Talk:2016 United States presidential election

Newsweek

Before the election, Newsweek sent bookstores advance printed copies of its magazine declaring Hillary the winner, but no such advance printed copies declaring Trump the winner.

"Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election on Tuesday."

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/media/newsweek-hillary-clinton-cover/ 71.182.237.111 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This story has gotten some coverage since the election, but part of that coverage was conspiracy-mongering about the election being "fixed" (I guess the fix was broken). If it continues to get discussed the way the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" story was, then it should be covered here. If the story has no legs, it shouldn't be. Right now, I would guess it's undue weight. It is a funny story, though. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The quote you provided says it all. Are you aware of "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg)? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Now the question is: would a picture of the magazine (I have a copy, BTW and can scan the cover if you want) violate copyright and thus be impossible to place here? Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

In short, the article could include an image of the cover if the cover image was specifically discussed in the article text. That would require consensus for including Newsweek's screwup in the first place. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@ArgleBargle79: I think that an image of the Newsweek cover is as relevant to this election as the Chicago Tribune headline in 1948, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. Since you have a copy, please scan and add. American In Brazil (talk) 23:25, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@ArgleBargle79. I believe including the Newsweek cover in this article would not violate any copyright, since it would be for a non-commercial educational purpose. Therefore, it falls under the Fair Use Doctrine. This cover, which has a photo of Hillary Clinton with the caption "Madam President" is surely as important as the news photo of Harry Truman holding up a copy of the Chicago Tribune with the headline DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN in the 1948 election. Please scan and add. American In Brazil (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

If the issue was never put on the stands, it is not noteworthy. This is not comparable to the Dewey headline. Objective3000 (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently the issue was on the newstands in a few locations since some people were able to purchase it, including @ArgleBargle. Please scan and add. It is surely as important as the Chicago Tribune 1948 election edition "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" which also was on the newstands for only a short time. American In Brazil (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe this is the same. In 1948, the Tribune one-star edition was distributed to newsstands and sold. It wasn't until the two-star edition came out that the headline was changed. Newsweek made a business decision to print one edition, but not put it on the newsstands in case the cover was wrong. If some stands didn't follow instructions, that's just not the same. The story is interesting. But, it would suggest an error by Newsweek without evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This is completely WP:UNDUE.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Some copies were sold. @ArgleBargle has one. Evidence has been documented in the Newsweek article, which is reliably sourced. I suggest using that information verbatim. It is not at all undue, since it is comparable to the 1948 election and the famous picture of Truman holding up the erroneous headline of the Chicago Tribune. I am adding the info from the WP article, with inline citations, to the section "Forecasts". If anyone knows how to cut and paste both covers (Trump and Clinton) from the two sources cited, please do so. It is an important aspect of the election, since it highlights both the erroneous forecasts and (because Newsweek only printed and distributed the Hillary cover until Trump was declared the winner by the networks), media bias. American In Brazil (talk) 00:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are not close to a consensus. Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Then let's discuss. It's in the WP Newsweek article with reliable sources. So why is it not in this article? It's important information regarding the forecasting and has been added to the "Forecasts" section verbatim from the the Newsweek article. American In Brazil (talk) 01:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Copies are being offered for sale on ebay with a picture of Hillary and the caption "Madam President". Obviously some copies were sold, comparable to the 1948 one-star edition of the Chicago Tribune. This is surely as notable.

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odkw=newsweek+madame+president&_osacat=0&_from=R40&_trksid=p2045573.m570.l1313.TR0.TRC0.H0.TRS0&_nkw=newsweek+madame+president&_sacat=0 American In Brazil (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

So, perhaps some newsstands are selling the copies that they were told not to distribute on eBay instead of returning. Or maybe these are photoshopped. I'm fairly certain eBay sellers are not RS. This is proof of nothing. The Trib was a major outlet for news in 1948 and they distributed 150,000 copies of the incorrect edition. Multiple editions were produced each day. In 1946, 0.5% of US households had TV sets: Television set. This is below the level of trivia. Objective3000 (talk) 01:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000. ebay sellers are not cited as reliable sources. I only am pointing out that copies were and are available for sale. The fact that another editor (ArgleBargle) has a copy (see AB's comment above) is proof that at least some copies were sold. These copies could not be photoshopped, since the entire magazine is being offered for sale on ebay. The reliable sources given are cited in the Newsweek WP article. I copied verbatim the information contained there but you deleted it. Newsweek is an important news outlet. This is not trivia - it is, as I stated above, notable information on the election forecasts and the mindset of the mainstream media. It is one of many other forecasts cited so it is not undue weight. So far, the only one who objects to including this information is you. I solicit the opinions of other editors. American In Brazil (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No, I am not the only person. Objective3000 (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000. Volunteer Marek's objection is that it is undue weight. Your objection is that it is trivia. Obviously, it cannot be weighty and trivial at the same time. Let's hear from other editors. American In Brazil (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Ummm, "undue weight" means "giving too much weight to trivial crap".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000 & @Volunteer Marek. To my surprise, no other editors have chimed in. So I suggest we each state our case and the reasons for our opinions and see if that stimulates further discussion. OK, here goes:

I propose adding the following to the "Forecasting" section [9.2], which is taken from the WP Newsweek article verbatim (with citations, of course). For those who know how to cut and paste, both covers can be added.

"On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, copies of a Newsweek article calling Hillary Clinton's victory were leaked. Supporters of Donald Trump criticized the magazine by claiming that the election was rigged.{cite} The magazine responded by explaining on Twitter that they specifically created two different covers to be released after the election.{cite}"

DISCUSSION - Many incorrect forecasts of the result were a major feature of this election, so this is not undue weight, especially since it is one of many other forecasts cited in this section. Newsweek is a notable national news outlet (so it is not trivial) and rushed only the Clinton cover and story to the newsstands, even though they later admitted they had an alternate cover and story featuring Trump. Numerous Clinton copies were sold, at least in New York City, as evidenced by the many copies available for sale on ebay. Indeed, one WP editor in this discussion (ArgleBargle), above, has offered to scan his copy and post it. These are not photoshopped, since whole copies are offered for sale. The fact that the magazine only initially printed and distributed the Clinton cover and story is also evidence of the mindset of the major media. The proposed text is only three sentences, but nevertheless highlights the incorrect forecasts and bias of the major media. Comments, please. American In Brazil (talk) 22:04, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

This is both trivia and undue and also the subject of many fake news stories. I see zero evidence that this is media bias. See [snopes] and [NBC News]. Objective3000 (talk) 22:38, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

@Objective3000. If you read the citations, the Newsweek editor admits they were biased toward Hillary. This is not fake since it really happened. The wording does not say that the media were biased, only what actually was done. Further, it is logically impossible that it is undue weight and trivial at the same time. You have given no reasons for your opinion. American In Brazil (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please show me where a Newsweek editor said he was biased towards Hillary. Please reread WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA. There is no contradiction in using both to describe an edit. Objective3000 (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

"editor admits they were biased" is extreme statement. Either back that up with a direct quote, or let's move on off of this unfounded trivia. 2005 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP Newsweek article: "(Topix Media CEO and co-founder Tony) Romando told CNN Money (on Monday, the day before the election) that Topix decided to print physical copies of the magazine with Clinton on the cover since she is favored to win Tuesday." (fn. 61) "The company — like the rest of the world — anticipated that Clinton would take office and shipped Clinton’s “Madam President” cover to stores early instead of Trump’s issue. “Like everybody else, we got it wrong,” Tony Romando, CEO of Topix Media Lab, told the New York Post on Wednesday. According to the site, the company is now rushing to print Trump’s cover." (fn. 62)

WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA are contradictory by definition. If something is weighty, it is not trivial. If something is trivial, it is not weighty. You still have not given any reason for your opinion. American In Brazil (talk) 00:20, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

First, UNDUE means that the subject has undue weight. Trivia has undue weight. Secondly, Newsweek made a business decision based on the perceived winner to beat competitors to the newsstands. That in no manner whatsoever shows a bias. Did you read the snopes article? If you despise the Green Bay Packers, but are a t-Shirt salesman outside a game, you are still going to create and sell GBP t-shirts outside the stadium. That has nothing to do with bias. It is a business decision. You have made a false accusation against Newsweek and suggest that you strike it. Objective3000 (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

First, the section heading is "Forecasts" and Newsweek obviously made an incorrect forecast. They could have printed and shipped both covers with instructions to newsstands to place on sale the actual winner. They didn't, despite the fact that there were credible polls indicating that Trump would be the winner (the Los Angeles Times/USC poll, for example). Second, the quotes I was challenged to provide speak for themselves. Third, there is no point of view in the wording I have suggested. It is taken verbatim from the Newsweek article, but it is relevant here because this was the only news outlet in the country that printed and distributed a story that the loser was the winner. This is no different than the Chicago Tribune in 1948 printing the headline "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN". That has remained newsworthy to this day. American In Brazil (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Tons of people make incorrect forecasts. In no way does that mean they are biased. It simply means they guessed incorrectly. It would have cost them far more money to print two editions. They made a business decision to print the most likely and ship to outlets with instructions not to put them on sale until instructed. There is NO comparison to the Dewey headline, where a huge number of papers were sold. There is no evidence that more than a couple dozen copies of the Newsweek cover were legitimately sold. Stuff sold on eBay is NOT evidence. Objective3000 (talk) 01:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what to make of your position. You were asked to provide a quote of bias and you did not, and then you say you did. If you are now asserting that thinking Clinton was going to win is "bias", that's just absurd (unless you aren't a native English speaker). The Newsweek cover is mildly interesting trivia that resulted from widespread assumption, but adding some weighted POV to it isn't going to fly. 2005 (talk) 01:07, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I did provide quotes and sources (see above). The quotes speak for themselves. The wording I have suggested has a neutral POV with no mention of bias. It is taken verbatim from the WP article on Newsweek. Hundreds of copies are currently being offered on ebay. Indeed, a WP editor has offered to scan his copy (see ArgleBargle, above). This was the only news outlet in America that proclaimed the loser to be the winner. It is comparable, therefore, to the Chicago Tribune headline of 1948, "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN". That is notable. American In Brazil (talk) 01:43, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

No you didn't. Nowhere in the quote is there anything about "bias". Again, if you are not a native English speaker you should just note that as there is no "bias" asserted or anywhere to be seen. (And if you are a native English speaker, for heaven's sake look up the definition of the word "bias" because you are not using it properly.) 2005 (talk) 02:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@2005. Please address the issue being discussed. The question is whether or not Newsweek was the only news outlet which published that the loser was the winner. It was. All others made forecasts but only Newsweek published it as fact. Of course, this was fake news. That is notable, same as the Chicago Tribune headline in 1948 declaring Dewey to be the winner was notable. The Tribune published its fake story and headline before the polls had even closed on the West Coast. Newsweek published its fake cover and story the night before the polls even opened. The three sentence paragraph I have suggested adding is a neutral POV statement taken verbatim from the WP article on Newsweek (including citations). The paragraph says nothing about bias. Click on the link above to check it out yourself, which I have added for your convenience. As for my native English skills, I am a 4th generation American who teaches conversational English to Portuguese speakers. FYI = "BIAS: a particular tendency, trend, inclination, feeling, or opinion, especially one that is preconceived or unreasoned." --Dictionary.com. Aren't dictionaries wonderful? American In Brazil (talk) 09:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

1. Newsweek did not publish this. It had it printed for possible sale and 17 copies leaked out. There is no way to know how many eBay postings are fake.

2. How do you know no one else printed such?

3. This still, in no way, indicates any bias. The decision was a business decision based upon actual polling evidence, not preconceived or unreasoned.

4. Although around 150,000 issues of the Dewey headline were published and sold, even that showed no bias. It was simply an error. Objective3000 (talk) 13:12, 12 December 2016(UTC)

The fact that Newsweek "had it printed for possible sale" is the definition of "publication". Offering anything for sale on the internet that is fake is wire fraud and is a felony. Hundreds of copies are currently offered on ebay by numerous sellers. If you know of any other publication which stated as a fact (not a forecast) that Clinton won the election, please document it; it should also be mentioned in the article. So far, I have found none but maybe you know something I don't. The issue here is not bias (readers can draw whatever conclusion they want); the issue is that Newsweek published that the loser was the winner. Whether the Tribune or Newsweek showed bias is not stated in the paragraph I have suggested, which is taken verbatim from the WP Newsweek article. Just to remind everybody, here it is again (to be inserted in the "Forecasts" section):

"On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, copies of a Newsweek article calling Hillary Clinton's victory were leaked. Supporters of Donald Trump criticized the magazine by claiming that the election was rigged.{cite} The magazine responded by explaining on Twitter that they specifically created two different covers to be released after the election.{cite}"

American In Brazil (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek did not put this up for sale. This has been explained to you. 17 copies were incorrectly distributed. Even if they did, this in no way suggests bias. Their decision to pre-print was based on evidence, not bias. And yes, there is fraud on eBay. Further, we do not even have the info, nor the responsibility, to say this decision was incorrect from a business standpoint. Objective3000 (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you are missing the point. The paragraph says nothing about bias or the motives for 'Newsweek's decision. It merely states what happened, which is what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. It is good enough for the Newsweek article and references this election. So why is it not good enough for this article? American In Brazil (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You are the one that has repeatedly stated that this is evidence of media bias as a reason for inclusion. It is not. Since it is not, it is WP:UNDUE and WP:TRIVIA for an article on a presidential election. It may make sense on the Newsweek article. Objective3000 (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I clearly stated above that the paragraph says nothing about bias and that readers can draw whatever conclusion they want. It merely states the facts, with citations. To say that it shows or does not show bias is inserting a personal opinion and therefore is original research WP:OR, which is not allowed. WP is an encyclopedia and must state the facts. This is neither WP:UNDUE nor WP:TRIVIA; it is encyclopedic. You claim that 17 copies were sold, but with no evidence. On the contrary, obviously hundreds of copies were sold since they are now being resold on ebay. Further, this also received national news coverage (see the citations in the Newsweek article). It should be included in this article. American In Brazil (talk) 19:50, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

You "clearly stated" a number of statements that are untrue, and then made some other assertions with nothing to back them up. Much of the problem does appear to be your unique definitions of words, but whatever. Dewey Defeats Truman is at once both trivia and oddball interesting enough to merit mention. The fact that Newsweek published some amount of test issues is trivia but also mildly funny in the context of Dewey Defeats Truman. It is not in any way, shape or form any evidence of bias or mainstream media hankypanky or any of the other armwaving you've engaged in here. There is nothing about this incident that indicates bias or nefarious intent. Nothing at all. Move on from that. If you think the Newsweek cover picture should be somewhere near the bottom of the article, referencing Dewey Defeats Truman in one sentence, that seems appropriate, but this is not a nutty major conspiracy here. It is a very minor thing, and should be addressed as such. 2005 (talk) 21:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

@2005. I have never used the word "conspiracy" and I'm sorry you have misread into my comments something that is simply not there. I have only noted that Newsweek was the only major news outlet which claimed that the loser was the winner (as a statement of fact, not a forecast), and therefore it is notable. If you know of another news outlet that made this false claim, that is notable also and should be included in the article. So far, I have found no others. The 1948 Chicago Tribune headline was the subject of a famous news photo of Truman holding it up and smiling (laughing?). The Newsweek cover was the subject of national news as well (see fn. 61 & 62 of the Newsweek article). The paragraph I have proposed is taken verbatim from that WP article, is fully cited and contains no POV, only facts. Since you state that it would be appropriate to include the cover near the bottom of the article, I will reinsert the paragraph at the bottom of "Forecasts", which is near the bottom of the article and seems like the appropriate section to place it. It is three sentences and you can tweak it as you wish, but two of the sentences contain the citations, so I would not want to eliminate any documentation; WP is an encyclopedia, after all. The two covers (Clinton and Trump) are shown in the citations, but I am not familiar with cutting and pasting from original sources so if you know how to do it, please feel free. Otherwise, I will get one of my geek friends to do it. I will wait 48 hours, however, in order to stimulate any further discussion. P.S. "PUBLICATION: the act of publishing a book, periodical, map, piece of music, engraving, or the like." --Dictionary.com. My definitions are limited by the dictionary. American In Brazil (talk) 00:58, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek never said any such thing. You are now engaging in slander. You need to stop this. Objective3000 (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your statement is simply wrong. Here is what the WP article on Newsweek says:

"On November 7, 2016, the day before the election, copies of a Newsweek cover article calling Hillary Clinton's victory were leaked. Supporters of Donald Trump criticized the magazine by claiming that the election was rigged.{cite} The magazine responded by explaining on Twitter that they specifically created two different covers to be released after the election.{cite}" [emphasis added]

This is the paragraph I believe is notable for this article in the "Forecasts" section. American In Brazil (talk) 01:18, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton did not get majority to win in a nationwide popular vote system

Currently the only nationwide popular vote system, as used in Russia and Ukraine for example, requires a candidate to win a majority or > 50% of nationwide popular vote to win the election. The US does not use a nationwide popular vote system and, even if it did, Hillary Clinton would not have won because she didn't win a majority or > 50% of nationwide popular votes.

It is just as irrelevant to mention Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote as it is irrelevant to mention Donald Trump won more than 98% of the US's counties or 3,084 out of 3,141. Both are statistics that could be considered interesting, but that's about it.

45.58.89.143 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your section title is a false premise. The article has never said she won a majority of the (national) popular vote. And if any editors made that false claim on this talk page, who cares? All polarizing articles have talk pages that are full of false claims and misunderstandings. The issue at hand is that Clinton will win the popular vote by a significant margin; currently, she leads by more than two million votes. Any U.S. presidential election where the winning candidate loses the popular vote is obviously very noteworthy; it's only happened five times and of course always sparks debate about the Electoral College system. Therefore, your contention that Clinton winning the popular vote is "irrelevant" is clearly off base. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

1 to 2 % of the total vote is not significant. It is basically a statistical tie in a poll for example. And who's to say every person should have the same voting power? Black people used to have three fifth of a vote. Should someone who immigrated to the US a few days ago have the same voting power as someone whose family has lived in the US for centuries? This is not the place to discuss morale issues. The US election has its rules, and that is electoral college. That's how the game is played. National popular vote has no relevance. 45.58.89.143 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

RE:45.58.89.143, 1-2% is actually quite significant and historic. Secondly, you claiming that someone who immigrated here has less rights than someone whose family has been here for centuries defeats the purpose that all citizens are equal, because everyone pays taxes equally. And asking for certain individuals to receive more rights is a slippery slope, one headed along the same lines of slavery. And if you remember, this country was founded on 'No TAXATION without REPRESENTATION'. I suggest you learn the history behind this country first before making insane/wild assumptions unless you want history to repeat itself. Thirdly, US does have rules, it says right so in the U.S. Constitution that House members, and thereby electoral college votes of each state receives, are supposed to be allocated with population increase/expansion, rules which have not been followed since 1911. You can't pick and choose which parts or 'rules' you want to follow, and which parts or 'rules' of the Constitution to ignore, then go on to state that 'US election has its rules'. The 'game' was changed to benefit certain groups, primarily the Republican party, because they are the only party that has been winning the presidential office past five times when electoral college votes went against the popular vote. National popular vote is an indication of how electoral vote would have aligned IF the electoral college votes were given proper representation in accordance to the population, according to the U.S. Constitution. But according to you, certain voters don't count because they haven't been a resident for 400 years... who has? Can you trace your family back to the American Revolution? Even both of Donald Trump's grandparents were immigrants who came to America in 1902, not to mention so was his mother who arrived in NY in 1930. Or are we speaking of a racial division? Don't be a hypocrite. Finally, please refrain from bringing 'alt-right' views and agendas into Wikipedia. WatchFan⁰⁷ 17:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

1) Black people never had three-fifths of a vote. Before the 13th Amendment, slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of the decennial census and allocation of Representatives in the House. But slaves never had the right to vote. Black people in the North had the right to vote, though it was often not exercised. After Reconstruction in the South, Black people legally had the right to vote by the 15th Amendment but it was restricted by state Jim Crow laws. 2) The right to vote does not extend to immigrants until they become American citizens. 3) It does not matter how long your family has been in the U.S. There are only two requirements - age 18 and a citizen. Of course you must register to vote in the county where you live. 4) You are correct that the Electoral College chooses the President. But the College is chosen by the popular votes in 56 separate elections (counting 48 states, D.C., Maine and Nebraska). American In Brazil (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

45.58.89.143, you're clearly missing the point if you honestly don't understand why a losing U.S. presidental candidate winning the popular vote by (currently) over two million votes, or 1.5 to 2%, is historically significant. I would normally encourage you to educate yourself on the topic, but after reading your most recent posting I now wonder if you're actually here solely on a trolling mission. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an unusual election in the sense that Trump wasn't as satisfying a candidate to his party as previous Republican candidates have been, leading to a pronounced "hold your nose" effect when it came to voting for him over Hillary. In blue states, California in particular, Republican voters never had to deal with this since, under the Electoral College system, their votes would never matter. So they didn't cast a presidential vote, or voted write-in, whereas they would have voted for Trump in a national system that would have mattered. But with the Electoral College in place, Trump had no incentive to campaign in California and energize these votes. That's probably why Clinton managed to score more votes in Orange County, which is an eye-opening anomaly. California is now so heavily Blue that the Republicans are essentially a disenfranchised party — evidenced by the 2016 Senate race, in which the runoff format led to two Democrats as the only candidates in the general election, leading many Republicans not to vote. Further, state turnout totals are so out of whack with the national average, and given rumors of widespread voter irregularities, California's large popular vote contribution has to be seen as suspect. But because of the Electoral College system, there's no incentive to take a deeper look (and suspicions of illegal immigrants voting would likely be less of an issue in a national system with national guidelines, not the state-by-state system currently in place). The bottom line to all this is that trying to cite the popular vote, particularly in this election, as significant in any way is an exercise in illusion, as there are a number of factors to indicate that Trump may still have won had the election been contested as a true national popular vote, with campaign strategies tailored accordingly.Vader47000 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it also be notable to mention that only two counties (Cook County, Chicago IL and Los Angeles, CA) constitute most of the difference? That is, these two high population centers of the country account for more than the popular count difference. Without them, the popular vote would go to Trump. Not sure how to phrase it or where it would be appropriate to mention, but it seems and interesting statistic to highlight the difference in the urban / non-urban votes. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I never understand why people keep mentioning this...you can't just ignore some parts of the country. "Oh, well, if you ignore California then Trump wins" In that case, let's just take out Texas, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania and Clinton wins the Electoral College by a landslide, it literally makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.15 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The significance of California is that it has huge population and Clinton won it by over 4 million votes. That explains how she could get more votes than Trump and still lose: because her majority was concentrated in one state. TFD (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like WP:OR. Many, many things can explain this. I have seen no study that claims this is the reason. (Although I must admit that Orange County includes a magical kingdom.:))Objective3000 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's more the fact that they disregard these two counties because, in some way or another, they're not representative of the rest of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.15 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Clinton won a county no Democrat has ever won before, Orange County, California, by over 100,000 votes. Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania combined by 80,000 votes. There are plenty of minor factoids that could be mentioned, but it all amounts to the same thing; Clinton got more votes, Trump got less votes but narrowly got more in places that offered more benefit in the Electoral College. 2005 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

How much more votes do they have left to count? What are the predicted percentages in the end? This sure is taking a long time. Bjoh249 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Article's getting too long

Blame it on WP:RECENTISM, this article is getting too long & is creating navigational problems. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the Background section could be trimmed and condensed, it contains excessive common knowledge only tangentially relevant to the 2016 election. Brandmeister^talk 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take care of it. It was also one of my ideas. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The addition of the Russian stuff, is going against attempts to shorten this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we really consider De La Fuente a major candidate for the Democratic nomination?

De La Fuente meets none of the laid-out criteria for being listed as a major candidate, none of them. He was never featured in any Democratic primary polls, he was not covered by major networks, and he was never invited to appear in any of the debates or forums. He was never listed as a major candidate during the primary, why are we retroactively casting him as such without any clear reason to do so?
SecretName101 (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on all those points. I assume he is being included by virtue of having had widespread ballot access during the primaries despite failing to garner any significant attention. He really wasn't what I'd call a "major candidate," though. Dustin (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Possibly by virtue of ballot access. However, that was not one of the aforementioned criteria, nor do I beleive it should be (that, however, may be contrary to the concensuconcensus of other editors). I'd reiterate your thought, he was definitely not what I'd call a "major candidate" either.
Should De La Fuene removed? I hope more users will chime/in here so we can reach a consensus.
SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote Total Consensus

I believe there was consensus reached here earlier about using the David Leip source for preliminary vote totals, but two users in the last day have updated the infobox vote totals with the Cook numbers from a google doc and marked them as minor edits (which also seems inappropriate). I would just revert but I've used my 1RR. Travis McGeehan (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Russian influence by Trump

This is in reference to the revert [1] by JFG

That Russian supported Trump is the assessment of American intelligence, as reported by two WP:RS.

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win White House

Russia Hacked Republican Committee but Kept Data, U.S. Concludes

That is absolutely historic and should be in the lede, if not the opening sentence. Casprings (talk) 14:03, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

These allegations are worth noting in the article, as you did, but undue for the lead. "CIA said so" is just not proof enough. — JFG ^talk 14:17, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. The fact that a nations intel services have have stated with high confidence that another nation influenced their elections is not just rumor. Should we provide the source? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it any less historic and not simply a rumor.Casprings (talk) 14:22, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Even the WaPo source you quote takes care to note there is no proof, and relays denial by Wikileaks that Russia had anything to do with the DNC and Podesta leaks. Obama ordered a review of the hacks before he leaves office, let's see what comes out of it. — JFG ^talk 14:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

That's not what the WaPo article says. It says that the actors are "one step removed" from the Russian government and there is no direct intel of people in the Kremlin directing it. That is not the same thing as "no proof". That is circumstantial proof, which can be beyond a doubt. If we are going to discuss this, please don't misrepresent the facts. Casprings (talk) 14:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to add content, source it. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources are below in the section titled Russian involvement.Casprings (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

• "absolutely historic and should be in the lede, if not the opening sentence" User:Casprings - This is just laughable. Get a better password if your in a position of high power. It could have been anybody, Russia hate is massive at the moment, next week it will be China or Mexico, reporting this type of obvious propaganda is beneath us. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:38, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe this is anything but an honest assessment by US intel. Russia has multiple reasons to want Trump as President, including his multiple statements concerning commitments to NATO.Casprings (talk) 18:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If the Russians had rigged the election, then it should be prominently mentioned. But all we have are less than credible allegations they tried to influence it. We should mention though that the Clinton campaign and its allies tried to use the allegations and that observers compared it to the old Republican smear tactic of linking liberals to Communism. TFD (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

How are multiple independent reports that US intel asses this to be true "less than crediable"? This seems absolutely silly and partisan to keep something this historic from not taking a bigger role in the article.Casprings (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"historic" LOL - history dictates that Govindaharihari (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Rather something is historic or not is a subjective judgement call. I believe that Russia directly supporting a candidate for the Presidency is. I think over time, most historians will eventually agree. Casprings (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with JFG. Worth noting, but not in the lead. Objective3000 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Um, the CIA saying that a potentially hostile foreign power intervened in the US election... yeah, it's historic. And it's all over the sources which means that it really should be in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This info was also added in at United States elections, 2016 article. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Casprings. It was not just CIA but 17 total intelligence agencies. Sagecandor (talk) 09:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Should be removed frm the leade, there is no evidence this actually happened, and FBI is not on the same page as CIA. There are always smear campaigns in elections, the "Russian hackers did it" tactic is no different.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Not true. This is your own original research.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

OPPOSE The director of CIA is appointed by the president. The CIA says whatever the president tells it to say. Innocence unless proven guilty. Plus, it doesn't take the FSB to hack a gmail account and download all the emails. Any hacker can easily do that with phishing. It's not like it's rocket science.

204.197.184.245 (talk) 19:32, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

That's actually not true at all. But thanks for playing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

• remove from lead There's no argument here. There's no reason why a very minor paragraph in a long article should be given such prominence in the lead. Whether the allegations are true or not is irrelevant. They are not significant enough to be mentioned in the lead. Right now this lead is directly violating WP:UNDUE.Ag97 (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not "very minor" (seriously?), the whole "there's no proof" thing is nonsense and original research (you actually don't know). We follow the sources, if many reliable sources are reporting on it, we include it. Yes, in the lede.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:50, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The Washington post , lol, is not a wp:npov source for reports about anything republican. The Washington peeps voted massively in support of H Clinton. Personally I suggest allowing the democrat editors to add whatever biased trash they want, such biased reporting was was got Trump elected. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Lol yourself. Washington Post is a reliable source. If you really want to waste your time (and that of others, which would be an obnoxious thing to do) take it to WP:RSN. Indeed, if you believe that a source such as WaPo is "not reliable" you might consider that you're in the wrong place.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Nothing from Washington is WP:NPOV in regards to Trump and you know it. I won't take it anywhere, write Trump is the devil all over wikipedia, whatever , it won't change anything in real life. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Please read WP:CONSENSUS. If you start removing text based on WaPo because of your own idiosyncratic beliefs you will be going against site-level consensus and your actions will be disruptive. Have you been given a discretionary sanctions notification by the way? Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

I was not aware I removed any content, as I said, post whatever biased content you like, the Washington post and Washington overall is biased against Trump, they voted massively in favor of H Clinton. It did not work in the H Clinton situation and it won't work here either. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Then please stop using the talk page as a WP:SOAPBOX.Volunteer Marek (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

It is not soapboxing to dispute your addition and to point out the biased position of your source. See http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-washington-post-becomes-unhinged-on-donald-trump/ Govindaharihari (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF WP:CIVIL. Objective3000 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

One more time folks. Please STOP misrepresenting sources. In particular this one. It says that the FBI and CIA don't see eye to eye on the question of the AIM of disrupting the election. It does NOT say that the FBI disputes that the Russians meddled in it. In fact, quite the opposite: "there’s no question that [the Russians’] efforts went one way, but it’s not clear that they have a specific goal or mix of related goals". Basically, according to the source, the CIA thinks Kremlin meddled with a specific purpose of helping Trump. The FBI thinks that Kremlin meddled in a way which helped Trump but it's not clear if that was actually their aim.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:32, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Result of Vermont

Some Candidates appear more than once in the result sheets

correct spelling EVAN MCMULLIN 629 0.20 EVAN MCMULLIN 6 0.00

possible misspelling : E MCMULLAN 1 0.00% DAVID EVAN MCMILLAN 4 0.00

"wrong ticket" MCMILLAN/JOHNSON 1 0.00%
'""wrong name "" EBEN MCMULLIN 2 0.00% ERIC MCMULLEN 2 0.00% EDWARD MCMULLEN 2 0.00% GUAN MCMULLEN 1 0.00% JOHN MCMULLEN 1 0.00% ERIC MCMULLEN 1 0.00%

GARY JOHNSON and WILLIAM F. WELD LIBERTARIAN 10,078
write in :
GARY JOHNSON 3 0.00%
GARY JOHNSON 1 0.00%
GARY JOHNSON 1 0.00% --2001:62A:4:412:91B7:8645:C0E:9CB0 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Map

Would someone change Clinton to H. Clinton, as we've already have a Clinton in the 1992 & 1996 elections. See the 1824, 1828, 1888, 1892, 1904, 1932-1944, 1988, 1992, 2000, 2004 election articles, concerning Adams, Harrison, Roosevelt and Bush. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Also started to change past maps. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

" President-elect Trump mocked the report as fabricated"

Ummm... that doesn't even make sense. How can the report be "fabricated". Like what, the CIA "fabricated" the info that it issued a report? Come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there is no such report. Picture or it's fake. So the saying goes. There's nothing about such a report on CIA's twitter. https://twitter.com/CIA?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor 204.197.184.245 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh ffs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia hacking improbable

Russia has never been able to hack a European election. Not in Britain's Brexit, not in France, not in Germany, not in Italy, not in Spain. The US has far greater capabilities than these countries. I doubt Russia can hack the US elections, considering the FSB is pretty crappy these days. And who other than DNC insiders possibly know Podesta's email address? You can't hack an email if you don't know its address. Who's to say Podesta didn't release his emails to Wikileaks himself to frame Russia? Anything is possible at this point, but I doubt Russia can hack any election. It would go against history.

204.197.184.245 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR. We need reliable sources. And, it's highly unlikely that you will find any for such a conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates

I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here.Casprings (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

On December 9 the Central Intelligence Agency issued an assessment stating that Russia intervened in the election to help Donald Trump win

This has to be the single most biased, factually incorrect statement I've read on Wikipedia. The "CIA" issued no such "assessment" according to the article itself. --218.214.50.229 (talk) 08:34, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I must agree. The CIA report only claimed that Russian involvement in the election was a possibility, but had no evidence to support it. JRHSD (talk) 8:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

See [NYTimes]. Objective3000 (talk) 13:40, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

The NY Times article cited above does not, in any way, state that Russia hacked to put Donald Trump in the WH. It simple does not say that. What it does say that Russia hacking was found but analysts disagree on the motive and how much hacking was done. So the anonymous IP (219.214.50.229) comment is absolutely correct. The statement is "biased" and "factually incorrect". It needs to be edited because it is wrong.--SlackerDelphi (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

"Last week, Central Intelligence Agency officials presented lawmakers with a stunning new judgment that upended the debate: Russia, they said, had intervened with the primary aim of helping make Donald J. Trump president." Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Which is not the article cited next to the claim. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 23:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, the decision to include mention of the CIA assessment and not the FBI's skepticism is rather in violation of W:NPOV by omission. --Toomanyaccountsargh (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd recommend not depending too much on the New York Times for non-biased reporting. They haven't exactly been Trump supporters. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

It's not their job to be Trump supporters, it's their job to be critical of candidates and elected officials. And they didn't exactly treat HRC gingerly during the election, either. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

My point is, they're liberal-biased. GoodDay (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

They really aren't, though. Their reporting goes after everybody equally. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Take your opinions to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 23:41, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

And all of this is irrelevant and doesn't belong here as this has been widely reported. The question is how do we handle this as an encyclopedia. Objective3000 (talk) 23:35, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Obviously we include it. I agree with Toomanyaccountsargh that, to be neutral, we include the FBI's investigation. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Yep. Objective3000 (talk) 23:42, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, as long as it's not misrepresenting the source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

For example this edit does misrepresent the source. The way it's written it seems to say that the FBI has doubts about whether there was Russian involvement in the election. That is not what the source says (I've said this like ten times now so please pay attention). The source says that the FBI is "fuzzy" on what the purpose of the involvement was.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There are numerous articles that people of Russia intervened (like this megastar ) and apparently they intervention was approved and carry on by God since Trump win. more refs[2]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

One of the citations, #265 right now, is a page called "Hillary Clinton for President," but the link text misspells it "Hilary Clinton." You can find this easily with a Ctrl+F search. Please fix the spelling. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for alerting us. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated PA vote totals

I have updated PA vote totals on the 2016 PA Presidential Election page. The vote has now been certified, per PA Department of State and I updated the link. Can someone update the PA totals and switch to offical on the main page? I cannot since it's semi-locked. Thanks. Agentblue911 (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Map errors

There are some error on various maps. For example, File:Results by state, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote 2016.svg shows Trump winning Wyoming with over 70% of the vote when he actually received about 68%. Also, I haven't checked other counties in Wyoming, but Clinton won about 57% in Teton County, so the shading in File:Wyoming Presidential Election Results 2016.svg should be changed from "60%-70%" to "50%-60%".

Moving on to Illinois, while the vote was very close, Clinton appears to have narrowly won Winnebago County, Illinois. However, Trump is shown as having won the county in File:2016 Presidential Election by County.svg and File:Illinois Presidential Election Results 2016.svg.

My source for all of this is Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

I found another error: Pike County, Mississippi shows Clinton ahead, according to Dave Leip's Atlas, while File:Mississippi Presidential Election Results 2016.svg and File:2016 Presidential Election by County.svg show a narrow Trump victory. There may be other errors in the maps and vote margins. I recommend that someone should look over our maps and vote results. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Yet another error on File:Results by state, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote 2016.svg: Trump won Nebraska with under 60% of the vote, unlike what the map states. If someone would fix all these errors and search for more, that would be great. --1990'sguy (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to the editors who have fixed the errors, however several of the errors that I pointed out remain, specifically in File:Wyoming Presidential Election Results 2016.svg, File:Illinois Presidential Election Results 2016.svg, and File:Results by state, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote 2016.svg. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The image caption says "Red denotes states projected for Trump/Pence; Blue denotes those projected for Clinton/Kaine" "Projected for" sounds like we're a news network projecting Trump to win this state and Clinton to win that one, but of course the results for each state are now final. What if "projected for" were changed to "won by"? "Won by" doesn't mean that the candidate wins all of the electoral votes from that state, does it? I didn't use edit-semiprotected because I don't know if this would be noncontroversial enough to be done without a discussion. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's mostly because the electors haven't actually voted yet, I imagine. There has been at least 1 elector on both sides that claims he will not vote for his designated candidate, so we will have to wait until December 19th to actually get the full results. Rhydic (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's assuming the results will be announced on that date & not withheld until the Congress meets to count the votes in January 2017. :) GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But the candidates still won the states in question: they got to pick the electors, even if the electors end up being faithless. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they have not won the states yet. It's an Electoral College map, not a popular vote map. 2005 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was supposed to show popular vote winner with mentions of the electorate. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hypothetical scenario

Let's just say that, for whatever reason, all 8 of Kentucky's electors decide to vote for Clinton over Trump. Will Kentucky then be colored blue, or will it remain red with "8" in a blue circle? I'm bringing this up because there is a slight chance something similar may occur, and it would be better to resolve it now than later. MB298 (talk) 00:32, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You picked Kentucky out of all states? Michigan or Wisconsin seems more likely to me. Nonetheless, should electors vote another candidate than chosen by the American population, I personally think we should add a new colour. Let's say purple for states that voted for Trump but an elector or all of the electors voted for somebody else. OR, we split the state in two, add blue and red with their respective numbers of votes received during the vote. For example, 3 electors out of 16 voted for Clinton in Michigan. Half would be red and the other blue, with red being 13 and blue 3. I don't know. I'm bad at this. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 00:38, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 1960. 2005 (talk) 02:15, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there's no sources that any Republican electors are gonna vote for Clinton. There are sources that Democratic electors will vote for a Republican if enough Republican electors agree with them to not vote for Trump. There's a higher chance, that 'blue' state will end up 'light red' for another Republican. GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Rounding errors in "Close states" section

The difference in percent in the close states is currently calculated as the difference between Trump's and Clinton's rounded numbers, not between the actual numbers. For example, in Michigan, Trump has 47.49756%, while Clinton has 47.27453%. This is a difference of 0.22303%, which should be rounded to 0.22%, not 0.23%, which is currently in the article (because it's the difference between 47.50% and 47.27%). I haven't checked all states, but it's currently the case with Michigan and Wisconsin (which should be 0.76% instead of 0.77%) right now. 81.230.184.49 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words

I may have the wrong term. But, it appears that editor SlackerDelphi has made seven quick edits all seemingly designed to suggest RSs are incorrect in their assessments by changing/mollifying the words used in the original sources. I'd revert them all in a normal article. But, as the article is political, I thought I'd mention it here. Objective3000 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that SlackerDelphi inserted his unverifiable and unsubstantiated POV which is not substantiated by the original RS. He hasn't added any. I also think that all of his edits need to be reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed POV. The differing opinions of other agencies were already amply represented before SlackerDelphi's changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Even Wilder Hypothetical

I saw this article. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-electors-lessig-232598

So lets say the really really unlikely happens and Trump is blocked from 270.. How is this handled in the article? Is Trump still President-elect? Honestly just curious on thoughts.Casprings (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Casprings: A very strange situation indeed... I would say that we refrain from declaring anyone President-elect until the House votes. MB298 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The standard is verifiability not truth. That means that lots of information in Wikipedia is false, because reliable sources are wrong. It happens frequently with breaking news stories. If it turns out Trump is not elected president, then we can change the article. TFD (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If Trump is blocked from 270, and the 'faithless electors' do not choose Clinton, then the House elects the new president. WatchFan 07 09:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Would he have "won" the EC and faithless electors send it to the house or does he now lose the EC in the article with HC also losing the EC and having more votes?Casprings (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I misread again. 270 is needed to win, and if no one reaches it, House gets to decide who gets to be president, with each state receiving one vote. So, in case Trump doesn't reach 270, he would need the support of 26 states in the House to be elected president. WatchFan 07 01:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We continue to go with what reliable sources use. If they're still using president-elect for Trump, even after he fails to gain a majority in the Electoral College? then we still use president-elect. Otherwise, we don't use it. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think it is likely that WP:RS's would conflict with one another. That is certainly a guess, but I think everyone would be at a unknown place.Casprings (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Trump is the assumptive President-elect, not the President-elect

He has 306 pledged electors. He becomes President-elect after the electors cast their votes on December 19. As an analogy, he was the assumptive Republican nominee before the votes of his pledged delegates were cast at the Republican convention, at which point he became the Republican nominee.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Dear IP, while the logic in your argument is sound, the odds of Hillary pulling enough votes through recounts to win is close to zero. The odds of the entire state of Texas worth of votes changing their vote to Hillary is also virtually zero. Donald Trump will be president. There's no way Hillary can win at this point. It doesn't mattr what your political opinion is; the vote won't change on a large enough scale to change the election. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 16:25, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • We don't know he "will" be President, that's why we don't call him "President" now. He could pass away five minutes from now, and the Electoral College would vote for someone else, whoever they want. 2005 (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, but we aren't arguing about his health. IP brought up the argument that the electors will vote for Clinton. Obviously anyone can die at any moment. That doesn't change anything because he will still be president, as the chances of him passing away between now and January 20th are close to none, at least of natural causes. Of course it brings up the whole idea of accidents, misfortunes and even assassinations, but we won't get into that here or now. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 22:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
      • No, he would not be President if he dies. That is the whole point. The IP's argument is addressed by others below, but your argument was even more flawed. It's not important though as our job is to summarize what sources say and not make assumptions. What will happen will happen when it does. We don't have to rush anything. 2005 (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
• Reply to 207.245.44.6: Find enough reliable sources that contradict the thousands of highly reliable sources that we could find calling him the president-elect and we will add it, until then, he is the president-elect. --Chase | ^talk 15:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I can think for myself. And RS isn't always reliable. Al Jazeera for example is primarily a propaganda source. 207.245.44.6 (talk) 15:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Countless sources call him President-elect. We follow those sources, even though the Electors haven't voted yet. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to 207.245.44.6: "Thinking for yourself" so to speek is against one of Wikipedia's policies. See Wikipedia:Original Research. --Chase | ^talk 15:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• President-elect is correct, IP 207. Per the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, "The terms 'President-elect' and 'Vice-President-elect' as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

• Strictly speaking, IP user, you are correct- now you'll need to go and convince all the reliable sources of that. 331dot (talk) 16:41, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Factual fix in the final paragraph of the lead section

The sentence that says "President Barack Obama ordered a "full enquiry" into such possible intervention." should instead be "President Barack Obama ordered a "full review" into such possible intervention." The sourced article from The Guardian does not say the word "enquiry," but instead the article says "full review". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzno (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

right - because inquiry will be mean how many electronic vote flips were disabled by this hacking and review mean to light only why IFD were not able to carry this vote flipping out. see inquire from latin quaerare as in this old maxim: in qua erare count in qua-rare quam es — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.147.144 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Should fix a link

One link to the Wayne Williams takes you to the page about the serial killer, Wayne Williams. The actual page on the politician and the Secretary of State of Colorado is called Wayne W. Williams. 64.134.102.139 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@64.134.102.139: Please point out the link mistake for me so I can fix it. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. WatchFan 07 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Alleged Voter Fraud in Detroit

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/records-many-votes-detroits-precincts/95363314/

During Jill Stein's recount effort in Michigan, it was reported there were many oddities found in Detroit's voting results. This has also been covered by...

• http://nypost.com/2016/12/14/michigan-recount-reveals-error-but-not-the-one-jill-stein-wanted/
• http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/12/12/michigans-elections-bureau-audit-detroit-precincts/95349562/
• http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2016/12/12/us/politics/ap-us-election-recount-michigan-audit.html?_r=0

Now I don't expect this to be in the lead cause it isn't against Trump like every other piece of gossip we edit into there these days, but I do feel this should be added into the article since we were okay putting Jill Stein's recount effort into the lead before. Also, before you chime in I'm not personally calling this voter fraud but it has been alleged as such by conservative sources. Archer Rafferty —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, we're putting too much post-election material into this article. It's becoming more difficult to navigate. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose we make a separate article that explains all of the hectic stuff that happened post election. 'Post-election results of the 2016 presidential election' or something along those lines. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:48, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Probably best to add these into the recount page, 2016 United States presidential election recounts, since these revelations came about from the shortly lived recount in Michigan. WatchFan 07 18:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fanatics allege a lot of stuff, but allegations of stuff happening where there is no evidence of it happening and it is impossible to verify if it happened because the recount that was going to happen ended up not happening... this article has lots of trivial stuff in it now. Random allegations that are literally impossible now to prove is about five steps too far on the trivia meter. 2005 (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

please squre up hacking

there is whithe hat hacking and black hat hacking. If obama do hacking that is good black hat hacking. What hat is hacking putin in? Should be like red hat? If the hacking reveal truth/ uncover crimes/shine light is it good or bad hacking what mean black or whithe? Can we agree that hacking is like asking for info. kind of query. Just if the question is right the hacker getting answer. If he ask dumb question his question are ignored even by usecs {un-secured -email-clinton-server. Can we give a user a clue what is hacking by wikilinking the word 'hacked'?