Talk:2024 United States presidential election

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Trump definitively stated it's a matter for the states. There is no constitutional right to abortion and the constitution also does not confer on the federal government the right to legislate on it, therefore it is also constitutionally a matter for the states. Mazerks (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

That's what he said last summer. Back in 1999 he was pro-choice. In between he has bounced all over the place about national vs states, exceptions or not, and whether to punish doctors (and even the women). And the ability to have an abortion falls under bodily autonomy, which is inherent in all rights. If a woman cannot make decisions about her own body, then she has no liberty and cannot pursue happiness.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

A woman’s bodily rights do not give her the right to violate her baby’s bodily rights. Abortion is actually unconstitutional under the 14th amendment since it violates that amendment’s provisions for the right to life. JesusIsLord444 (talk) 17:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It does not violate, even the most conservative federalist society judges agree that though the Constitution doesn't guarantee abortion according to their textualist and originalist interpretation, it can be codified through an act of congress. Theofunny (talk) 19:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Stop. The last three to five comments have been off-topic. Might be collapsed or deleted. See WP:TALKOFFTOPIC. — Chrisahn (talk) 19:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

not biased if it’s objectively correct lol 24.94.18.96 (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Completely agree. Extremely biased paragraph at the start. That belongs in the New York Times opinion section, not Wikipedia. 155.190.21.5 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Huh? The first paragraph is 100% factual. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Interpretations are not facts.

“Her face has a crooked nose.” fact

”Her face is ugly.” interpretation of facts

”Her face is considered ugly in this society.” fact

Don’t need Fox News reporting in Wikipedia 73.77.85.118 (talk) 19:52, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree this is extreme confirmation bias. The articles used for citation all come from extremely left leaning media outlets with no counter balance. It is not objective but extremely subjective material! Do better Wikipedia… 98.16.161.76 (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

agreed. we need to be objective, not subjective. all of the sources for the anti-trump parts of the election come from left wing sources (such as the Washington post). WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

It's not WP's fault that a significant number of "right wing" sources parrot blatant lies or misleading information. If there were more right wing sources that don't blatantly lie or mislead, then there would be no problem adding them or the information they contain. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

i feel like there are definetly unbiased sources WP can use. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Feel free to actually put some out. Please review the perennially discussed list of sources, and the discussions linked from that table, to determine why any specific source is not considered reliable. The general reasoning is that any source that has published misinformation/lies outside of breaking news without correcting them to be accurate does not have editorial policies that suggest it's a reliable source. Some of the most common "right wing" sources have repeatedly published misinformation/outright lies and have still, to this day, not issued retractions or corrections - including Breitbart, Fox News, Newsmax, etc. It doesn't matter why they published false information.. it matters that they did it and never corrected it. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 01:52, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I checked the list - how are MSNBC and Vox considered to be reliable sources? In what world? There needs to be a serious dicussion about the listed sources there, because Vox is just as biased as Fox News or even Newsmax. Just saying.

Also, I will dig through the full article and find some specific examples of left-wing/anti-Trump bias, and will add some reccomendations once this analysis is completed. Looking forward to further collaboration in order to improve this article. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 06:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Bias and reliability are two separate things. Reliability is based on whether the source has a reputation for fact-checking and reporting accurate, truthful information. Again, you should read the discussions linked on the table to understand why sources are unreliable. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but i'm referring to the parts of the article that sound extremely opinionated and politically biased, such as the part where they call Trump a fascist and so on. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 04:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I just checked. NO part of the article calls Trump a fascist. HiLo48 (talk) 04:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

im not saying the article calls Trump a fascist, it merely implies that he is. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it): Making wide, non-specific claims like "sound extremely opinionated" is not going to do anything. Please quote specific parts of the article that you think are "extremely opinionated" and/or "politically biased".

Please note that just because you don't like facts, or because most of the facts about Trump are negative, does not mean it is "politically biased" or "opinionated". It would, on the other hand, be politically biased (and equivalent to whitewashing) if we were to avoid reporting on notable negative information about Trump just to make him look better. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 04:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

im working on making a full list, but this part of the article really struck me as politically biased/opinionated:

"His political movement was described by historians and former Trump administration officials as authoritarian, featuring parallels to fascism, and using dehumanizing rhetoric toward his political opponents." -while this is true, his chief of staff called him a fascist to the core, the way that it's written and the fact that it's put in such a major part of the article feels a bit biased, there definetly could be some rewriting done.

Let me know how you feel about this version of saying it:

Several former Trump administration officials described Trump and his campaign as fascist, and attacked him for allegedly using dehumanizing rhetoric toward opponents. WIKIPEDA (yes i meant to misspell it) (talk) 05:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Also listing all these “falsehoods” stated by the Trump campaign but not mentioning all the falsehoods stated by Biden and Harris. 2601:584:101:B0D0:35B3:B1DF:14F4:FCB0 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

No, because that makes it sound like "disgruntled fired employees said these things", when it's not just former officials but independent historians from both sides of the aisle. You also removed one of the most important and relevant claims - that his style was (and is) authoritarian. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 06:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

anachronistic Trump portait

title 5.151.189.244 (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (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. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

As opposed to using the 2017 presidential portrait? Prcc27 (talk) 19:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

As opposed to a picture that actually shows him during the campaign. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 21:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Which photo do you propose we use? Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

I saw lots of pictures there that looked perfectly fine to me. For example, this one: http://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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Harris's photo is from 4 years ago so I would sooner change that one than Trump's from a strict length-of-time angle. Again, I would love if we changed to non-presidential portraits for these election articles like I stated above, but if we insist on using official portraits the current would be the best option. Yeoutie (talk) 17:24, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I would support changing that one, too. There is a difference between the two, though. The Harris picture actually existed during the time in question, the Trump one did not. There could have been Harris ads using the picture we use, there could not have been Trump ads using the picture we have of him. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

The picture goes with the overall thrust of the article and Wikipedia in general, which is anti-Trump. It could have used the 2020 picture, which was the same as the 2016 photo. ABC used that photo in advertising his debate with Harris. The article could use any other photo with better lighting and Trump smiling. Instead it goes with the one that makes him look menacing. It's like using Time's darkened photo of OJ Simpson.

Trump released that photo for use. Is Trump trying to make himself look menacing? And, if so, couldn't that indicate that the left was right?--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

 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)

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)

He just did 75.161.250.144 (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Can't people at least do a simple CTRL+F before becoming righteously indignant? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

It literally made worldwide news for a few weeks. The image of Trump raising his fist was plastered across every tv screen both when it happened and at every stage of the campaign and especially on election day. To argue it wasn’t significant is frankly ridiculous. 2001:8003:7C54:900:D19F:DA52:B795:3D2A (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

You said "no mention" initially, nothing about the article's lead. It doesn't belong there. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

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)

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)

Israeli Influence in the Campaign

This article mentions three foreign powers that may have influenced the 2024 United States presidential election campaign while omitting Israeli Foreign interference in the 2024 United States elections.[1][2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] 2601:603:4E80:9610:A957:1FD9:B3F2:9C86 (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism

The vandalism is becoming viral on Reddit and X. Other pages may be targeted. Theofunny (talk) 14:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Not useful, discussion quickly deteriorated. See WP:TALK and WP:GODWIN. — Chrisahn (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Vandalism is lame albeit it is not far fetched labeling him as such. However, biases and opinions aside, Wikipedia should be neutral, or atleast try to. JebKermun (talk) 19:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Donald Trump is clearly not Adolf Hitler and the Republican Party is not NSDAP. It was egregious vandalism. Theofunny (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC) That’s a very childish way to view the vandalism. If an individual tried to falsify your legacy you would be crying foul obviously. If you disagree with your own rhetoric bias don’t bring it up at all. 2600:100F:A100:64B9:D152:17DE:795B:E370 (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC) This is serious , what hitler did was terrible and to liken a democratically elected official to hitler is very disrespectful to victims and those who suffered under hitler and borders on evil 75.161.250.144 (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC) No 2A00:23C8:D4D7:1201:1BA9:5840:9217:22D2 (talk) 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Sheeeesh! Fix the Results Table, Please!

"Results by State" is the most useful and most important section in the entire page.

It's now been scrunched down and a horizontal scroll-bar must be used to view the table. Unacceptable. Jamesdowallen (talk) 04:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Can I recreate any dummy page?

I laughed. Is there any way to recreate the infobox without breaking Wikipedia rules? Manasbose (talk) 06:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

See WP:SANDBOX Theofunny (talk) 08:06, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 February 2025

In table for results West Virginia lists Trump's vote share as 39.97% when it is in fact 69.97% Georgewashingtonshorse (talk) 15:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

 Fixed. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Why does Maine have two district entries and Nebraska three plus a state overall in the table of results by state?

District data doesn't seem relevant in a comparison by state, but even if it were, why do only two states have entries by district, and why does Nebraska have districts and a state total? Am I missing something about how the Electoral College works? Okto8 (talk) 20:15, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Okto8, Maine and Nebraska are the only two states at this time that allocate their electoral college votes by congressional district as opposed to statewide winner-take-all. Cullen328 (talk) 20:19, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep. And that is noted by a legend at the top of the results-by-state table.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Also, rather than starting a new topic, I'll just note this source from USCB in case it's of interest:

2024 | The American Presidency Project

The totals there differ slightly from those here. I have not dug into the small discrepancy. (The page was cited in a news article I just read.) NME Frigate (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

• UCSB NME Frigate (talk) 23:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Latino male vote

The article claims Latino males voted for Trump 54% to 44%. I know this is a claim made by much of the media also. However, according to data by Latino civil rights and advocacy UnidosUS, Latino/Hispanic men actually voted for Kamala Harris 56% to 43%, Latina/Hispanic women voted for Harris 66%-32% and overall Latino/Latina/Hispanic voters voted for Harris by 62% to 37%.

Here's the source: https://unidosus.org/press-releases/hispanic-voters-back-harris-over-trump-by-a-62-37-margin-cite-economic-concerns-as-top-priorities/

Stop slandering Mr. Donald John Trump he is a GreatPresident

2600:1011:B323:927F:0:26:35A6:CE01 (talk) 05:53, 23 February 2025 (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. Cannolis (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 February 2025

Add this video : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYE20qmGIbg Chickenuggets25 (talk) 02:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

 Not done. See WP:RSPYT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Duval County, Florida

Duval County, FL needs to be shaded 50-60% R on the county map. Trump got just over 50% there. 132.170.55.127 (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

You will need to provide a source for this. The current source in the article shows he got 49.92%. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)