Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Merge of international reactions list

The companion list of International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election was recently nominated for deletion and closed with a result to merge the list into this article. There are two problems with this:

  1. This is a contentious topic, and the closer of the discussion is not an administrator (possibly WP:BADNAC);
  2. Merging the list as-is would add a little over 100kB of text to this article, which is already far WP:TOOLONG. The merge would put this page up to about #11 on the list of the longest articles on Wikipedia. I already have trouble loading it on an AMD Ryzen 5 7000 series.

What should be done here? My suggestion would be to not merge the list. If it is to be merged then it should be trimmed substantially. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be unwise to add it to this article unless it is trimmed down, due to length. I am also having some trouble with loading this article, and I am on a gaming PC. I hate to imagine how others devices are doing with loading. And it sounds like it falls under WP:BADNAC like you said. Situation #2 and #4 look like they apply, which would mean that it could be challenged.
User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 23:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It has been over 72 hours, so I was about to do it. It can be trimmed, but it would need to be made clear what should be trimmed. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
correct so there will need to be some talk about that. I would suggest to open that talk on the other talk page. Since it is the article that will be trimmed then moved. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 15:33, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"To discuss the merger, please use the destination article's talk page." This is the destination to talk about this. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An attempt was made to merge the two pages, but I reverted on purely technical grounds because it caused this page to exceed the WP:PEIS limit and prevented it from rendering correctly. Even if the flag icons were removed from the "International reactions" article, the number of citations alone would cause this page to exceed the limit after a merge. I will not pass any judgement on whether or not the "international reactions" article should or shouldn't be deleted, but as it stands now there are technical reasons preventing a merge. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 19:40, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can tell, it was merged with limited changes which was the issue and kinda when against the style of this article. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector and Sheriff U3: Working on this as it has been over a week now. Working on trimming, but if there are specific suggestions, then I would appreciate them. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Goku V Before adding any text back in, please preview the page and make sure there is not an error message about exceeding the "Post-Expand Include Size" limit. I've commented out all the text you added. My suggestion would be at the very least to remove all references to world leaders who simply said "congrats" or something similar, but I'm still not sure there was consensus in the deletion discussion to include anything other than a very high-level summary. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 16:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My specific suggestion was to not merge the list. I applaud your effort, but no amount of trimming will make the list an appropriate addition to an article that is already too long. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:24, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get the suggestion, but if the consensus was to merge, then at some point it needs to be merged. As for the list, I was attempting to keep trimming until it seemed to be detailed enough without going overboard. Problem is that it is going to take awhile, unless some criteria is set up. (Maybe only G20 countries?) --Super Goku V (talk) 09:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I misunderstood the consensus a bit then. My thoughts were to keep condensing the list until it was down to under thirty world leaders along with noting anything that wasn't a congrats or was otherwise notable. To clarify the end of that sentence, here was how the European portion read: Of note, the Head of the Committee on International Affairs in Russia's State Duma Leonid Slutsky expressed hope that Trump's victory could result in a more constructive solution for the handling and eventual conclusion of the Russo-Ukrainian war against what he referred to as Democratic funding and resistance against Russia since 2014. Prime Minister Kristersson of Sweden expressed concern regarding Trump's Ukraine policy while Spain's Second deputy prime minister Yolanda Díaz called Trump's victory "bad news for everyone who understands politics as the tool to improves our lives, not to intoxicate them with hate and misinformation." Foreign Minister Jan Lipavský of the Czech Republic expects Trump to put pressure on Europe to assume more responsibility for its own defense. (Commented out:) Cardinal Secretary of State Pietro Parolin of the Holy See expressed to reporters following the elections, “Certainly, we wish [Trump] the best. As he begins his term, we hope he is granted great wisdom, as this is the key virtue of leaders according to the Bible.” Ireland. (Was considering covering this.) Antonio Tajani, Deputy Prime Minister of Italy, Tariffs (Was considering covering Tajani's comments about Trump's planned tariffs.) (Probably, I would have deleted the commented out portion to keep things shorter and tried to trim up the rest of it.) Regardless, I was trying to figure out some way to cover things without going into too much. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ivanvector, Sheriff U3, Super Goku V: I opened up a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 November 25#International reactions to the 2024 United States presidential election. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 17:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you for informing us of this. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 21:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to hold off on all edits towards making the merge happen while that discussion is in progress. If there is a question of if there was a consensus to merge, then I agree that it needs to be resolved first. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you on holding off @Super Goku V on continuing the merge. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 16:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox count

The infobox count & the "results" section, don't seem to be adding up the same. GoodDay (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the same thing. I reviewed the numbers from The Green Papers and attempted to subtract third-party candidates to see if that might align with the AP's method, but the results still didn't match. Even summing their own figures doesn't seem to produce percentages that correspond with what they're showing. Maybe someone else can figure out how the AP is getting their percentage? DMBradbury 20:33, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we should use a different source? If so, which one would be better? Prcc27 (talk) 21:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like Green Papers includes overvotes, undervotes, "none" and "none of the above." Maybe AP does not count those? Topcat777 21:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuesp1985: See this discussion and #Popular Vote tally regarding the infobox. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations

When will the nominations be moved up? The rest of the elections have the nominations are at the near top, only under the background. Also, I remember that a user made a topic regarding that. G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 09:46, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objections to matching how it's done in the other US prez election pages. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be ok to do. I would wait a day or so and see what others think. Then if there are no issues you could do the proposed change. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a particularly controversial move. It could be done right away. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at @G0dzillaboy02 User contributions, he is not extended confirmed, so he can't add it.
I can't add it myself either, as I too am not extended. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 03:00, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of like an edit request, but also in the same time questioning when will the change happen G0dzillaboy02 (talk) 07:40, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's moved. David O. Johnson (talk) 08:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Trump's criminal trials in the lead (also removed Trump's assassination attempts) and in the "Nominations" section

In short
I am not going to argue that everything is perfect and should stay as it is; it can certainly be improved to be more concise but the cited reasons for removal are fallacious and not supported by RS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1258880736 "Two paragraphs of negative commentary re Donald Trump in the introduction, with no corresponding commentary addressing negatives toward Biden/Harris, does seem indicative of venting political bias rather than a desire to provide unbiased information."

  • This looks like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me. We do not have to add "corresponding commentary addressing negatives toward Biden/Harris" just to make it even with Trump. Whether we like it or not, that was a big deal in the election (we even had a Supreme Court ruling about Trump's eligibility due to his criminal trials), and of course that edit also eliminated Trump's two assassination attempts, which were among the big stories of the election. It may need to be reworded (and I am all ears and willing) but I think it belongs as Trump's criminal trials/indictments and his two assassination attempts were the big stories of the election cycle. It is not our fault if Harris was good enough to generally avoid controversies, let alone avoid being prosecuted, indicted, and convicted, or if RS simply did not cover Harris as much as Trump, who was sanewashed in contrast to Biden for the same issue.
  • Also the lead must reflect the body and RS, and we cannot ignore sections like "Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump" or how this was significantly covered by RS. If we are going to mention that Trump is the first president since Cleveland to become president again after losing re-election, we might as well say he is the first convicted felon to become president, since this was also widely discussed by RS and that is probably a bigger deal. The fact he won despite his criminal trials just make it even more due to have it in the lead; the issue should be how to phrase it, and how much prominence should we give it in the lead, not whether it should be included or not. On that, I think that RS are clear, but please correct me if wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2024_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1258887316 "not relevant to Trump's nomination by the GOP"

  • So much "not relevant to Trump's nomination by the GOP" that it is included in the lead of "2024 Republican Party presidential primaries" and it was clearly relevant from all the RS I read while following the primaries and remains relevant as he won the presidency. It would have been better to argue that it was already discussed in the "Criminal trials and indictments against Donald Trump" section and thus was redundant or a duplication rather than falsely say it is "not relevant to Trump's nomination by the GOP". I think it belongs, maybe it could just be condensed, that is all.

I have not reverted these edits or re-added the content myself. I would not lose my sleep if they are not re-added but the given reasoning is weak. Davide King (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have a rewrite going on here if you would like to take a look you may. I am open to any and all feedback. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 02:57, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Assassination attempts should be in the lead. Recent edits have also made it more left leaning, like adding that he won the vote of “people without college degrees.” Eg224 (talk) 02:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unbolding the lead

For this page & all the other US presidential election pages. I think unbolding the lead, based on input by a very small # of editors at a related WikiProject discussion, might be jumping the gun, a bit. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was held at the appropriate venue and was advertised on this talk page as well. That was three weeks ago. Merely saying "I oppose", without any explanation, is not constructive. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody objects to your changes to 60+ pages, now that they've been made. Then so be it. But if they do object, via reverting those changes? Then there was no consensus to change in the first place. So, we'll wait & see. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is not how consensus works. You not agreeing three weeks after a consensus was reached does not mean that no consensus was reached. Surtsicna (talk) 00:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If nobody else opposes the unboldings or reverts them, than so be it. GoodDay (talk) 00:20, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral College votes infobox.

I do not think we should remove the “projected electoral vote” field until after all electors have cast their vote. If we want to add what the vote tally is hour by hour as the electoral college votes, I would propose adding a separate field (“electoral votes cast”) in addition, not in lieu of, the current projected field. See my sandbox for how this would look, and let me know if you all support it. Prcc27 (talk) 18:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, let's wait until the Electoral College has voted, before removing "projected". There's always a chance of faithless electors. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this would be a wise move! User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 22:37, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undefined reference

Hello Super Goku V! In your recent edit, you added a footnote which depends on a citation named "Fiji Response". But there's no citation in this article which defines that name and the article shows an undefined reference error because of it. Are you able to provide a citation for the material you added, so that this error can be fixed? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was from the merged article in a sense. I guess I was going to keep the Fiji source and then didn't or something. Will get that resolved. Sorry for the trouble and thank you for letting me know. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. I wrote in one spot "FijiResponse" and in another spot "Fiji Response" with a space. My bad on that. It has been corrected. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the fix! -- mikeblas (talk) 12:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The popular vote percentage as reported by ABC, CBS, NBC and others shows Trump with 49.9% This is not consistent with AP's reporting (which is cited) but the majority of networks report 49.9. If we are rounding to nearest tenth of one point then 49.9% Trump to Harris 48.3% is the correct rounding. Full counts have shown Trump below 49.85 which would round up to 50.0%. If you are going to round consistently between candidates it should read 49.9% to 48.3% or if rounding to whole percent 50% to 48%. Typically Wikipedia has rounded to tenth of a percent. Hans100 (talk) 21:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry your side lost the election but we aren’t going to change the results to try to make you feel a bit better about things. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He won but he is under 50% so that is a fact. Hans100 (talk) 02:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NBC, ABC, and CNN are all reporting the exact same popular vote total, which is about half a million votes ahead of AP's current total. LV ✉ ✎ 03:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DUE, we need to be reporting what those sources say. Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As of 10:35 EST:
74,504,984-76,993,848 (ABC, CNN, NBC). CNN and NBC report the percents as 48.3%-49.9%, while ABC reports no percentage.
74,348,719-76,851,910 (AP). The reported percentage is 48.4%-50.0%.
A third of a million total popvote difference, sorry. LV ✉ ✎ 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bjoh249, you made your opinions clear last time. We are going to go with what reliable sources say, whether that is that Trump won a majority or a plurality of the popular vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 04:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is such a wild reaction to simple numbers. "Hey, the info doesn't quite add up on this article" "SHUT UP YOU LOST!!!"
Should the article cite numbers or should it cite Bjoh's weird emotional outburst Thx.thx.goodbye (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is what a .1% change? I don't think we have to update every 10 mins as numbers go up and down. Once all the votes have been counted and the final numbers released, then we should update. As far as what you said about other elections, they are over all the votes counted, this one is still on going. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 17:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently Trump has 49.98% of the vote. So, it's 50.0% since none of these election articles rounds to the hundredth of a percent. Topcat777 19:25, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, this is why I think that it is unnecessary to update the tally. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 19:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Cook as of this evening, Trump is at 49.83% and VP Harris is at 48.26%. The tenth of a percent rounding is now 49.8% Donald to 48.3% Harris. Hans100 (talk) 05:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a concensus with sticking with the AP. The results will change when the AP changes them. Bjoh249 (talk) 13:22, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or if the current consensus changes. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is clear enough that he only has a plurality, per FactCheck, Politico, and MSNBC, but the specific number is still unclear. To my understanding, there is another million or two votes left to be counted so this might be best to wait on and to update when AP does. That or we get an agreement to switch from AP if they are behind on reporting. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, why are we sticking with AP when more reputable sources (CBS, Cook, NBC) have more current data and different percentages. It is clear Donald is down to 49.8% Hans100 (talk) 05:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there was a consensus in the past to use AP for the infobox. If there is support for switching to a new method, then we don't need to stick with the AP. --Super Goku V (talk) 11:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP is a reputable source. All the sources will catch up and report the same final numbers in due time. AP is not intentionally fudging the numbers to tick you off. Bjoh249 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems WP:UNDUE to rely on one source, unless AP was somehow more accurate than the other sources (but this does not seem to be the case). The other sources are reputable too, AP may have a better reputation because they have been around for a long time, not necessarily more accurate though. Prcc27 (talk) 16:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not recall using the words 'ticked off' nor 'intentionally fudging' in any way Bjoh249 and hope that you will avoid any additional claims like that. I have answered Hans100's question about why we are sticking with AP at this time. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of the 60 articles on US presidential elections, 57 round the vote percentage to the nearest tenth, two to the nearest hundredth (1880 and 1960) because of the closeness of the vote between the two candidates, and one (1840) to the nearest hundredth for unknown reasons. Topcat777 18:05, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based of that then we should round to the nearest tenth and not hundredth, unless it quite close. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 18:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we should be rounding to the nearest tenth as is standard. And it seems that using AP is the standard too, but it's concerning to see them so far behind in counting the numbers. However, I'm sure they will eventually catch up with every other outlet in properly reporting the percentage as 49.9% for Trump and 48.3% for Harris. We should maintain patience. Bobtinin (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, we should not be in too much of a hurry, we are not a news source, we are an encyclopedia. User Page Talk Contributions Sheriff U3 20:23, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can use the CNN totals and do our own rounding. We do not need to stick with AP for that reason. Prcc27 (talk) 21:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The AP count has been used since election day. It's more reliable than CNN. Topcat777 02:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]


AP really does seem to be out of whack with everyone else, as it stand today 28th Nov: AP: T: 76.9M H-74.4M While NBC has T: 77.1M H-74.6M What really really weird is Al Jazeera is out but a country mile and much larger margin for both: IE Trump is 50.01% - 77,858,191 ( which looks to be 78M shortly) and Harris: 75,247,873 -48.33% https://www.aljazeera.com/us-election-2024/ Can anyone explain that and why AP is still being used when there not keeping up today, Does look like when all is said and done Trump will be 50%.... ; --Crazyseiko (talk) 10:47, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I am unsure. How the process should work is by getting the vote totals from election officials and adding them up. Based on LV's comment from almost three days ago to yours, that is AP's counts adding roughly 0.1M to both Harris and Trump and NBC's counts roughly adding 0.2M to Trump and 0.1M to Harris. The numbers I am seeing are: AP: 74,441,440 votes to 76,916,902 votes (48.4% to 50%); ABC+CBS+CNN+NBC: 74,666,439 votes to 77,100,099 votes (All, but ABC: 48.3% to 49.9%; ABC: No percents). I did take a peak at Fox News and they have the same as AP, which makes sense given that they use AP VoteCast with AP while the networks including CNN use National Election Pool.
Al Jazeera doesn't make sense when they claim their source is AP. Their results are at 75,247,947 votes to 77,858,299 votes. (48.33% to 50.01%) This is well off of AP. And to try to round out this analysis, DDHQ is at 74,722,181 votes to 77,137,509 votes with no precents. So by the two combined, you have 151,358,342 votes reported by AP VoteCast; 151,766,538 votes reported for National Election Pool (+408,196); 153,106,246 votes reported for Al Jazeera (+1,747,904); and DDHQ votes reported at 151,859,690 (+501,348). --Super Goku V (talk) 03:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, tiny percentage differences do not matter and are barely worth discussing. In this case, the question of whether or not Trump got a plurality or a majority of the popular vote is much more significant. After all, terms like "landslide" and "mandate" have been tossed around. Cullen328 (talk) 19:51, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Trump Won" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Trump Won has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 November 25 § Trump Won until a consensus is reached. Airtransat236 (talk | contribs) 22:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 November 2024

Proposed update to the voter demographics table with the exit poll data. The source on CNN's website was updated today at 2:30 p.m. ET. There have been some slight changes to some of the numbers by about a point or so in favor of one of the candidates or as a percentage of the total vote.

For example, the first section, which refers to ideology, currently shows Harris winning 57% of the vote among moderates, while the update shows her winning 58% of the vote. Likewise, the current version of the article shows conservatives as making up 34% of the total vote, while the update shows them as 35% of the total vote. In this case, the request would be to change "57%" to "58%" and "34%" to "35%".

As the exit poll is quite detailed, listing every single update would be rather extensive. Asuka Langley Shikinami (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Election

How come on every United States presidential election page on Wikipedia it does not say like for an example the 2024 United States presidential election was the 60th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday November 5 2024? I am just curious why those words were taken out. Suchi Sobel (talk) 04:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See #Unbolding the lead above. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:35, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Silver did NOT predict a Trump victory

The sub-section "Analysis," under the higher level section "Aftermath", begins with two paragraphs of general framing and context coloring the election, before turning to how individual analysts and journalists viewed the race.

Analyst Nate Silver appears first among those individuals. He gets a full paragraph, the first sentence of which claims that Silver "correctly forecast that Trump would win". That's not true, or not in any meaningful sense, as even the same paragraph makes clear. The claim should be removed.

Silver's final simulation (see existing paragraph) conducted at midnight as Monday turned into Tuesday's election day predicted a Harris victory by an almost impossibly slender edge, but a Harris victory nonetheless. It would be one or the other of the two major party candidates. It doesn't matter how narrowly when there can be only one predicted winner. In Silver's model, that winner was Harris.

As for Silver himself, whatever else he may have written or said along the way (Silver said and wrote a whole lot of things, producing that content is how he earns his living) he wrote in the same crack-of-election-day piece that the election per his model was an even closer call than a coin flip (see piece for why that could be so), so close that he would never make a money bet on the outcome, but that if you offered a "free bet" on the election, he would place that bet on a Harris victory.

So we have Silver's final model simulations favoring a Harris win -- however narrowly -- and the man himself by way of a hypothetical bet saying the same thing, Harris would win. If there are (theoretically) other times or places where Silver seemed to conclude otherwise, even that wouldn't vitiate his final analyses of a Harris victory to the extent the sub-section currently claims.

This is a recommendation that a capable editor please revise or remove the first sentence such that this article no longer reads Silver "correctly forecast that Trump would win." He did not.

Please consult sources linked in the wiki entry already, but for a general summary of Silver's final analysis -- including the report of Silver's betting choice of a Harris victory -- see this 6 November piece from Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/nate-silver-response-election-results-1981136 Iandiareii (talk) 15:02, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right, he had Harris as the slight favorite, albeit his gut leaned towards a Trump win. Very curious he almost bet and lost $100,000, since he didn’t think Trump would win Florida by a 8%+ margin. Probably WP:UNDUE to include this little bit of trivia though. Prcc27 (talk) 17:52, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

County Swing Map

As part of the Results section under the maps subsection, could an extended confirmed user add my map?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._2020_to_2024_presidential_election_swing.svg

Timetorockknowlege (talk) 20:53, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More like the smallest since the 2000 United States Presidential election. Bringing up Hillary Clinton’s past result sounds biased. Using an opinion piece as the source from a left wing publication is also biased. Bjoh249 (talk) 22:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=1260285376"