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)

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

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

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

I finally got a hold of a WV official result, and that has been added to the state table - it just added less than 200 votes for "other" candidates, so I updated the grand totals at the end of the table for that as well. Guy1890 (talk) 22:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

If that does indeed complete the count, then perhaps someone now reconcile the discrepancies I mentioned way down near the bottom of this Talk page:

(A) the information box at the top shows Trump with 77,269,255 (49.9%) and Harris with 74,983,555 (48.4%)

(B) the fifth paragraph of the lead says that Trump has "a plurality of 49.8%"

(C) the box at the top of Results section shows Trump with 77,302,169 (49.74%), Harris with 75,015,834 (48.27%), Stein with 861,141 (0.55%), Kennedy with 756,377 (0.49%), Oliver with 650,142 (0.42%), and Other with 833,975 (0.54%), for a total of 155,419,638

(D) the Total line in the Results by State table shows Trump with 77,302,170 (49.8%), Harris with 75,015,837 (48.3%), Stein with 860,142 (0.6%), Kennedy with 756,377 (0.5%), Oliver with 650,142 (0.4%), and Others with 619,233 (0.4%), for a total of 155,206,823

That is: the state table has a total with 212,815 fewer votes than the top Results box, and this is based mostly on "Other(s)" having 214,742 fewer votes in the state table than in that box. (Based on copying the Results by State table to an Excel spreadsheet, I think there are also some small math errors in the table here: see the columns for Jill Stein (short by 85) and for Others (short by 2,939) and the row for Utah (over by 33). Is a formula here skipping one or more cells?)

That top box in Results here sources its totals to "The Green Papers" (which does seem to be a treasure trove of useful information), but apparently hasn't been updated here since Dec. 2. Checking that Green Papers source now (Dec. 17), I see a total of 155,627,481, i.e., 207,843 more votes than on the Results box and 420,658 more votes than in this article's Results by State table. Here's how that breaks down by state between this article's table ("Wiki") and The Green Papers ("TGP"), with the differences shown indicating the shortfall (it's a shortfall in all but one case) in this article's table:

Colorado: 3,190,873 (Wiki) vs. 3,192,745 (TGP) = -1,872

Delaware: 511,697 (Wiki) vs. 512,912 (TGP) = -1,215

District of Columbia: 325,869 (Wiki) vs. 328,404 (TGP) = -2,535

Georgia: 5,250,047 (Wiki) vs. 5,250,905 (TGP) = -858

Hawaii: 516,701 (Wiki) vs. 522,236 (TGP) = -5,535

Idaho: 904,812 (Wiki) vs. 917,466 (TGP) = -12,654

Iowa: 1,663,506 (Wiki) vs. 1,674,011 (TGP) = -10,505

Maine: 830,989 (Wiki) vs. 842,447 (TGP) = -11,458

Massachusetts: 3,473,653 (Wiki) vs. 3,512,866 (TGP) = -39,212

Minnesota: 3,253,920 (Wiki) vs. 3,254,890 (TGP) = -970

Montana: 602,984 (Wiki) vs. 602,990 (TGP) = -6

New Hampshire: 826,189 (Wiki) vs. 831,033 (TGP) = -4,844

New York: 8,262,495 (Wiki) vs. 8,380,458 (TGP) = -117,963

North Carolina: 5,699,145 (Wiki) vs. 5,699,156 (TGP) = -11

Utah: 1,488,043 (Wiki) vs. 1,693,398 (TGP) = -205,355

Vermont: 369,422 (Wiki) vs. 372,885 (TGP) = -3,463

West Virginia: 762,584 (Wiki) vs. 762,575 (TGP) = +9

Wyoming: 269,048 (Wiki) vs. 271,123 (TGP) = -2,075

The one exception is West Virginia, which you note you just updated today. By comparison to the Certificate of Ascertainment from West Virginia which is the source for that line in this article's table, it turns out the reason that The Green Papers has 9 fewer votes than shown here is that it doesn't include the votes of five candidates who each received fewer than 10 votes. So Wikipedia was more accurate than The Green Papers for West Virginia.

But what about the other states? The biggest discrepancy is Utah, so I'm checking that one first. Here it seems The Green Papers has a significant error. I've written to that site to suggest a correction, so it may be fixed by the time I finish typing this. The Green Papers shows 204,904 in Invalid Write-In votes in Utah (votes for people who were not registered in advance as write-in candidates), but the state's canvas indicates that The Green Papers added a zero, and the correct number of such votes is 24,904:

https://vote.utah.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/42/2024/11/2024-General-Election-Statewide-Canvass.pdf

On the other hand, that state page (1) doesn't include those 24,904 votes in its total votes cast and (2) also doesn't include anything to the right of the column showing 33 votes for candidate Steve M. Johnson: it's missing the 1 vote for Andre R. McNeil, the 441 votes for Peter Sonski, and the 9 votes for "Future Madam Potus." The state seems to have cut off the sum function on the Excel table on which that pdf is based (a table which, in contrast to the 2020 results, is not available online) so that it didn't count the last five columns. Accordingly, Utah's correct totals should be as shown on Wikipedia for Trump, Harris, Stein, Kennedy, and Oliver (all of which match the state's totals) but the number for Utah in the Others column should be increased from 16,502 to 41,890 as the sum of the following:

24,904 -- Invalid Write-In

8,402 -- Joel Skousen

3,189 -- Claudia de la Cruz

2,653 -- Lucifer J. Everylove

2,199 -- Cornel R. West

441 -- Peter Sonski

59 -- Jay J. Bowman

33 -- Steve M. Johnson

9 -- Future M. Potus

1 - Andre R. McNeil

Most of the invalid write-in votes in Utah were presumably for RFK Jr., who was not on the ballot there.

That brings Utah's total to 1,513,398.

I'm going to pause here before looking into New York, Massachusetts, Idaho, Maine, Iowa, and the other states whose totals on the state table here differ from The Green Pages. NME Frigate (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Welp. The Certificate of Ascertainment submitted by Utah simply omits those 24,904 "invalid write-in" votes altogether. Should that fact at least get a footnote? NME Frigate (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

OK, briefly on New York: the difference between the Green Papers total of 8,380,458 and the total of 8,262,495 on the state table here is that The Green Papers includes 71,559 blank ballots (which obviously should not be counted) and 46,404 "void" ballots. The latter probably consists mostly of disallowed write-in votes for RFK Jr. and some other candidates, but some could be simply illegible. That number seems large enough to merit a note of some sort here. NME Frigate (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

And finally, it's clear from checking Massachusetts that the approximate difference of 39,000 votes between The Green Papers and this article's state totals is that The Green Papers listed 39,262 "blank" ballots. NME Frigate (talk) 02:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

• The results in the state-by-state table aren't calculated at all by some script - they have been placed there by someone (mostly me, but a few other people as well). Anyone can change them, if they have a valid source for an updated number. Like I've said before, the National Archives will likely be the best clearinghouse for official 2024 state results. The table here uses that link as a reference in a few spots already. I dunno why you're comparing results with the Green Papers (that's a source I haven't heard of in years - didn't know they were still around even), and I lot of the discrepancies that you've noted can likely come down to how the various states have treated "blank votes" (which aren't votes) or write-in/also-rans which had little to do with the outcomes of those elections. When the states report their official results, they have to account for all votes, while many secondary sources don't tend to care about that kind of minutiae. I do remember the (current?) state source for results in MA treating blank ballots in an odd way. Guy1890 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

  If your question is directed at me (I can't tell), then the reason that I was comparing the state table to The Green Papers is that this article itself already linked to The Green Papers as the source for the information in the top box of the Results section. I was suggesting that someone who has the ability to edit here (this article shows for me as locked) make those numbers consistent. Right now, for example, the state table says that Donald Trump received 49.8% of the vote but the Results box says that he received 49.74% of the vote. (And the information box at the top of the article says that he received 49.9%.)

  As for the disallowed write-ins, I agree that they won't change any outcome, but I wonder how to account for them when reporting the national popular vote, especially when there are so many. The "invalid write-in" votes from Utah and the "void" write-in votes from New York add up to more than 70,000 votes overall. If someone checks this article to learn how many votes were cast for president nationally in 2024, is that 155,206,823 as currently shown in the state table? Or is the "correct" number closer to 155,277,000? NME Frigate (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

When your opinion is contrary to facts, it is false. It may be "your opinion" that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't change the fact that it is not flat. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

It's not a fact that it wasn't "rigged" or "election interference". It's an opinion based on your own interpretation. Scientific facts aren't open for interpretation like the motivations behind a criminal trial. Rxm1054 (talk) 18:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

When someone commits crimes, prosecuting them for them is not "rigging" anything. If being prosecuted for your own criminal acts interferes with your electoral chances, that is on YOU. Not the prosecutor. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you if they did commit the crime. And while I know that he has been found guilty I hold the opinion that he was charged due to political motivations. The reasons for me thinking that are these:

1. Why now? This happened 15+ years ago.
2. Why did she say that it did not happen when it first came out years ago?
3. Why so many felony counts? Sure he may have made 32 payments, but they are for one advent not 32 advents.
4. Why did they allow a judge that had so much prejudice against him?
5. Why did they only have people that were against Trump speak in court?

All of this seems like there was prior motive for this court case. I understand that this is only my opinion. I am fine if someone else has their own opinion and they are free to state it if they wish.

@Khajidha Please try to keep it civil, you using the ALLCAPS makes it seem that you are shouting. A better way would have been to use Italic's or Bold, they don't give the impression that you are shouting but still give force/meaning to what you say. Just a recommendation. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

1. & 2. When sex is involved, people quite often don't make accusations at the time. Look at all the rape and sexual assault cases that come out years later. They also often deny it. Even to themselves. There are elements of personal shame involved.

3. Separate payments = separate charges. I don't see a problem here.

4. From my vantage point, the judge showed far too much deference to him. Any other defendant would have spent multiple nights in lock up for contempt.

5. This is a blatant falsehood. Both Daniel Sitko and Robert Costello testified for the defense.

I hardly think that using caps for a single word would indicate shouting. That would just be silly. Why would I shout a single word? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok after review you are correct on 1.,2. & 5. but it still seems to me like they went over board with 32 charges. The event is what mattered - would it have been any better if he payed 1 large amount rather then 32 smaller amounts? My point is the fact there were 32 payments does not increase the amount of damage that was done. And that judge had it in for him right from the start - which is unconstitutional "you are innocent until proven guilty" and the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other in cases, but that is a lot harder to do when you are wildly known and liked or hated as Trump is.

I do not mean to get you upset - I just was pointing it out as it is harder to gauge how people are trying to use ALLCAPS in relation to angerly shouting at you. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:54, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

"the judge in the US is to not have prejudice to one side or the other" Sounds like a fairy tale. The judges typically side with specific political factions or with whoever offers the best bribes. Dimadick (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

You may think that, but it is the law in the US. Sorry. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

So you're of the opinion that it wasn't rigged. Others are of the opinion that it was. Neither are false. A legitimate encyclopedic entry does not describe certain opinions as false. When that happens it means the editor has bias and is describing opinions they disagree with as false. Rxm1054 (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The opinion that it was rigged IS false and it's WP:FALSEBALANCE to suggest the possibility that it is true. It's WP:FRINGE to promote this view, not "editorial bias". – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. Whoever wrote this article about the 2024 election made it no secret that he/she is a registered democrat/Harris supporter. The claim that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is completely false and misleading. And that's just one example of the biased tone of this article. AstrosFan30 (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

The statement that Trump engaged in "anti-immigrant fearmongering" is very well sourced. There is a little superscript (a) beside the words, which links to ten different sources. This is how Wikipedia works. If reliable sources say something, we can say it here. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

But that's an opinion about him. There's a big difference between whoever at the NYT is of the opinion that Trump engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering and stating it as a matter of fact.

If you took an opinion from a right wing source about the Harris campaign engaging in fear mongering stating their opponent is a threat to democracy it would be equally incorrect.

Just because a reliable source expresses an opinion doesn't mean you state it as a matter of fact. Rxm1054 (talk) 19:30, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

FFS. It's TEN reliable sources!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Then you state that whoever from wherever is of the opinion that he engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering. You don't state the opinions of journalists as facts. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

That's not "opinion", it's "reporting". Do you understand the difference? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's both if a journalist is reporting their opinions on a presidential candidate. An encyclopedia is supposed to be a collection of facts. Not a collection of opinions.

Saying that this journalist claimed a candidate engaged in anti-immigrant fear mongering is a statement of fact.

Taking their opinion and presenting it as a matter of fact is something else.

If you take a journalist claiming that Kamala is "pushing a radical far-left agenda" and state it as Kamala Harris pushed a radical far-left agenda during her campaign you can't expect anyone to think that's a legitimate encyclopedic entry or not biased. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Well, that has more to do with the fact that she isn't "far left" at all. Trump, on the other hand, has used Nazi imagery and terminology. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 17:06, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

She's described herself as radical. That doesn't mean it's a fact and should be presented as factual information in an encyclopedia. That's an opinion about her. Rxm1054 (talk) 17:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

She's described herself as radical Say what? Provide a source for that. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

She does literally say that phrase here but if I'm being honest I find it pretty strange that the full clip of her saying it in context is extremely difficult to find Big Thumpus (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for that. Even with that little context, she's clearly saying it tongue-in-cheek. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all. But I respectfully disagree; 7 seconds is not enough context to define what she means by "radical" or why it might be said in a tongue-in-cheek manner. I'm sure a longer clip would make it abundantly clear but so far I can't find one... Big Thumpus (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd bet anything it was in reference to a mainstream policy that Republicans called "radical", but I also cannot find the greater context. This is an irrelevant tangent anyway. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

It's to try to get you to understand that opinions by journalists that characterize a presidential candidate based on their opinions about them that don't belong in an encyclopedia. If you can understand that's the case with one candidate then your bias is the only thing preventing you from accepting it as a general principle. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

“I am radical. I do believe we need to get radical about what we are doing,” she said.

Washington Times

But remember even if a source takes this quote and describes her as a far left radical that's still an opinion and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Rxm1054 (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

So he didn't say that they were eating the pets? He didn't say that they would cut your throat? Or that they were murdering women? Or that immigrant gangs had taken over cities? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not the question of did he say those things, but are they happening. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Which they aren't. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Then show what he said. Not add an opinion about what he said as a statement of fact. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

AstrosFan30, does your user name refer to astroturfing? Dimadick (talk) 01:05, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Probably refers to the Houston Astros. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 24 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)

I have checked into this some.

The correct number of Trump votes is is 77,302,170.

The information box at top right is supposed to be using the AP numbers, but the AP numbers are not even as close to accurate as the boxes below.

The box at the top of the Results section is based on the Green Papers.

The reason for the discrepancy with the Green Papers is North Carolina, so I looked at North Carolina.

The Green Papers numbers for North Carolina in the box at the top of Results section are all goofy, and I do not know where they come from.

The Green Papers numbers numbers short Trump one vote. The numbers short Harris three votes, which is reflected at the box at the top of the Results section. They then give Claudia De la Cruz two extra votes. They then add in 13 write-in votes, which do not appear in the official North Carolina numbers. This puts North Carolina off 11 votes from the official numbers, which are accurately reflected in the state-by-state box.

The numbers for the state-by-state box for North Carolina are the ones that are with the National Archives. The numbers from the Green Papers are wrong.

This does not explain the entirety of the discrepancy, but I would hazard to guess that the state-by-state box is more accurate, and that the error lies with the Green Papers.

The three boxes should be made to match.

Also, the state-by-state box should be expanded to the hundredths of a percent, like all other Presidential Election state-by-state boxes. The 2024 election is the only one that only displays the result to the tenth. I believe that this is because the information is so new. But it still should be corrected eventually. I started the process yesterday, but I did want to verify that the numbers in the state-by-state box were correct before proceeding and causing more mischief. Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 00:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. As noted in my several replies near the top of the page, The Green Papers has some quirks and should only be cited with care (e.g., making sure not to include "blank" ballots). So as you indicate, the Results by State table here, allowing for a few final minor adjustments, is basically correct, and the main Results box, and the information box at the top of the article should be adjusted to match. And it seems the table will show totals, once formatted to show hundredths as you indicate is the norm for prior elections, of 49.81% Trump, 48.33% Harris, 0.55% for Stein, 0.49% for Kennedy, 0.42% for Oliver, and 0.40% for Others.

That just leaves the question of whether the 24,904 "invalid write-in" votes in Utah and 46,404 "void" votes in New York are significant enough, compared to such votes in past elections, to merit a note of some kind. (Although even if those are indeed votes for Kennedy, and even if they had been counted as such, there wouldn't be much difference: the percentages would become 49.78% Trump, 48.31% Harris, 0.55% Stein, 0.53% Kennedy, 0.42% Oliver, and 0.40% Others. Although if the same reason explains why Idaho, Maine, and Iowa each vary by more than 10,000 votes between The Green Papers and this page, it might have been enough to put Kennedy ahead of Stein overall.) NME Frigate (talk) 02:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

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

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)

What about this image? It's early November 2024, it would work until January.

File:President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, on the South Portico of the White House (cropped).jpg WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 04:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Woops, here's the actual link:

File:President-elect Donald Trump, Wednesday, November 13, 2024, on the South Portico of the White House (cropped).jpg WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 04:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Truthfully I don't see the point in doing this, it's a temporary image that'll be there for a month until he's sworn in, let's just wait for the official portrait. TheFellaVB (talk) 23:48, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Alright. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 23:51, 23 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)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. PianoDan (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Change the original text to the new text below it with the same source. Rxm1054 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

No, we won't be doing that. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ok keep the editorial and opinions instead of stating factual information. Rxm1054 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's a fact that Trump and many Republicans have made numerous false and misleading statements about the criminal trials and elections. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Is believing a trial is rigged or election interference a fact or an opinion? Rxm1054 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

You can even say it's an unverified or unproven opinion. But to say an opinion about an election or criminal trial is false shows bias. Rxm1054 (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Electoral college

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

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

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 December 2024

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

Some votes are still being counted on Dec. 20

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

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

• source: https://x.com/Redistrict/status/1870202633241166217

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

Very weird if true. Prcc27 (talk) 21:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Kentucky State Board of Elections website shows that the certification was amended on Dec. 9, which is before the electors voted (https://elect.ky.gov/results/2020-2029/Pages/2024.aspx). Just because someone reports on it today doesn't mean it happened today. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for looking into that more closely. NME Frigate (talk) 04:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

In the past vote totals have been adjusted well into the following year because ballots were found someplace, or after lawsuits, so this isn't entirely unusual. Peter NYC (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

• I've updated the KY results with the pdf from the National Archives, which is from December 9, 2024. Guy1890 (talk) 01:39, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Please change the turnout reference:

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

to:

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

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

Adding templates

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

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

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

Nancy Mace and stating the obvious.

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

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

Kentucky's Margin swing

Kentucky's margin swing is 4.59% and I can't add it because the page is protected. Pollwatcher1234 (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

`

Where are other candidates in infobox?

Where are other candidates in infobox? 202.47.36.141 (talk) 02:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

You don't get included, if you get less than 5% of the popular vote & 0 electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

After all, what was the result of the election?

The article's main infobox and the "Results" infobox cite discrepant results because they use different sources. The 1st cites the AP website [note 2] and the second cites Greenpapers [note 588]. I think we should unify the information 2804:D41:F827:7600:4DB1:A3D0:DB12:98B4 (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)