Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

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

Table of Contents, Please?

Hey, I am NOT an editor, but a normie that was interested in looking up some specific info as reference regarding the 2024 election. I highly appreciate all the work that everyone has done to add and condense all the insurmountable information on this topic.

This is a long entry, as it should be. Would it be possible to add a table of content at the top, so one can skip to what they're interested in? I know some of us know Cont+F to find key phrases/words, but I don't think the general user does. At the time of my comment/suggestion, there are a lot of bolded topics that could be easy to hyperlink at the top of the page.

I understand that the election is still fairly fresh, so I apologize if my comment/suggestion is unnecessary. I assume this will happen when the page is finished, but in the meantime, it could be helpful to jump around to fix as well?

Thank you, AverageUser 2601:1C0:5786:FEF0:1855:9733:5FCF:BDB0 (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar? Entity563 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Already done The page already has a table of contents. It's not right at the top, but after the lead, and the mobile view doesn't show it, but that's how it works on all other pages. Maybe I misunderstood the request. In that case, feel free to re-open it (by changing "answered" to "no") and explain in more detail what you mean. — Chrisahn (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"How to change my vote" is irrelevant

Google trends doesn't actually tell you the number of searches, only the percentage of the search term at it's peak. It could be as little as a few dozen people for all we know. Also, the term spikes every election. Entity563 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Google search factoids should be removed. They're pointless trivia with little analysis in high-quality sources, and potentially misleading as you stated. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, there is little point to having them on here, it was not a important thing for the election. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 09:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Since there have been no objections, I went ahead and removed the Google search trends. — Chrisahn (talk) 18:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two issues with this sentence: "Trump won the national popular vote with a plurality of 49.8%, making him the first Republican to do so since George W. Bush in 2004 but with what was the third smallest popular vote margin since 1888"

First, "win" in the context of US popular vote is not really applicable as the word implies success or victory; the popular vote has no relevance in success or victory of a US president since it is only a majority of electoral votes that determines a "win". Therefore, it would be more accurate to state that "Trump won a plurality of the popular vote" or "... garnered a plurality".

Second, the conjunction "but" should be followed by a clear contrast. Using "third smallest' and "1888" as a baseline is random as there is not clear justification. Furthermore, it is appear to be incorrect; there seems to be 5 other elections since and including the 1888 election: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/presidential-election-mandates TeamX (talk) 00:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the second point: Thanks for the source! I guess the authors of the NYT source [1] didn't include the 1888 election and didn't include the elections with negative popular vote margin (Bush 2000, Trump 2016). That's how they ended up with only two elections with smaller (but positive) popular vote margins (Kennedy 1960, Nixon 1968). I'd say the NYT is technically correct, but I agree these choices are rather arbitrary. It's cherry-picking, really. We should delete the claim "third smallest popular vote margin since 1888". — Chrisahn (talk) 16:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the trivial second clause. As for the PV, Trump did "win" it. Similarly, Harris won the state of New York. Neither is determinant of the overall election, but then it is not implied that they are. GreatCaesarsGhost 13:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Should we also clean up the following in Analysis of results?
Trump numerically performed with 49.8% of the vote, one of the smallest margins of victory since 1888, with his 1.48%[1][2] victory smaller than every winning president other than two: John F. Kennedy in 1960 and Richard Nixon in 1968.[3]

References

  1. ^ "2024 National Popular Vote Tracker". Cook Political Report. Retrieved November 29, 2024.
  2. ^ Kilgore, Ed (November 22, 2024). "Trump Has Lost His Popular-Vote Majority". New York Magazine. Archived from the original on November 26, 2024. Retrieved November 26, 2024.
  3. ^ Baker, Peter (November 22, 2024). "The 'Landslide' That Wasn't: Trump and Allies Pump Up His Narrow Victory". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 25, 2024. Retrieved November 26, 2024.
Again, the 1888 cutoff seems arbitrary, and the distinction between positive and negative margins is implicit but unexplained. I'd say the claim "smaller than every winning president other than two" is actually incorrect, since the somewhat intricate conditions under which it becomes true are not clearly stated.
— Chrisahn (talk) 13:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, but leave it for discussion before executing. GreatCaesarsGhost 19:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest changing the sentence to the following, keeping the same sources:
Trump won 49.8% of the popular vote, with a 1.48% margin of victory.
If nobody objects, I'll change it in a few days. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also ought to be mentioned that a majority (plurality) of eligible voters in the United States don't bother to show up, making any talk about a "win" or a "mandate" misleading at best.
The no-shows outnumber the voters for any one candidate. Were a quorum require, the past "winners" probably would not have. Drcampbell (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why the all talk about "he didn't win majority" is misleading as well. Imagine if more people showed up. Even 20-30% more voters it would've been sufficient to put him just above 50.01%.213.230.86.21 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

biased

Lots of criticism of Trump's campaign, calling it authoritarian, fascist, etc... nothing on Harris falsely claiming that Trump would sign a national abortion ban. Mazerks (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

except, no, it does not. it lists reputable sources for many people saying this, it does not attempt to claim his campaign as authoritarian or facist, nor does it not, it was literally a major attack argument from opposing parties. this does not violate WP:NPOV in any way.
and if you believe that more should be said about harris, feel free to edit the article, as long as you adhere to WP:NPOV, and be sure that your changes are constructive and differ from your previous contributions. - avxktty (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's biased. Just because nobody puts some reference to Kamala's plagiarism or her adultery or any of her other liabilities does not mean they don't belong in the discussion if the article references Trump criticism as well. Lots of negative things said about Kamala by reputable sources that are closer to the unbiased center than the Washington Post. Media bias doesn't belong in encyclopedia articles. The article needs to be balanced. 2603:8000:1BF0:AAF0:5B57:30DB:3DC8:62F9 (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you are free to create an account and edit wikipedia instead of roaming this comment section namecalling and accusing the article of being biased..? or provide sources indicating those are significant if you really feel this strongly. it's not really that constructive what you're doing right now. - avxktty (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Harris made that prediction, yes, but we can't know it is false until his term ends. Trump has gone back and forth on abortion for years. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

anachronistic Trump portait

title 5.151.189.244 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we using a picture taken after the election to illustrate a candidate in the election? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to using the 2017 presidential portrait? Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As opposed to a picture that actually shows him during the campaign. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Khajidha. It is standard in election articles to use a picture of the candidates during the campaign, if available. There was substantial turmoil on this talk which resulted in the 2017 portrait being used up until the election itself, but now that the dust has settled, one of the many pictures from during the campaign should be used instead. — Goszei (talk) 02:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the standard for presidential candidates that actually win their election.. We usually use the presidential portrait. Prcc27 (talk) 02:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the presidential election articles back to 1976. Most of them use a portrait of the winner that was taken after the election or even after the inauguration. There are a few exceptions, e.g. 1996 United States presidential election uses a 1993 portrait of Clinton. — Chrisahn (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't answer the question, though. "We do it" is not an answer to "why do we do this?" Why do we use a picture not from the election to illustrate the election?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it might make more sense to show the candidates as they looked during the campaign. On the other hand, I like consistency, and if these other articles use photos taken after the election, we might as well do that here. A possible answer to "why?" might be "because that's what he looked like after he won, and winning is the most important part of the election". Either way, I don't really have a preference. — Chrisahn (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From my perspective, our ibox images of the candidates should be portrait-quality images from dates as close to the election as possible. I think that for many articles on previous elections, as referenced by other editors above, there are no such images readily available (most likely from the campaign), in which case the next best choice is indeed the inaugural portrait after the election. — Goszei (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let’s also not forget that a few months ago we couldn’t get consensus on which campaign trail photo to use. Most/all of the public domain photos were not presidential portrait quality. Prcc27 (talk) 23:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They aren't presidential portraits, so I'm not sure why that matters. Were they good illustrations of the candidate during the election? That's what's needed.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They weren’t. All of the photographs were terrible, at least in my opinion. The only good photographs, unfortunately, were not public domain. Prcc27 (talk) 18:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would have to be extremely bad for me not to prefer it over the factually incorrect current photo. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which photo do you propose we use? Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. I haven't seen the options. Can you tell me where to find them? But, as I said before, the fact that the current picture does not illustrate Trump during the election is utterly disqualifying for me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Donald Trump and Commons:Category:Donald Trump. If you just want to focus on last year, Commons:Category:Donald Trump in 2024. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw lots of pictures there that looked perfectly fine to me. For example, this one: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Donald_Trump_in_June_2024#/media/File:Donald_Trump_(53788147813)_(cropped).jpg --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s a horrible pic. Look at the uncropped version; the background is a portrait of Trump. Prcc27 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see what the background of the uncropped picture has to do with using the cropped picture. And how is it a "horrible" picture? Looks like a perfectly fine headshot to me. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
His nose is in the background in the cropped version. Even if you can’t exactly tell what the background is, I just think the photo does not meet the standard of a “presidential” photograph. Prcc27 (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The background in the cropped version is just a pink blur, doesn't matter that it's his nose. And I'd say the photo is much more "presidential" than the official portrait, which looks like a villain in a cheap 1960s Western movie. An unintentional Lee van Cleef caricature. :-) — Chrisahn (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why do people keep talking about whether it looks presidential? It isn't a picture of a president. It's a picture of a candidate. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 00:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Likely because there was an intent to update the Trump photo with his presidential portrait if he won. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which makes no sense. The presidential portrait belongs on the presidency page. This is the election page. I simply cannot understand the idea of using the presidential portrait to illustrate the candidate. It would be like using a picture of an NFL quarterback in an article or section of an article that dealt exclusively with his time playing college football. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:03, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point: the reason we use the official portrait is because it's professionally done: well lit, focused and framed. The current one looks like absolute garbage. But then again, he chose it! GreatCaesarsGhost 13:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, the current photo makes the most sense to me, as it is the closest photo to the election date that editors would actually agree upon (whether it was 2 months prior to the election or 2 months after I really don't see the big deal). That being said, in all honesty if I had my way I would eliminate all presidential portraits for a more 'candid' style as seen in primary election articles, with 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries as an example, but as we are using them now and for the foreseeable future, the current picture is the best option. Yeoutie (talk) 20:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You don't see it as a big deal that it explicitly isn't from the election? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 02:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Generally, we do so in other election articles and there was a consensus to use the official portrait for his second presidency when created. (Granted, it isn't clear that this is the official portrait, the copyright is murky, and this picture looks worse than the prior one...) --Super Goku V (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's hard to believe, but he really chose this weird photo as the official portrait. https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/donald-j-trump/ — Chrisahn (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not fully sure if that is the official portrait. Just that it is in use on the website for The White House. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a high quality, freely-licensed photo of him from the campaign would be ideal. Such as this one. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 00:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the picture

Prcc27 (talk) 01:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

shouldn't the picture be from one before the election happened? 78.150.88.150 (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See #anachronistic Trump portait. — Chrisahn (talk) 13:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Voter suppression - Greg Palast

https://www.gregpalast.com/trump-lost-vote-suppression-won/

If the details of Palast's report are verifiable, can it be cited in this article directly or is third-party coverage necessary? 2A02:C7C:E462:1200:C5C:2059:1CBA:7825 (talk) 00:27, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His WP:SELFPUBLISHED website won't work. We would need third-party WP:RS. Or, if he's a recognized expert in the field, it could be used with attribution. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get a better picture of Trump.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Get a better picture of Trump. 96.18.59.118 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Get a better ability to read a talk page before adding redundant grumblings. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 30 January 2025

No removal, just adding new info (in the County Statistics section)

Closest Counties in 2024: Talbot, MD (R+0.026%) Bucks, PA (R+0.073%) Tippecanoe, IN (R+0.15%) Green, WI (D+0.27%) Oktibbeha, MS (R+0.28%) Firecyyy (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 02:29, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I just wanted to add this data to the county statistics section next to the "most Republican" and "most Democratic" counties. Also, the source would just be election results. Firecyyy (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assassination Attempt

Seriously why is there no mention of the numerous assissination attemps on Trump during the campaign? Seems pretty notable to have at least one mention in the paragraph about him. 176.27.154.223 (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You will find that they are both covered at 2024 United States presidential election#Assassination attempts. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can't people at least do a simple CTRL+F before becoming righteously indignant? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indignant? Please.You and I both know it should be mentioned in the lead as a significant campaign event. I believe it was there until someone removed it a while back. 176.27.154.223 (talk) 10:28, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, because it wasn't as big of a deal as you make it out to be. The press treated it more like someone narrowly avoiding a fatal car accident than like someone being shot at. "Oh, wow! That was a close call! ... okay, next story, please." --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You said "no mention" initially, nothing about the article's lead. It doesn't belong there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In Background? Given equal time with ballot box fires? Really? I don't think the references to the multiple assassination attempts on a presidential candidate were buried deep enough, someone who hasn't made up their mind about the rights and wrongs of the election may still find them. This whole article was written by laid off federal workers, I guess. Can't you guys do this bashing and undermining on your own social media? It doesn't belong here and none of it will last. I know there are some Right-wing loons who would be willing to take this article over if the people here can't get it right. I'm fairly mid-center politically, in case you're asking, and I find this article very unprofessional. 2603:8000:1BF0:AAF0:5B57:30DB:3DC8:62F9 (talk) 23:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to including it in the lead. I am worried about the lead becoming too verbose though. And I do wonder if including it is WP:DUE, or if keeping it in the body is sufficient. Nevertheless, please remember to assume good faith. Accusing people of being laid off federal workers does nothing to improve our article. Prcc27 (talk) 06:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative maps

Putitonamap98 is deleting maps showing Presidential results by legislative district for the various states that are linked to in the results section. I don't know how others feel, but I feel this is very useful information that he is deleting. Jpweber777 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpweber777: Can you point me to an edit they made as I am not seeing much on my end. Pinging Putitonamap98 to get their attention. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Oh, and a quick note, they likely are not deleting the maps due to how Wikipedia works. Maybe removing their link on an article, but not deleting them.) --Super Goku V (talk) 08:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parties missing

The vote totals for several parties seem to be missing. (or they're buried where I couldn't find them?) Drcampbell (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3A2024_United_States_presidential_election