Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Trump's press conference

So Trump had just claimed that he's won the election and states that he would be going to Supreme Court to stop the count. Where does this get included? Juxlos (talk) 07:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I personally think, if NY Times claimed Donald Trump to have won the election, that should be the point where everything is settled. One person's claim mean nothing, especially when the speech is delivered at a location he got <10% of the votes.--1233 ( T / C） 07:38, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not saying Wikipedia says "Trump wins the election", I'm saying Wikipedia should say "Trump claimed that he won the election during the press conference despite [xxx]". NYT and co. definitely has articles about that press conference. Juxlos (talk) 07:54, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Then I think it being reasonable, considering the statement and how much backlash he made, directly hours after the election ended.--1233 ( T / C） 09:14, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

"Campaign issues"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd wait; especially for Trump, claiming to take it to the Supreme Court is very different from taking it to the Supreme Court. We could say it's combative or unorthodox, anything more will probably need to wait a day for context and sources. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

To be more precise he claimed that he has won states that he is currently leading but where votes are still being counted, including Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, if I remember correctly. JACKINTHEBOX • ^TALK 08:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Baseless claims of victory in North Carolina and Georgia too, neither of which are called; "pundits" give Trump about a 90% chance in NC but only 50% in GA. power~enwiki (π, ν) 08:03, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the entire thing is still a toss-up, but the fact that he makes such claims should be included. Juxlos (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, but I think it should be just two or three sentences until his campaign actually engages in litigation. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:33, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps dump it in "Potential rejection of election results" for now, but a "reactions" section probably has to be added to the Results section to properly showcase this information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For some sources: CNBC, Forbes, Fox News, BBC. Juxlos (talk) 08:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be included, but the text should stress that this is a claim made by Donald Trump, not an authoritative statement of fact as described by a neutral RS. Whether or not he actually takes it to the supreme court is actually not all that relevant, what's relevant at the moment is his stated intention to do so. Considering Trump's recent supreme court nominations, RS were already talking about that potential scenario and its potential consequences since before the election. Goodposts (talk) 12:44, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden will likely win Nevada, Michigan, and Wisconsin. 270 electors. Trump lost. The winner will be declared before Pennsylvania counts all the votes. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We might want to take a look at 2016 United States presidential election for a model. Under "Results" there are a number of prose sections, including "Election night" and "The next day". They include a brief summary of comments made by the two candidates. Currently our "Results" section includes no text, just tables to be filled in, but I think some textual information would be appropriate. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to add such a section. Please feel free to expand it. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:46, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Re: Special:Diff/987078667: It should specify the time zone (2:30am EST, I think?). Also, I think some care should be taken with regards to the wording here with regards to the vote counting. Trump specifically says we want all voting to stop. As the BBC article linked above interprets, most likely his meaning is he wants to block the counting of postal ballots, which can be legally accepted by some state election boards after Tuesday's election. The wording "all vote counting to stop" conveys a slightly different nuance (something along the lines of "oh since we're ahead in the vote count in these states, we can declare victory here and not count the remaining precincts"). The argument (at face value; no comments on whether Trump intentionally phrased it in a misleading way or not) concerns the validity of ballots received after election day, not counted after election day. -- Ununseti (talk) 20:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. In the past he has said "We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list." He was implying, as he often does, that there is cheating in the counting - that "they" add false ballots to inflate the other side's score. (It does happen in American elections that the results shift from Republican to Democratic as the mail ballots come in, for perfectly legitimate reasons known as the Blue shift (politics).) IMO Trump wanted the COUNTING to stop. In the runup to the election he said several times that the winner should be declared on Election Night and no further counting should take place. Apparently his followers think that's what he meant too, because there is now a demonstration outside the Detroit election center with people shouting "Stop the count!" -- MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

The text at this point makes a false characterization that "and that all vote counting should stop." He instead referred specifically to voting. Here is an exact quote from his 2:30 a.m. speech, with the actual statement in italic: "We were getting ready to win this election. Frankly, we did win this election,” Trump claimed, adding: “We want all voting to stop. We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list. It’s a very sad moment. We will win this, and as far as I’m concerned we already have won.” Please use his words, not a false paraphrasis. Tgkohn (talk) 23:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

User:MelanieN I do personally think that this was most likely his intention. But imo putting that in the text directly is kind of a WP:SYNTH, because the currently cited CNBC source doesn't make that connection explicitly, so it may be worth adding some sources to back that up. The CNBC source just says: “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court, we want all voting to stop,” Trump continued more than an hour after the final U.S. polls closed in Alaska. “We don’t want them to find any ballots at 4 o’clock in the morning and add them to the list.” It was unclear what Trump meant by “going to the Supreme Court,” given that the nation’s highest court is rarely the first judicial venue for a case, but rather, it reviews lower court rulings..

The Forbes source does interpret it as He promised to go to the Supreme Court to stop late vote-counting, though. The Fox News source interprets it as Trump hinted the White House would push the Supreme Court to rule over disputed ballots, warning that a “very sad group of people” was trying to “disenfranchise” voters. This CTV source interprets it as Earlier Wednesday, Trump attacked media organizations for not declaring him the winner, saying in an early-morning appearance that it was "a major fraud on our nation." "As far as I'm concerned, we already have won this," he said, calling for outstanding ballots not to be counted. Meanwhile this AP News source just kinda snarks a bit on Trump's word choice: Trump says: “We’ll be going to the U.S. Supreme Court — we want all voting to stop.” In fact, there is no more voting — just counting. -- Ununseti (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

If there is clear sourcing supporting the idea that Trump wants vote counting to stop, which there appears to be, we should say so, but for clarity and context should also include the direct quote about voting from Trump himself. Przemysl15 (talk) 23:45, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Archiving?

Hi,

Can someone set up archiving for this talk page? It's getting pretty lengthy. Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 04:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

We have automated archiving, would we want to decrease how many days it takes to archive? Can we do that? Przemysl15 (talk) 05:00, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Auto-archiving is at 15 days; there are a few sections which probably could be manually archived but I don't see a strong need. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:57, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral College svg

can someone start colouring in the official colours of the winners in each state which are officially announced now?, this is how we followed the elections in 2016... its impossible to follow it here this time around cause everyone is lazy and refusing to do it, just add those stated confirmed and its that easy..--27.123.139.73 (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No, there has been an agreement on this page to wait until results are more solidly determined before adding such data. There are plenty of maps out there (I know NYT has one) that can be used by those wanting breaking news. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

oh wow GW, you are still around..figured..i didn't say add those where they haven't done a 100% count, only those confirmed... looks like someone is already doing it..--27.123.139.73 (talk) 02:24, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

See the various conversations above. Consensus is to wait 12+ hours after polls close. Just see the conversations above... evidently it's more complicated than I said. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:25, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Whenever y'all decide that you want it, File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg has the current consensus results from WaPo, NYT, NPR (AP), Politico, Reuters, and Fox News. I'm not expecting any changes anytime soon, but it's 2020 who knows. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:11, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:V governs, not some faux consensus of two editors on this talk page. The electoral numbers and map are incomplete but not in doubt. Post the verifiable facts now and the. Update them when they change. If the stonewalling continues, that’s a behavioral problem to be addressed at WP:AE. Jehochman ^Talk 11:34, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be a part about how Trump is pushing for undemocratic ideas in the introduction/lead section of this article?

It just seems so historical. America, the country that was once known for its democratic freedom around the globe, may be throwing it all away. If Trump loses to Joe, he may take it to the state OR supreme court. If they agree with him and his reason, he may actually be awarded the presidency by the court despite Joe winning. Don't you understand? This has never happened in America before! I would really like to recommend that you include his statements on calling the election a "fraud" and "rigged." He may refuse to concede if he suffers defeat. Maybe include voter suppression as well. Let's not forget he wanted to stop the counting of ballots. SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If you believe that Bush v. Gore was voter suppression, then no, it actually has happened before. This obviously is not an excuse to do it to the 2020 election. Right now, it just seems speculative about what the president plans to do. I know that American politicians have a reputation for playing dirty, and Mr. Trump is no exception. If I were you, I would wait for future events to unfold. Maybe then, we can add the details. FreeMediaKid! 01:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@SweetMilkTea13:, if the counting is stopped across the United States, Biden will win the presidency, as he has a lead in Nevada and Arizona. CNN has called 253 electoral college votes for him. Now,With AZ (11) and NV(6), He will have 17 electoral votes, thus winning the race. However, Trump still has a chance in Nevada, AZ, PA, GA, NC. And Biden will not a landslide victory, because Trump won in Florida, Iowa, Ohio. So all the votes need to be counted. I still think Trump has a pathway to victory. Biden needs to win more than 300 electoral college votes to avoid "Bush vs. Gore" scenario! Ppt2003 (talk) 02:44, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• It's already present, in In the lead-up to the election, as well as on election night, Trump made frequent false claims intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the election, as well as refusing to commit to a peaceful transfer of power. That's sufficient in my view. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

• Does 2:30 AM on Wednesday count as "election night", strictly speaking? Juxlos (talk) 09:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Juxlos:, I would say -"The morning after election day/The following day. Ppt2003 (talk) 11:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Might be a tad bit unrelated, but can an expert in US Politics please create an article titled something like "2020 United States Election Riots"

News just came in a few minutes ago, but there were intense clashes between the police and protesters as they demanded to 'count every vote." Although no one was killed, several people were injured. It would be more informative if someone created an article revolving around this terrible situation. SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 05:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

If its just minor incidents then a section on this page would suffice (e.g. "Aftermath") instead of a separate article.  Nixinova   T   C   06:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Certainly not. These protests are something that Trump is encouraging his followers to do, but they in no way approach being a riot. If the Daily News called it a riot - well, that's a good example of why we don't regard the Daily News as a reliable source. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

P.S. I have added a paragraph about the protests to the "Election Night aftermath" section. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

AFAIK, Republicans haven't been protesting over the 2020 results, the way Democrats did over the 2016 results. GoodDay (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Those protests will come after we actually have results. So far the only protests are against the process (see Brooks Brothers riot from 2000). Both sides are likely to take to the streets if their guy doesn't win. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

There is an article called 2020 United States election protests, you can create an RfC if you believe riots are more appropriate. Albertaont (talk) 22:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Albertaont: Well written article! I'm going to leave it at "protests" for now. Yes many have been arrested and there has been some critical injuries as a result of clashes between police, Trump supporters and Biden supporters, but so far no one has died. I really hope we can keep it this way, but if we do see some deaths after the results are finalized then we definitely have to switch the title to "riots." SweetMilkTea13 (talk) 05:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Edit request

Mention that Joe Biden got more votes than any other presidential candidate in history (you could also mention he was first to 70 million votes but that may be too trivial) Nojus R (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Too early IMO. Wait for a final count. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

should definitely be included for the section on how fraud was so easily assumed and identified -- Flynnwasframed (talk) 02:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

It's currently in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A couple of things

In the second sentence, perhaps it should be changed to Voters selected presidential electors who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020..., as voting is done. We could also de-bold the popular vote results. I know that Biden is, in all likelihood, going to win the popular vote, but it's still a possibility for Trump (though low) to win the popular vote, with ~10% of ballots outstanding. Thoughts? Thanks, Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 20:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I adjusted the tense per your suggestion, since that ought to be uncontroversial. I didn't change the popular vote bolding, though I agree that we should not bold the numbers until a result has been called. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

@Thanoscar21 and GorillaWarfare: I just undid the popular vote bolding. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 21:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Map and Electoral Vote Update

Hello. I have looked through this page and tried to find all the relevant discussions. What I've done is posted the least speculative information about the electoral vote total (Decision Desk HQ, which powers many news organizations, and the NYT). Some sources (AP, Fox) project AZ to Biden. Other's don't. When in doubt, leave it out.

This should be good overnight. Tomorrow morning the total and map may need to be updated. The remaining number of updates will be few and easily accomplished. Jehochman ^Talk 04:30, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

All good with me! Good to finally get the certain states up on the page. Paintspot Infez (talk) 05:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox edit request

Underneath the map, add "Red denotes states won by Trump/Pence and blue denotes those won by Biden/Harris [and grey denotes too close or early to call]. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia." as per tradition. Nojus R (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 04:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Nojus R and Jehochman: I am informing you here that I have removed the addition because all of the states are grey on the default map and the text is claiming that they are all "too close or early to call" underneath. I think the chance should wait until it is decided that File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg should be added to the article, whenever it is. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:52, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I am open to discussing what the text below the map should say. There appears to be a consensus at this time to have the map and the electoral vote count. Jehochman ^Talk 05:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is to wait until tomorrow afternoon before updating the map, to give users time to weigh in at the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two editors is a thin consensus and consensus can change. Let me be perfectly clear: this article is on the home page of Wikipedia and getting high volume of traffic. It should be updated with current reliable facts that are readily available. The information I posted is in no way disputed or disputable. On your talk page I proposed letting the information go live now, but agreed that you could remove it if there are complaints. Also, we could use your help to craft a nice explanation of the map. Jehochman ^Talk 06:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Many users have expressed WP:NOTNEWS concerns, both on this talk page and at the No original research noticeboard. Consensus may be shifting away from that view, but you have to wait for others to weigh in before rushing and changing the Wikipedia article. I have not damaged the article by suggesting that we wait and see if we can get a stronger consensus before updating the map. The consensus for updating the map and article ASAP is weak at best. Prcc27 (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree that WP should be updated with current, reliable facts, but I want to make sure there is consensus on what currently are reliable facts. Obviously information like Trump being projected to win North Dakota is a reliable fact, but it is not so clear on information like projections for ME-2 and Arizona. While we could simply say anything not clear shouldn't be added, if we updated the map to exclude ME-2 and Arizona that would indicate WP does not consider those projections to be reliable enough for inclusion on the page, and although I believe this is what should be done, that may not be a proper reflection of consensus opinion on this page. We should at least have a preliminary indication of consensus on this issue before committing any changes. We are an encyclopedia, not a breaking news source. There is no rush. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:03, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I can understand you have a different viewpoint, but could you please not revert every edit at File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg. Editing the infobox to link to ElectoralCollege2020.svg is fine, but as a reminder, this article and related ones are subject to discretionary sanctions. You made two edits to the "with results" map that blanked the whole map. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• @Super Goku V: I don't think File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg should have even been created. It seems redundant, and we have File:Test.svg for a reason. Prcc27 (talk) 15:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

While that is your opinion, there seem to be five users over there that disagree with your thoughts along with myself here. Again, I feel that the "with results" map is under discretionary sanction and that reverts should not be done. Especially with discussion on this page pending about including it in the article. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Commons administrator who created the file here. Commons doesn't have DS, but we do have c:COM:OVERWRITE. Edit warring over file revisions is much more disruptive compared to text revisions. I expected there to be significant disagreement over whether to include results at all, making adding results to the existing file a "controversial or contested change". For that reason, I decided to split the files and to use page protection to enforce Commons guidelines on edit warring and overwriting files. That forced the decision on whether to include results *at all* to be held not on Commons, but enwiki where it belongs. The working consensus has been that the results map should only contain races that have been called by major news organizations and where there is no dispute between those organizations on if or how to call the race. If a clear consensus develops over time here to include more results, then and only then should those results be included. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS is not relevant to this discussion. This map and electoral count have been the same since Wednesday -- they aren't news; these are established, widely reported facts. It could be days and days before we get final results. It does not serve the reader's interest to hide verifiable and relevant information from them because a couple random editors on a Wikipedia talk page decide to invent novel editing process. I strongly urge that the map and the electoral count be restored. There is no basis to challenge the accuracy or verifiability or relevancy of that information. Therefore, it goes in the article now. Just because some facts aren't known does not mean that other facts must be removed. Jehochman ^Talk 12:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The edits needed are these, for the avoidance of doubt:

1. [1]
2. [2], but change "file" to "image"

Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Pastor Paula White calls on angels from Africa and South America to bring Trump victory

See here:

"Megachurch pastor and televangelist Paula White-Cain, who is spiritual adviser to President Donald Trump, delivered a prayer service Wednesday night in an effort to secure Trump's reelection."

Video fragment of prayer service

Count Iblis (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

LOL! She's a bit late. Does she expect God to destroy ballots after they have been cast? -- Valjean (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Most Christians expect God to destroy almost everything on Earth, at some point, some doubting even the rule of law can can stop a Great Tribulation. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Has PA been called yet?

The only states that weren't definitively called last time I checked were PA, AZ, NV, GA, NC, and AK, where Biden had 253 electoral votes and Trump had 214, therefore making PA have more than the 17 Biden needs to win. 270ToWin says PA is called for Biden, but IDK if it officially, definitively is called for Biden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 135.180.2.61 (talk) at 18:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It varies by source, but the majority say it's too close to call. Nojus R (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Biden has pulled ahead in Pennsylvania, but it has not been called yet.  Nixinova   T   C   19:54, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Only Decision Desk has called it, the others haven't made a call yet. Biden holds a narrow lead at the time of writing. Herbfur (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Quick question

Greetings! I was just curious; how come on this edit the pictures were swapped from left to right? Thanks kindly! (Keep up the good work) 1holeinmysock (talk) 19:53, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I would assume because Biden is the likely winner, however the page probably shouldn't be reordered until the winner is actually declared.  Nixinova   T   C   19:56, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! GoodDay fixed it! 1holeinmysock (talk) 21:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

BuzzFeed, reliable source?

Why is it considered so? Especially given its large amounts of bias and other issues with the site? Aardwolf68 (talk) 22:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Aardwolf68, see WP:RSP for more information. Buzzfeed News is a reliable source. Buzzfeed (regular) is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Aardwolf68: WP:RSP#BuzzFeed News, and the multitude of discussion links in its table row, ought to answer your question. Note that it is distinct from WP:RSP#BuzzFeed. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Florida also voted for the losing candidate for the first time since 1992. Can you please add that? Please. 2601:40A:8480:1750:6D0B:C890:CA84:68AA (talk) 01:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Trivia. But adding it to FL's respective page could do. Admanny (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Intro

It does not even state that the supposed loser is contesting the results. [3]. wp:npov is not the rule of the land anymore? 205.175.106.156 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Now that I think of this, I agree we should include that the campaign is disputing results. Perhaps after where it says Trump yet to concede. Someone else can do this. Admanny (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Done.Herbfur (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

The Prime minister of Nepal has Congratulated Joe Biden via Twitter say "Heartiest congratulations to President-elect @JoeBiden

and Vice-President-elect 

@KamalaHarris

on your impressive and historic election victory. I look forward to working closely with the new US leadership  in further strengthening friendly ties between our two countries."

174.21.108.255 (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done because this is too specific for the main article and instead belongs at International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election—that page is unprotected so you're very welcome to add this content there. — Bilorv (talk) 13:29, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

References

Dissonance with front page quote.

The front page states:

"Joe Biden wins the United States presidential election."

While the article avoids claiming that: "All major news outlets projecting the race have projected that Biden has won the election, including ABC News, the Associated Press, Business Insider, CNN, Decision Desk HQ, Fox News, MSNBC, NBC News, The New York Times, Reuters, and Vox.[5] Counting continues to determine the final results. "

and

" Joe Biden, the presumptive winner of the 2020 presidential election, pending the formal voting by the Electoral College in mid-December, is scheduled to be inaugurated on January 20, 2021"

Please fix this by either stating that Biden has won the election, or explain why the claim is avoided. Thank you.--TZubiri (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: The page Joe Biden claims the win, while Donald Trump avoids it. Whatever decision you take is ok, I just want to see where this article stands, and take that up to the front page if necessary.--TZubiri (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is now on the Donald Trump page too. That page had to be full-protected for a few hours, and all recent edits including the election call were removed. We are in the process of restoring the information, describing it as a news organization call rather than asserting it as an official done deal. BTW the Biden article also had to be full-protected because of vandalism, but it already had a lot of information and it does state his election as fact. At this article, "presumptive" and "pending" set the perfect tone IMO. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nevada

AP has called Nevada for Biden.[4] 331dot (talk) 19:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So has CNN and NBC. Updated accordingly. Admanny (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP called Nevada for Biden about 2 hours ago, see above. No idea about CNN and NBC. Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

They called it right before I sent that message above yours, so it's pretty clear consensus on news. Admanny (talk) 19:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Age superlative in lead

I removed the sentence This is the first presidential election in which both the major candidates are over 70. from the last paragraph in the lead, since it's only WP:DUE to spend so much time on the ages of the candidates, and the paragraph already mentions that If elected, Biden would become the oldest person to serve as president at 78 years old on the day of his inauguration and If reelected, Trump would be the oldest president to be inaugurated in U.S. history, as he would be 74 at the time of the 2021 inauguration.. I noticed that it was back today, and after some digging (a ping rather than a stealth revert would've been appreciated), I found that Paintspot re-added it with summary Undid removal. It's not redundant – it's an additional fact. I'm not persuaded by that. What do others think? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:51, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A trivial fact. It'll be better to remove it. Enjoyer of World^💬 10:07, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

It being the first time something happened does not sound trivial to me. However, this does not seem to be widely discussed in RS, so I agree with DUE concerns. Regards SoWhy 10:41, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

The age of the candidates are covered in quite a few sources, 1, 2, with this source even drawing attention to the fact that Never before in our history has the nation been confronted with a choice of leaders all of whom were 70 or more. I would suppose this fact is far from trivial. -- Dps04 (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Popular vote in Infobox

I understand the countroversy around the EC and the states yet to be called, etc. But why shouldn't we post the Popular Vote total as it's being updated? Said number isn't going to change the state of the race and I see no reason why we shouldn't put it in the Infobox. Apologies if a consensus was reached about it, I didn't find it before posting this. --yeah_93 (talk) 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Looks like it is already there. Be sure to keep it updated. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the consensus was to only update it at 6-hour intervals. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, why was Biden & Trump images switched? Trump's still the incumbent, so should be on the left side, until we know who won the election. GoodDay (talk) 18:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I think they should be switched back to Trump on the left and Biden on the right. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Demographic trends

Now that the election (the voting, but not the counting) is over, what should we do about the Demographic trends section? Some of it is speculation on the impact of demographic changes on the result. Should the actual results be included in this section, or not? If we do include information about results, do we wait until the media starts publishing stories like "suburban women cost Trump the election", etc.? —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 22:46, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, we should wait until the result is final and the analysis articles start to be written. And IMO we should only include the demographic issues on which there appears to be general agreement. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Article states that Biden, if inaugurated, would be the 2nd former vice-president to be elected president & first since Richard Nixon. This is false, George H. W. Bush won the 1988 presidential election and served as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President from 1981-1989. 147.226.73.199 (talk) 19:04, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Former, not current. H. W. was the incumbent VP when he was elected whereas Biden and Nixon were in an election after having already left office as VP. Nojus R (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. I have changed "former" to "non-incumbent", however, after re-reading the sentence and seeing the potential for confusion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:35, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I think this should be removed from the lead as it is not significant. Defeating an incumbent president is significant, but being a former instead of current vice president is not. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 19:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Being a former vice president upon being elected president, is quite rare though. As mentioned, only Nixon has accomplished feat, so far. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Nixon was the 3rd VP of any kind per the 1968 election page. It makes no reference to him being the 1st non-incumbent VP. Maybe too nuanced to be notable. ErieSwiftByrd (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

According to this section of the Vice President list, Nixon was the Only former vice president to become president in a non-immediate fashion while under Bush is says he was the Fourth sitting vice president elected president. I would say it might be fair to include as long as the wording is clear. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Historical firsts

What about an own section listing all the historical firsts or records this election comes with by now already? Record participation, Biden receiving more votes than any other candidate in US history, historical record of number or percentage of mail-in voting, and if I understand CNN right, Biden may be the first Democrat presidential candidate winning Arizona and Trump may be the first Republican candidate winning Ohio but losing the election. Of course, it's too early to call the latter two, but once they're called, I think they should be mentioned in such a section. --2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5 (talk) 03:02, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, but Biden would not be the first Democrat to win Arizona & Trump would not be the first Republican to win Ohio, but lose the election. GoodDay (talk) 03:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We also have no reason to believe Biden was the one responsible for drawing that influx of new voters (or any old state's core) to the anti-Trump ticket. Fans of strong black women had their first choice for "most likely to succeed" this year. No mere coincidence. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I didn't claim Biden would be personally responsible for the high turnouts or the fact he has received more votes than any other candidate in US history. Personally, I believe that's solely due to an alienating push factor from Trump rather than any personal pull factor on behalf of Biden himself, and that if Biden will be elected, he will probably be one of the mediocre Presidents and not win a re-election, as was the case in recent decades especially with Ford and Bush, sr. (as a European, my view on Carter is probably more positive than that of many Americans). All I'm saying is, the turnout, the number or percentage of mail-in votes, and the number of votes won by Biden are unprecedented in US history. --2003:EF:1703:A528:D960:9B1:48A9:97E5 (talk) 04:35, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

As a Canadian, I agree, Carter's the best! And I didn't mean to put words in your mouth. More just a note that, should this section happen, we should be clear that Biden and Harris were a package. They both got/won/received the same number of votes from the same people. Call them the Democrats, call theirs a ticket, however works best. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:05, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (2)

Change:

The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020, and won by Joe Biden.

To:

The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Former vice-president Joe Biden and US Senator from California Kamala Harris defeated incumbents President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. Miss Show Business (talk) 05:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• I think there is some form of statement above that indicates this will be changed after the electors actually cast their vote - technically speaking, Biden isn't elected yet because the people doesn't technically vote. Juxlos (talk) 11:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

  Can the first sentence be accepted at least. It does seem odd to seperate the date from it being the 59th election and instead include it in the sentence where Biden won. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It's currently resolved.—Bagumba (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate table

Something is messed up with the Don Blankenship row in this table. I am not confident in my ability to edit this, so I am leaving this note here in case someone with more skill comes along. --Khajidha (talk) 00:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Revert Edit on Ages of Candidates

I think the edit made at 20:40, 6 November 2020 should be reverted. While Joe Biden and Donald Trump would both be the oldest candidates to have been inaugurated, at 78 and 74, respectively, this shouldn't be merged into the same sentence, as the previous versions of the article made a clear distinction between them: If Joe Biden is elected president, he would be the oldest person not just to be inaugurated as president, but to also serve as president in general, as no other president has reached the age of 78 while in office (Ronald Reagan left office at 77 years of age). 2600:8802:800:E4:49A8:CE00:8D10:7369 (talk) 00:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Working on phrasing it clearer, though. Paintspot Infez (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

For the first time in history, most Americans are cast their ballots before Election Day

According to Washington Post - "For the first time in history, most Americans are expected to cast their ballots before Election Day.". This is an interesting info. Source - [5]. M.Karelin (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

North Carolina is........BLUE ????

North Carolina is........BLUE ???? Really ?? Just look at the map. And look at the results - Trump is leading there !!!! 76.21.97.234 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

What map are you referring to? AFAICT, North Carolina has never been blue in the map in the infobox, and I checked all revisions [6] Nil Einne (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If you're referring to the results by state table I also cannot see where it's ever been blue going back to this revision [7] Nil Einne (talk) 09:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

General turnout

Maybe it's early yet, but I think the article should mention something about general turnout, I have the impression it was historically high. Compare 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Statistical_analysis. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there hasn't been turnout (measured by percent of eligible voters who voted) since like 1900, is what I heard. Graphic representation. —valereee (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

BOLD edit to change electoral votes

Per [8]. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:31, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Elected President

This should not be updated until more news sources agree on the final results. As of now, most sources are still not saying there is a clear winner.Nightenbelle (talk) 14:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ has called it, and that is the information source used by most of the media. The media need to write a story and they need to get all kinds of clearance before publishing something so significant. This creates a bit of delay, but they will arrive at the same conclusion soon. Jehochman ^Talk 14:46, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ (DDHQ) appears to be independent organization that was formed in 2012 and does not seem to work with ABC, NBC, Fox News, CBS, AP, nor the BBC. I doubt that "clearance" is actually needed and it is more that the networks do not want to call it without it being 100% guaranteed. Regardless, no one has stated that DDHQ should be a reliable source for the Wikipedia article counts to my knowledge. So, any information from them should not be used to verify who won the presidency, though I am not opposed to a mention in the text that they were the first to make a call. --Super Goku V (talk) 15:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

We need more than one source calling the election, I think, in order for us to say so. 331dot (talk) 15:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree. If a fact this important is verifiable, it should be reported widely. Nate Silver has praised Decision Desk HQ's call as correct, but that's also not enough. This information is really a preview of what's coming soon. Jehochman ^Talk 15:15, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't we wait until Biden actually reaches 270 anyway? Nojus R (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

270towin has also called the election, but I don't know if it makes an independent projection or repeats Decision Desk. @Nojus R: Actually reaching 270 only occurs when the states certify results, assuming no faithless electors, or when the electoral college votes on December 14. Until then everything is a projection, which varies by source. Decision Desk does project Biden over 270. Heitordp (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The EC vote is a formality only. 331dot (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Last time 7 electors voted for other candidates, so if the expected count is very close the EC could make a difference. But I agree that we can report the result here when multiple sources agree with the projection. Heitordp (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

@Heitordp: - Seems like a repeat, but if not, it still isn't part of the sources agreed upon in the sections above. I would only support a brief mention of 270toWin calling it in the text. --Super Goku V (talk) 16:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Decision Desk HQ and Business Insider have called it for Biden.

The New York Times has noted this. -- Valjean (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Once a reliable source projects a winner, then we can update the article. Prcc27 (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I believe based on the above sections that we would be a combination of AP and another one of the reliable sources listed elsewhere on the talk page. --Super Goku V (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

In one of the above sections, we agreed to update the article even if only one major media outlet projects a winner. But we would have to note that the other networks have not called it. Prcc27 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll reiterate: Aye. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I think we should wait until the results are certified per WP:NPOV. I have never seen a case where the vote has been overturned, but we also don't have the state results up for the same reason (I assume). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:26, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Vox uses Decision Desk HQ. The TV networks are being ridiculously slow. We should declare the winner (the Dem ticket defeated the GOP ticket) and cite DDHQ as a source. We should also mention Trump's reaction to the results in the first paragraph. Philosopher Spock (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

The AP, which most major news organizations defer to, will not call a race if the race will go to a recount. They will also not call a race if a candidate's lead is smaller than the number of ballots left to count. [9] That's definitely the case here, and calling a presidential election is nothing to rush into -- being prudent isn't "ridiculous". --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 22:40, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

I read the AP article and you misunderstood the part about the lead being less than the uncounted ballots. DDHQ was actually founded by a Republican precisely because AP and everyone else is so slow. Last time, they were slow to declare Trump the winner. This is beyond prudence. At this point, declaring the winner would be stating the obvious, not rushing into anything. Philosopher Spock (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

We are an encyclopaedia not a news site, so being conservative and slow is entirely in our bailwick. IMO we can mention the DDHQ declaration but we should wait for multiple independent sources to make a declaration before we suggest Biden is president elect in wikivoice. We should not be declaring anyone the winner when most of the media are still not doing so. That isn't "stating the obvious", that's getting ahead of reliable sources. It's not like this is a highly obscure story where no one else has reported it because they didn't notice it or they don't care. Sources aren't reporting it precisely because they feel it's too soon. You're welcome to head over to Wikinews or some other news site and argue about how a news site should handle it. Nil Einne (talk) 02:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd further note that even sources that use DDHQ don't always seem to be treating their call as sacrosanct. Buzzfeed News does, but their page [10] still just says the US is edging closer to knowing [11]. The Economist uses DDHQ and they are perhaps a bit closer to accepting their call [12] including an old story they headline as "Hello 46" on their main page [13], but weirdly their results table [14] hasn't been updated for 21 hours so of course doesn't have Pennsylvania called or even Biden leading. Nil Einne (talk) 03:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd add that Biden himself is not declaring victory, so not only are we getting ahead of the reliable sources, we're getting ahead of the supposed winner themselves. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I take your point that this is an encyclopedia, but the current article feels outdated. How about we add the word "apparently" in order to be "prudent", and remove the "if Trump wins" references? IMO sources aren't officially reporting it because they're afraid. Everyone implicitly acknowledges Biden has won. Philosopher Spock (talk) 04:06, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not our place to judge why sources aren't reporting something. We don't WP:OR what sources supposedly implicitly acknowledge. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP clearly doesn't refuse to call a race if the lead is smaller than the number of ballots left to count. If that was the case, they wouldn't have called Arizona on Wednesday US EST morning, a few hours after Fox News, a state which a number of media organisations have still notably refuse to call now on Friday US EST night in part because there is still more ballots to be counted than the lead [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. AP came to the conclusion based on their data that Trump would not be able to gain enough net votes from the remaining ballots to win early on, but as the lead has narrowed their call has come under increasing question and I don't mean by Trump supporters. Assuming that it ends with Biden winning in Arizona but with a fairly narrow lead it's possible that each side will stick with their views. AP will say they were right in the end. Others will say the lead narrowed so much that it could have easily reversed if their assumption about how much it would narrow was off by even a small percent. Nil Einne (talk) 02:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Not yet. The election is considered "called" when the major networks call it and not until then. They each have their own decision desk and this year they are being very conservative. In any case, they will not "call" the presidential elections until they have "called" enough states to amount to 270 electoral college votes. (Decision Desk HQ seems to be a self-appointed referee that provides election information to a few news organizations that can't afford their own coverage team or decision desk.) -- MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel a need to offer my two cents here. As someone who, on the one hand, has had extensive overall experience in Wikipedia (I've been editing here in various capacities for just under 1.5 decades now), I am also one who is relatively new in contributing to dscussions, deliberations, and decisions as they relate specifically to political articles. With that background in mind, on the one hand, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and should not use one, two, or even a few isolated sources as justification to provide information that is not confirmed in a majority of the reliable sources we have used for content up to this point. So there needs to be a balance as far as content here is concerned to ensure that we avoid going above and beyond what a majority of the reliable sources are saying. But that being said, we are also living in an unsual period of time where the call on some states may be delayed by legal proceedings, voting recounts, and, in the worst-case sceanrio, investigations of fraud. There is a lot at stake here, and my thought is that it would be wiser for us to be more prudent, cautious, and reserved in how we approach what to say and the manner in which it is said.

At the same time, with most of the major television networks in the United States reticent to make even the calls on states where votes are still being tabulated, or where the outcomes may face a legal challenge, and with many of those networks not yet declaring a winner, I'd say it would be more prudent for us to recognize that the nation is in an unprecedented situation that is constantly in flux, and is likely to be so for a while. As a result, my personal feeling is that patience, and reticence regarding what is said and the manner in which it is said will go a long way. I will take my comment further: I am not personally comfortable with the idea of this article using any wording that would indicate a conclusion any readers of this article should draw. I am far more comfortable with the idea of letting things play out. In instances like this, it's easier to be cautious and reserved in things for the time being than it would be to try after the fact to fix something put into this or other articles that is eventually verified as inaccurate or untrue. Just my two cents here, for whatever they may be worth to any of you reading them here. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:17, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

IMO we could probably update it now. Nil Einne (talk) 16:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Most networks have called the election

Should the line “ Some outlets, such as Fox News, and Reuters, have yet to call the election.” be changed due to the fact both of these outlets have put Biden over 270? Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I moved Fox to the projections sentence and deleted that sentence. What do we do with Reuters? They haven't project but have a headline saying "Biden will be the next president"? [20] Chris vLS (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, they have called it, was just hard to find. [21] Chris vLS (talk) 17:11, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP calls presidential race for Joe Biden

AP calls presidential race for Joe Biden

It looks like Fox News may follow suit any moment. -- Valjean (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

CNN has called the race as well VZkN9 (talk) 16:43, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As has the New York Times. WP Ludicer (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Pretty much all major US networks except for Fox News have called it. See e.g. [22]. Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox has called the election. As has ABC. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

So it would be okay to update the article then and declare Biden winner? IllQuill (talk) 16:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News has called for Biden per YouTube and their website Sau226 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

BBC too. [23]. 109.159.88.9 (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

EVERYONE does it now. -- Valjean (talk) 16:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

If our past consensus was to reflect this consensus, it seems like it might be time? Chris vLS (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox News is now the first one to give Nevada to Biden (290). -- Valjean (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) AP have also given Nevada to Biden [24] Nil Einne (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

AP gives Nevada to Biden (290). -- Valjean (talk) 17:27, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reactions;

I suggest the creation of a new section of reactions to Biden victory; here the first 5 international reactions (in chronological order)

1. https://twitter.com/fijipm/status/1324941240731840512 (11 hours before)
2. https://twitter.com/edmnangagwa/status/1325114530159075328 (first to announcement)
3. https://twitter.com/michealmartintd/status/1325115676873388035
4. https://twitter.com/ibusolih/status/1325119483799887873
5. https://twitter.com/justintrudeau/status/1325121342568505346

--KajenCAT (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Updating the map

Could someone update the electoral college map to add ME-2 for republican?

At present, two outlets have not called it, so not yet.[25]Chris vLS (talk) 17:39, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Map and EC number for Biden are inconsistent, current map listed adds up to 273 and it says 279 under his name. I’m assuming Nevada was added to the Biden column to reflect that, or 6 EC votes were added by mistake.

- 2605:8D80:602:3C82:E4A5:B21E:D812:88B6 (talk) 17:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fixed all of them. ME-2 is not called by CNN yet... Admanny (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

APT

Iranian apt targeted US voter registration data https://us-cert.cisa.gov/ncas/alerts/aa20-304a Baratiiman (talk) 14:48, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Targeting registration data does not directly connect to the election. —C.Fred (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

C.Fred the source clearly mentions election.Baratiiman (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Re-read. It does mention voter-intimidation emails. Not sure how or where to integrate this into the article, though. —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A new section on disinformation?

I just uploaded the following press conference from November 5:

11 05 20 President Trump Delivers Remarks

This press conference is notable because almost every sentence that the president says is demonstrably false, and there are many sources that have noted this particular conference for that fact. I also suggest that the disinformation coming from the White House, Rudy Giuliani, Alex Jones, etc. regarding the election be noted in the article.

Victor Grigas (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: if there is significant coverage and you have already uploaded the video, may I suggest you build an article for it? There may be a lot more coverage of it if Trump doesn't make any public statements this weekend. You can title it something like "Donald trump press conference of 5 November 2020". I am not a regular editor of this page, but I would think that may bog down the article a bit too much, Trump uses a lot of disinformation when it suits his purposes, though this was a particularly egregious case that was perhaps best summed up by Jake Tapper who called it "pathetic" on CNN. Footlessmouse (talk) 19:23, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox consistency

Howdy. Didn't we hold off from using Elected President in the infobox until the Electoral College voted, in the 2016 United States presidential election article, four years ago? Are we going to do the same, here? GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

You are correct... and should know, since you're the one who changed in last time after the Electoral College met and voted. Following prior practice, and the correct definition of the term, have changed it to President Elect in the inbox. Chris vLS (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Add into the lead in

I take it once this is all over, we can add a bit saying, Trump is the most successful president* ( * in the respect of his lost... compared to bush snr, carter etc etc) who failed reelection, as he managed to increase his share of the vote while picking up 8 million more voters overall from his 1st election, and only lost the states he required by 61'000 vote.

Remember this is in the current context, of his lose, IE he must be the only person seeking re-election to increase vote and still lose. --Crazyseiko (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Great? Voter turnout is higher on both sides, due in large part to polarization/rising extremism. This looks like nothing but partisan trivia. ɱ (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

I never said Great.. now whos using partisan trivia? The simple fact, even with increase turnout across the broad trump share of the vote shouldn't have gone up. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

As he has now lost, does anyone with a neutral point have a input? no other one term president who losted has never managed to keep or go above there original share of the route. Thats is the point. how else do you skirt around the main points, he was successful in that point, he still lost. --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The increase in turnout is interesting and notable. The full context is that both candidates won a very large number of votes. Biden won, I believe, more than any other candidate in the U.S. presidential election. Is the fact that Trump's very large number was the largest increase of a losing candidacy interesting? Maybe, but not in the lead section. And the word "success" is not the right word to use. It's not neutral nor the fitting term. Is there a reliable source that uses it that way? Chris vLS (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

(EC) IMO we should mention the historically high turn out and nothing else about record votes for any candidate. Biden may have received more votes than any previous candidate. Trump may have received more votes than any losing candidate. Etc etc. All means is that turnout was particularly high for a US election in a very long time, and also that US population/eligible voters has been increasing. Biden is likely to be far from a popular vote winning margin even in recent times. Trump is obviously far from a popular vote closeness margin for a losing candidate since as we all know, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore both won the popular vote (albeit neither one was an incumbent). Even in terms of percentage, Trump will probably still lose to Hillary Clinton and Al Gore and really that relates more other candidates. Nil Einne (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your points, Im just asking some Q's:   Another point is on the 2012 page "Obama was the first incumbent since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1944 to win reelection with fewer electoral votes and a smaller popular vote margin than had been won in the previous election," Trump is the opp, he increase popular vote margin yet lost. That might be a better way to write it?

For broad summary of what was notable about this election, we can wait a bit and see what the sources say. It's too early right now because while we know enough for the race to be called we don't know all the formal details, so sources aren't making that sort of in-depth analysis of what voting patterns mean. --Aquillion (talk) 18:22, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

It's not accurate, though, since John Quincy Adams in 1828 increased both his vote count and percentage share compared to 1824 despite losing reelection. 170.55.23.174 (talk) 22:13, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Every day is school day, mind you it was a four horse race.   If there was point was added, it would have to say Trump is the first president since John Quincy Adams, to increased both his vote count and percentage share while still lose the election.--Crazyseiko (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

International reactions

I am saddened to see a flag salad international reactions section cluttering up this already overlong article. It has no encyclopedic value, and it is a quotefarm. Should it be deleted? Or be spun off? Abductive (reasoning) 01:01, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I feel it should be deleted. As you say, there's no encyclopedic value in collecting tweets about this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree, especially since it's mostly just a list of people who reacted, without specifying what those reactions were. Also, the page for the 2016 election doesn't have an international reactions section. Emmablowgun (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

That's not correct, the section makes clear that all these country leaders congratulated Biden and Harris.

And actually there's an entire page regarding the 2016 election: International reactions to the 2016 United States presidential election, in stark contrast to the claims above that such reactions to an election are not encyclopedic. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Such reactions by foreign leaders are entirely encyclopedic and relevant, as evidenced by the fact that numerous reliable sources have dedicated coverage specifically to this part of the article topic - e.g. CBS, Associated Press, New York Times, CNN, Axios, Reuters, BBC. It's clear that their judgment about this aspect starkly diverges from the argument-free snarking above ("tweets", "cluttering").

Personally I don't have a strong opinion on whether each entry needs to be accompanied by a flag, but there too it's worth noting that Abductive's snark ("salad") is not reflected in MOS:FLAG.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

First few sentences formatting

The 2016 presidential election page has its second line as "The Republican ticket of businessman Donald Trump and Indiana governor Mike Pence defeated the Democratic ticket of former secretary of state Hillary Clinton and U.S. senator from Virginia Tim Kaine." Since we're already treating Biden as the president-elect on his page, would it not be consistent to use the same formatting here now, obviously replacing names and such? Stavd3 (talk) 01:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I say that would be appropriate when actual electoral vote occurs. Admanny (talk) 02:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Nebraska congressional districts

I noticed that on the infobox under "states carried" we have Biden carrying Nebraska's 2nd and Trump caring Maine 2nd, but don't have Trump carrying Nebraska's 1st and 3rd or Biden carrying Maine 1st. Should we add Nebraska 1 and 3 and Maine 1 to "states carried" in infobox? Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No because we didn't do that on 2016 United States presidential election, nor on 2008. For consistency, we shouldn't do it here either. --NYKevin 02:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We do not do so based on the other presidential election articles where there were times where Nebraska and Maine had their electoral votes split. I would be okay with a note if we must explain it in the infobox, but the concept is decently explained on Wikipedia to my knowledge. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Gender rights

Please add a section on LGBT rights. --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 23:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that? 331dot (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Whereas Trump is transphobic, Biden tells mother of transgender daughter there should be "zero discrimination". --2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This article is about the election; it's not a biography of either of them. Gender rights is something on which they may disagree, but it has not been a big issue in the election. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

LGBT rights should be under 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Campaign_issues.--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Whereas, for example, Michael Bloomberg said that trans rights mean nothing to the people in the Midwest[26], the Governor of a midwestern state Gretchen Whitmer praises the Harris Funeral Homes decision [27].--2601:C4:C300:1BD0:B12E:7FE8:276:C4A (talk) 00:27, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

This was not a major campaign issue by any means. There is no more reason to add a 'LGBT rights' section to this article than it would to add a 'Soybean Farming Subsidies' section. Thereppy (talk) 01:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• Joe Biden acknowledged LGBT people in his speech today: "I am proud of the coalition we put together, the broadest and most diverse in history.[...] Gay, straight, transgender." Read Joe Biden’s President-Elect Acceptance Speech: Full Transcript --24.99.88.86 (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No one is saying that gender issues haven’t been mentioned at all but simply that it was not a significant factor in the race as a whole.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 05:07, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Referring to Biden as the President-elect

I noticed that the article's infobox refers to Biden as the President-elect. The article for President-elect of the United States itself says (in opening paragraph) "If the result of an election is unclear or disputed, no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved." As the Trump campaign continues to dispute the election result, is it correct to continue to refer to Biden conclusively as the President-elect? Or at least should there be a tag that this is currently in dispute? Kidburla (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump has no cogent legal argument that is making any headway in the courts. What's the dispute? Trump does not have to agree with the result or give a formal concession speech for Biden to be president-elect. 331dot (talk) 23:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

A guy with executive power doesn't need a cogent legal argument to start, prolong or win a political dispute, he commands the same military and paramilitary that overruled several sitting presidents this century, some without congressional approval and in violation of international agreements. All he really needs to suspend civil liberties is a perceived worthwhile threat to national security. So if anybody is happy to see him go down easily, don't destroy your own commercial and industrial hubs before spring! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

To be clear, I find the idea of a hardcore crackdown unfair, unwise and rather unlikely. Just saying that until a sitting president admits defeat, he or she has certain advantages and can drag a dispute indefinitely (or to the death, anyway). The real snafu could come when Trump does say he's done, but the news decides he's lying (or even more awkward, repeats his "claim" as a fact!). InedibleHulk (talk) 04:35, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't see how your comments help resolve this question, Hulk. They seem more appropriate for a message board discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought 331 was arguing that we could consider this election dispute resolved, and go ahead with calling Biden president-elect. It's not over when the news thinks the legal approach is weak. Over when Trump concedes convincingly, because he has other potentially useful evidence and options, just via incumbency. Sorry. A bit unwell today! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation and sorry you are feeling unwell. This subject is just fraught with division and stress and it's best to avoid snark and commentary right now. The only way we can make progress with the many opinions editors have about this article is to stick to what reliable sources say is factually true. I hope you feel better tomorrow. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Aye, could've used fewer words and been clear enough the first time. No snark intended, though. I was pretty sarcastic in "controversy" below, kinda regret that, might delete. Should be feeling worse tomorrow, if history repeats, but better in four days. Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:17, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Voter Turnout?

Voter Turnout deserves a sub heading in results, can someone please add? Tx Billyshiverstick (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But with a lowercase "turnout", please! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

On that note I noticed the voter turnout in the infobox still says TDB. I suggest changing it to the currently reported one (with an "as of" on the side so people know it is still being updated). On the page Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections they cite the source http://www.electproject.org/2020g for this year's numbers. Skordiac (talk) 07:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Most votes ever cast proportion

Perhaps it would be worth the research to find the proportion of votes cast per the population of the US. According to National Archives the electoral college in this election is based on the 2010 census. Seems it would be more accurate to use population figures for 2020, which can be found at the Population Clock. Would need to find out how many people are eligible voters, though. Or, if a good source can be found, number of registered voters? LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC) Edited to add signature. LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

LuciusAreliusVerus, we don't do WP:original research here; instead we report what reliable secondary sources say. —valereee (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Uninformative state results

It could be more informative and visual to replace the gray states in the electoral map at the top right of the article with light blue and light red states according to the latest count. This vote count is current objective, official true data, regardless of how the counting of the remaining in-mail votes will turn out. The map would be updated anyway if the voting trend switches.

Similarly, the "Results by state" table is rather useless: It's mostly blank, it does not even show the number of Electors for pending states, or the latest number of votes for any state. A better layout might also allow to view all states on one screen in 2/3 columns for all states, and moving other candidates to a more detailed table. The "Sort ascending" icons could be removed and this functionality moved to clicking on the column header, changing its tooltip. This table could use the same color coding as the electoral map, i.e. light blue or red to reflect the latest count of votes, and there could be 2 "Total" lines, the current one with all state counts that are officially closed, and one according to the latest vote counts. Eventually, as state counts get closed, these 2 totals will become identical, so it's not a political projection to provide this true data and update it regularly. Even so, wikipedia could perform projections, as long as they are based on objective mathematical formulas, not subjective opinions or polls. For instance, projecting what the final count would be based on the known or estimated remaining number of votes to count and the latest average percentage of the latest votes counted. Sure, it could change depending on specific counties, but the table averages would be updated as soon as the data for these counties are integrated, so the table can only turn more and more precise, and at the end, would be strictly identical to the official data. But really, not displaying such basic information as the number of Electors for pending states and the latest official count for every state is not helpful at all. The same table would work great for both the on-going election and the archived elections once all results are officially in. You would just need to remove the useless projected total line at that time. Chimel31 (talk) 09:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Most of this would be WP:CRYSTALBALL. Admanny (talk) 10:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

No it wouldn't. The current count is what it is - these numbers are available, as they go along. Reflecting the current count on the map with lighter shades as the OP suggested would not be to predict the outcome in those States that are currently grey. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Unless you meant the second paragraph of the OP...I had only really read the first part. The second part..TLDR. Firejuggler86 (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph is WP:CRYSTALBALL. First goes against consensus, so cannot do much there. Someone tried doing that before but got reverted. Admanny (talk) 15:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Registered voters?

Is there any source that will eventually give us a total of registered voters for this election, so that we can calculate the exact turnout? --Aréat (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The Census Bureau keeps track of this. From the looks of page in the link, it might be available by April of 2021.LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020 (3)

Under the "Racial unrest: section I would like the first sentence changed from "As a result of the killing of George Floyd and other incidents of police brutality against African Americans, combined with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of protests and a wider period of racial unrest erupted in mid-2020." to "As a result of the killing of George Floyd and other incidents of accused "police brutality" against African Americans, combined with the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, a series of protests and a wider period of racial unrest erupted in mid-2020." because the left calls actions done by police "Police Brutality" regardless if it was necessary or not. If a police officer is being attacked and kills the person the left says "Lets riot because this is 'Police Brutality' " so to keep this partisan please make that edit because many "Police brutality" claims this year is just the effort of the left to have the police removed for free reign as we've seen in various cities. Baseplate RBLX (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please cite reliable secondary sources to support your change. Sixula^Talk 17:23, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Baseplate RBLX: While the edit request is satisfactorily answered, I should also add that we don't use sneer quotes, or any other variations of scare quotes, in article prose. Especially as the primary purpose of such quotes is typically to provide a false balance, in giving a prominent place for minority viewpoints relative to what a majority of reliable sources say. This should be avoided in future edit requests. While reliable sources differ in their reporting on individual events as to how they characterize a specific incident, there's general agreement that the protests are in response to a larger documented phenomenon of police brutality. The last part of your edit proposal is clearly a partisan opinion, and thus falls into WP:NOTFORUM territory. This isn't the place for political rhetoric and a subjective interpretation of events. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2020 (UTC)