used violent, dehumanizing, and authoritarian rhetoric

It's not up to Wikipedia to decide that. Wikipedia merely relays what the sources say. Shoshin000 (talk) 17:55, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

That's what the sources say. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you please provide a list of sources that Wikipedia considers acceptable? TopShelf99 (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

WP:RSP is a good starting place for regularly used sources. If you're unsure about something and it's not on that list, try searching the archives of WP:RSN. — Czello ^(music) 21:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

He absolutely did not and disavowed these things more than any candidate for president in history. The false narratives must be removed. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:31, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's absolutely false and must be removed. Wikipedia cannot stand as a propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and mainstream media biased agenda of serially lying about the Trump campaign and its supporters. MrElculver2424 (talk) 08:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Of course it's false and should be removed. Just be aware that simply because it's false is not sufficient. If it is reported in the mainstream media, no matter how biased to the left, the majority of editors here will support it, and vote to make the biased statement the "consensus" view. Remember - the editors here even take the position that MSNBC is an acceptable source to cite, despite its radically leftist leanings. You are not going to win this. TopShelf99 (talk) 21:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's better, but it also has a problem in the current sentence: way too wordy. Too many descriptors that basically mean "authoritarian" in some flavor or another. What about something shorter and to the point? Besides, the lead describes the circumstances in which Trump became candidate, the usual topics of his campaign, and how historians and scholars describe him, but in the case of Harris, just the first part. I also have to understand that historians and scholars all have a negative opinion of Trump, because no positive description is given. Is that so?

And why is the opinion of historians relevant here, anyway? Aren't historians limited to the study of events that took place in the past? And a "scholar" is a generic term, it's someone specialized in a field of knowledge, but which field of knowledge? Not all scholar's opinions are relevant for this topic; so we should replace the term with a more precise one. I hope that this is just a problem of ambiguity and not a case of an argument from authority. Cambalachero (talk) 18:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Historians often compare the current situation to previous situations. That's kind of the reason to study history, to learn from its mistakes and to see how far we have come. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Having removed redundant words, maybe like this: Trump’s style was viewed by some scholars as breaking with traditional U.S. political norms in an unprecedented way, marked by a rhetoric they described as authoritarian, dehumanizing, some even drawing parallels to fascism.

A historian is a scholar by definition. Shoshin000 (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

my latest revision: Trump’s style and behavior, including his embrace of far-right extremism was characterized by a variety of scholars as breaking with traditional U.S. political norms in an unprecedented way, marked by a rhetoric they described as authoritarian and dehumanizing toward his political opponents, likening it to populist movements and some drawing parallels to fascism Shoshin000 (talk) 09:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

For the current Wikipedia, anything to the right of Lenin is considered far right, populist and fascist. It makes me smile though that they wasted so much time making this article a profound propaganda piece, and yet their candidate still lost terribly and Trump is a new president. --Novis-M (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree. Wikipedia has a lot of incredibly biased pages but this basically reads like a leftist version of Conservapedia. K1ausMouse (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we're going to quote (Far Left?) historians concerned about Trump then should we not also quote the likes of the Auschwitz survivor condemning Kamala for her gross misuse of the fascism label? If said Auschwitz survivor is pro-Trump then how can Trump be a Nazi? This level of linguistic abuse is dangerous and Wikipedia needs to be very very careful it doesn't join a mob. 人族 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wonder what that makes RationalWiki — Czello ^(music) 09:42, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A left-wing counterweight to Conservapedia, something Wikipedia seems to try to become regarding contemporary American politics. Shoshin000 (talk) 13:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This article reeks of bias. No wonder wikipedia is so hated by many.Bjoh249 (talk) 21:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now, even this talk page has been dumped down the memory hole. Ironically, my comment about Wikipedia being Orwellian was "archived" with most of the talk about the obvious left-wing bias. A "bot" did this on November 10. And now they are limiting who can edit the talk page. JimmyPiersall (talk) 14:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps it may be better to just remove the paragraph. As written (experts in general, no contrasting points of view) it sounds as if there was Academic consensus on that view, and for that we need a specific source saying so. And contrasting points of view do exist, see Donald Trump and fascism#Criticism of the comparison. Cambalachero (talk) 17:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree - that's exactly what should be done. It is incredibly biased, and exaggerated if not false. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What I did was merely crafting a different wording using the article's current sources.

But by itself, I agree with you that it may overrepresent that points of view with, especially when I came here, an excessive zeal. When you bring scholars into the game, especially people without a scientific background would be tempted not to add any grains of salt. Shoshin000 (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've noticed that Trump's pop-vote total in the infobox, is bolden. Does that mean Harris can't overtake him, in the pop-vote? I'm asking since there's still votes to be reported, particularly from California. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think he did win the popular vote. But I am not sure if that is something media outlets even make a projection on, so I didn’t even bother to come up with a criteria for bolding the popular vote. Prcc27 (talk) 19:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Didn’t they project Hillary to win the popular vote early on in 2016? Bjoh249 (talk) 21:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In 2016, I remember CNN had a confusing infograph on their website which made it look like Trump had been projected to win the popular vote. I was so confused. I don’t really think networks go, “we project Donald Trump has won the national popular vote”. It’s a beauty contest, so unfortunately, it gets overlooked. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

CBS News has stated that he has won the popular vote [1]. The article says "It's the first time in Trump's three campaigns for the White House that he's topped his opponent in the popular vote, and only the second time since 1988 that any Republican has done so." CountyCountry (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but that article is from a few days ago now.How is that going to stack against the remaining votes to be counted? California gave Hillary the popular vote in 2016. Is Trump projected to win the popular vote? I can’t remember how it went in 2016 and when it was projected Hillary would win the popular vote back then. Bjoh249 (talk) 06:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don’t think it took long for Clinton to lead in the NPV. If Harris does win the popular vote (doubtful), I would except it to be by a significantly slimmer margin. But anyways, we should do our best to stick to what the sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 12:20, 11 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think the news agencies should at least project the winner of the popular vote. It won’t make any difference in determining the winner, but it will determine the incoming administration’s mandate. If Trump loses it it will also give more ammo to the popular vote movement to try to eliminate the electoral college. Most of what’s left to count is in California around 25-30% left. Certainly someone can look at where the outstanding vote is and make an estimate. Bjoh249 (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No news networks have called the popular vote for him as of 11/12 11:20 Trump has a 2.1% lead John Bois (talk) 04:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

They have now. Trump won the popular vote also. By any measure, Harris was soundly defeated. TopShelf99 (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Under Results article, there is a voter demographics graph using exit polls from NBC conducted on Election Day. It's inaccurate to add a page like this to begin with, without all votes counted, but displaying the last exit poll by NBC as the voter demographics for the election is inaccurate. There is no national results voter demographics. Should be removed. Minnesotawaterballer (talk) 00:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Can you be a little more specific with your reasoning please, I may be misunderstanding you, but I don't really follow why you have an issue with the exit poll data from a WP:RS being presented here Artem...^Talk 02:56, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand, and agree, with the point made here.

User is saying that whoever added that to this page has conflated "media polling prior to election results" with "actual election results", specifically as it relates to demographics. In this manner, NBC is not an actual WP:RS on this. "We asked some people, here is what they said" is not the same as "Here is the factual final dataset on the results of an election".

I second that the source and the mention of demographics should be removed until such time as actual voting demographics from the final results of the actual election are publicly available. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

You realize that's not actually possible, on the account of voted being secret and such? So the only indications of demographic breakdown for any election come from exit polls. This should not be mistaken with the opinion polls before the elections, which generally ask potential voters who they're going to vote for. Exit polls ask people who actually just voted ("exit"ed the voting place) who they voted for and are generally much more reliable. No longer a penguin (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Part of your reply is sort of the point that the other User and I are making here, the fact that there is no way to actually verify this information.

But more to the point is that this demographic is being presented in the form of a fact, when its just 1 media networks poll. I doubt NBC is the only media network that conducts exit polling, and there is bound to be exit polling by (other media networks) in areas/counties/communities where NBC polling was not present or less effective at data gathering. One poll by one network should not be misused to assert its findings as a presumed fact. TheRazgriz (talk) 15:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correct as they can not be everywhere asking people, they likely were only at a few select places. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

My reply was only responding to "until such time as actual voting demographics from the final results of the actual election are publicly available". That part is not going to happen, so if we want to present voter demographics, as we have for other elections, exit polls have to be relied upon. That said, I agree that there should be a clear indication that the information is based on the exit polls, maybe a similar explanation as for 2020 elections can be used? No longer a penguin (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Trump has won the election. Nevertheless the voting count meter says that 99% of votes have been counted my question is what is the source of that since I can’t seem to find a source for that? Any answer would be greatly appreciated. Salandarianflag (talk) 23:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, how does it equate with 76/77 % in California. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I changed it back to the last reliable meter % based on sources. Salandarianflag (talk) 00:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

If we do want to attach a source to the meter, I would suggest The New York Times unless we are consistently using another source. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:33, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agreed. Salandarianflag (talk) 16:23, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

From what I can tell (though I could be missing something of course), many reliable sources on this either directly or indirectly differ to the AP. If someone could show where that isnt the case on this very specific point, it would be appreciated. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:30, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Does the AP show an estimate? I have searched their election results page for anything and couldn't find a single number for the national estimate. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It seems to be just trivia. I don't really think it belongs in the article. David O. Johnson (talk) 23:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, it just seems like an amalgamation of facts to form a paragraph, with only two sources, a clarification needed template, and two citation needed templates. It also does not seem to provide any analysis and therefore not fit into the section of which it belongs. I will wait a few hours to see if anyone else has comment on this before I make a WP:BOLD edit and remove the entire paragraph - worst case scenario someone can just revert my edit Artem...^Talk 00:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Most of the section seems problematic and WP:UNDUE. Why are we saying “this pundit said this, this pundit said that”? Prcc27 (talk) 21:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Should there be a mention at the bottom of the lead of the specific date on which the Electoral College will formally convene to cast their votes? Koopatrev (talk; contrib) 16:46, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that there should be. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:43, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

In principle I agree that info could be useful here, but honestly this page lede is already close to being longer than some entire wiki pages...it would just get lost in the already thick forest of undue trivial nonsense there. Maybe we need a lede for the lede at this point. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree, that the lead is already close to being longer than some entire wiki pages; the lead is very much in need of a proposed re-write, it just depends if someone is willing to spend / has the time to draft a proposal. Until then, I don't think we should add anything on to it Artem...^Talk 23:45, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correct as it looks like a small news article to be blunt. I would be willing to make a draft, but I will need another editor to add it, when/if it is approved with consensus. If I do make a draft I will make discussion on it here, though do not count on me making the lead. I have not yet decided if I feel like I can do it, as this is a big job for anyone. And it would be hard for anyone to keep it neutral as lets face it, this election has impacted the world. We don't need either side to get their ideas on the matter mixed up with this topic. I don't care what side anyone is on as long as they can write neutrally and are willing to see the other side, as not an enemy, but a different opinion. For everyone can have their opinion but that does not mean it is wrong, it just means they see it differently. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 05:01, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well said, political ideologies should absolutely not make their way into the articles on Wikipedia, but unfortunately I fear that is easier said than done, this article being an example of that as it appears overwhelmingly negative... but then again if we are relying on WP:RS and the weight that they give these topics, unfortunately it may be unavoidable as the mainstream media seems to be very much in opposition of Trump Artem...^Talk 21:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Correct as there is a lot against him and not much for him. We should talk about Trump and the different things against him, but we have to keep in mind that we can't give it to much weight. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

When will results by county for the statewide election results be added? - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 23:29, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I looked at the edit history of three states for the 2020 election: Florida, Indiana and Colorado. I live in Indiana, and I thought I would take one other red and one blue. None of them had county by county results posted before Nov 25, 2020 and one wasn't posted until the first week in December 2020. It takes a while for this information to be finalized and published. Some states still haven't counted all of the votes. rogerd (talk) 21:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am making a draft for the lead. But could use some help with adding more information to the Harris/Watz section. If you wish to view it before I propose it, you can view it here. If you have any suggestions please post them on the sandbox talk page, so that we don't clutter this one for everyone one else. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 06:17, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Relevant discussion at

→ Talk:2024 United States presidential election/Archive 16#Bias in lead once again

Fyi the lead has been a contentious subject. CNC (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I understand, I am trying to see what can be done. I may or may not propose it based off how good it looks when I am finished.

I do non plan on adding till there is consensus, and even then I can't, it is protected from my level. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for starting this , I will take a look and offer what feedback I can Artem...^Talk 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

This Boston Globe opinion piece points out that psychological studies have found that maps that show party strength with gradations of red and blue (as opposed to starkly 100% red and 100% blue) give readers a more accurate impression. The top map in this article could be improved along these lines. -- Beland (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure a gradient map actually would give a more accurate impression. The map, as far as I can tell, is showing who won the electoral votes in each state (or district). It might be useful as a map of the popular vote, however. ScruffyUnicornBeard (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am open to other maps for secondary maps in the body. But the nature of the electoral college is winner-take-all, which is what the map reflects in the infobox. Margins don’t matter in each state, plurality (or majority for rank choice states) matters. Prcc27 (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

A map that uses two dimensions of color still accurately depicts who won all the electoral votes in a state, in the hue dimension. It just also adds saturation as a second dimension, indicating the relative strength of support for the winning party.

Margins do matter for lots of lines of inquiry. To what degree does the elected president have a strong mandate, and if so from which states? Where is the core base of support for each party? Which states could be flipped in a future election? To what degree are the political parties geographically segregated? The studies in question indicate that people who saw an all-or-nothing map have less accurate guesses about per-state political party strength, and degree of political polarization. For the popular vote, I'd probably want to see something at the county level to avoid giving inaccurate impressions about the uniformity of opinion in states. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I would think a President’s mandate is actually based on the National Popular Vote. I don’t think Trump had a mandate his first term, but he will likely have one his second term. I think the current map is our best option. Prcc27 (talk) 02:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, that's one very simplistic way to look at the question of mandate, for which we don't need a map and which I don't find particularly useful without more detailed information like demographics, issues, or geography. -- Beland (talk) 03:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

The companion list of International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election was recently nominated for deletion and closed with a result to merge the list into this article. There are two problems with this:

1. This is a contentious topic, and the closer of the discussion is not an administrator (possibly WP:BADNAC);
2. Merging the list as-is would add a little over 100kB of text to this article, which is already far WP:TOOLONG. The merge would put this page up to about #11 on the list of the longest articles on Wikipedia. I already have trouble loading it on an AMD Ryzen 5 7000 series.

What should be done here? My suggestion would be to not merge the list. If it is to be merged then it should be trimmed substantially. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree that it would be unwise to add it to this article unless it is trimmed down, due to length. I am also having some trouble with loading this article, and I am on a gaming PC. I hate to imagine how others devices are doing with loading. And it sounds like it falls under WP:BADNAC like you said. Situation #2 and #4 look like they apply, which would mean that it could be challenged.

User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)Reply