This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 |
A phrase in the fourth paragraph states, "by filing 63 lawsuits in several states (all of which were later withdrawn, dismissed, or overturned by various courts)".
2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Yesterday, a new Reuters report[1], mentioning the current status of the FBI investigation into the Jan. 6 riot, has said that there is "scant" evidence that that incident was coordinated in advance and intentionally plotted to overthrow the government, what would be generally considered to be a coup, or an insurrection. As the article states, "One source [in the FBI] said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as 'seditious conspiracy' to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government". There seems to be little logical basis to maintain that this was an insurrection, when multiple sources in the FBI, as well as all of the charges of the individuals involved in the Capitol riot seem to present that the official position of the legal system and the government as a whole is that this was only a riot. Should we continue to consider this to be an insurrection, despite credible disagreement? I'm not talking about the impeachment articles, since that was simply the charges that were made against Donald Trump, but about the description of my previous edits, as well as where it states that the Jan. 6 incident was "widely described as an attempted coup". I hope we can all reach consensus on this issue.Nousername46000 (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
References
((cite web))
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(help)
In the table for Results by state, there's a column called "Margin Swing." There's no mention of what this means or how the figure is calculated. A footnote would be helpful to define this column. I suspect it's how much the margin swung from the 2016 election, but I'm just guessing. I hesitate to modify the page based on a guess. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
Arizona's post-cerification "audit" shows that the margin of Biden's win was actually UNDER-reported[1]. (The "audit" recorded 99 additional votes for Joe Biden, 261 fewer votes for Donald Trump, and 204 fewer votes for Jo Jorgensen.) Should we update the results (at both the state and national level) to reflect these new margins on the grounds that they are possibly more accurate? Or should we stick with the original, certified numbers on the grounds that they are the official results?
Please note the precedent we set could have consequences if any other states or localities subsequently perform "audits" that purport to show a dramatic change in results. ROADKILL (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
References
This article is biased af 2600:8805:1503:9700:71E6:DEF7:AAE:1B01 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is very biased, as it doesn’t say anything about the way Biden won, not the possibility of election fraud. 2600:1005:B16E:45E:94BD:30FE:73C5:A001 (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B16E:45E:94BD:30FE:73C5:A001 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
On some United States election artitcles (1792 United States presidential election for an example), it shows 'Alliance' in the infobox for factions with the political party. I think this article should include that with Joe Biden's alliance being New Democrats and Donald Trump's being Trumpism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotMapperCDP (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I've noticed that under the Postal Voting section, there's a paragraph claiming that Pennsylvania illegally took away the state legislature's power to regulate elections. It also claimed that these changes made it more likely to lead to corruption in the vote. Now, with all due respect to everyone who works hard to make this article as great as it can be, I find it irresponsible that such an edit, published on 26 October 2021 by Tgec17 (he did two, I'm referring to the first one he did) has gone unchallenged for over a week. Since I'm unable to edit the article on my own, this is my only chance to raise awareness about the edit. I recognize that there's a chance that my entry into this talk page may end up being deleted, but I hope that this edit is at least addressed, even it if means leaving it in place. Adrianninerfan (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Add your !vote and/or commentary below. Relevant guideline: MOS:LEDE.
At the time of writing in December 2021, this article contains the following text "The OSCE's election monitoring branch is due to publish a more comprehensive report in early 2021."
This should be updated. Has the "comprehensive" OSCE report been released, and if so, is there anything notable which should be added to this article? 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a missing space right before the last sentence of the first section. 173.71.170.75 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
In regarding Joe Biden having the highest vote tally, isn't it a bit redundant to bring up the 2008 election? The line "...surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008" doesn't really add anything and seems WP:UNDUE. As if Obama was the only candidate in history to receive the highest popular vote tally in a presidential election. Especially considering Obama broke Bush's record of 62 million votes, While Bush broke Reagan's record of 54 million votes in 2004, Regan broke Nixon's record of 47 million votes in 1984 and so forth. Yet oddly enough in none of those articles is any popular vote "record-breaking" mentioned. Not only that but contextually it also seems to conflate popular vote tallies with general popularity, which is obviously untrue.
There's obviously a natural trend for more recent candidates to receive bigger vote tallies regardless of party as the population grows.
Simply stating that Biden received the most popular votes ever in a presidential election during a high-turnout years seems to be more impartial and fair to both Obama and Biden. I would recommend something like this, "To date, Biden has received the most votes in a presidential election". The preposition to "... to date" makes it seem like a statement with a time constraint, as if to imply it's likely another individual will get more votes. It also comes across as more WP:IMPARTIAL.
Say hypothetically Biden wins the popular vote again in 2024 (likely but beside the point), gets 86 million votes for example. Are we going to have these constant references through articles about vote tallies and recording breaking dating only to 2008? So is this (hypothetical) 2024 article going say, Biden received the most votes ever cast for a candidate, 86 million, which broke the 2020 record of 82 million, which also broke the the former record held in 2008?
The 2008 article references the 2020 article as far as the popular vote which, doesn't seem to add impartial information but fluff, the note about Obama receiving the highest percentage of the popular vote sense 1964 is good information. Constantly making tallies about record breaking the popular vote in elections where the population is constantly growing doesn't make much sense, mentioning Trump getting more votes than Obama also doesn't make much sense either and seems redundant.
I think the standard should be, "As of,... "To date,..." "...Biden has received the most popular votes in a general election" period, with no direct comparisons.
68.189.4.21 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lshane23. Peer reviewers: SumayyahGhori, Mberk11, Crazy326459, Wiki811pedia, Mvmarsha.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dpe12. Peer reviewers: Strr34, Aah153.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The following statement in section Campaign issues: Racial unrest is not supported by the linked source:
"Although a majority of the protests were peaceful, widespread riots and looting also occurred."
The linked source directly contradicts this. Nowhere does it mention "widespread riots and looting." The source describes the protests as "remarkably nonviolent," "overall levels of violence and property destruction were low," "protesters displayed an extraordinary level of nonviolent discipline," etc. See the following paragraph:
"These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence. Such claims are false. Incidents in which there was protester violence or property destruction should be regarded as exceptional — and not representative of the uprising as a whole."
It doesn't get much clearer than that.
There is nothing in this source supporting "widespread riots and looting;" in fact, it directly contradicts this. This line should either be removed, amended to say there was remarkably little violence, or cited with an appropriate source. 108.205.174.131 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
All I wanted from Wikipedia is the totals of the 2020 Popular Vote. In this incredibly long sense article all I saw was:. "The election saw the highest voter turnout by percentage since 1900, with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008. Biden received more than 81 million votes,..."
Nowhere do you give the totals for the 2 Candidates. I was already aware Biden got 81 million. I vaguely seem to recall that's 7 million more votes than Trump? But I was looking to verify the count. The statement that "each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million" doesn't qualify as a verified total to me. Why would you not bluntly state the numbers, especially when there's been such a bruhaha over the election. I use Wikipedia to verify and back up information. Please make this clear right at the beginning. The bit of info on how many votes each State gave the Candidates was interesting but still didn't help. 2600:1012:B054:EAB9:E8A7:ECCC:B110:3FA1 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Im new to this, but i have found pieces of this description.of the 2020 election to be somewhat biased and in places inaccurate. I understand it is a heated controversial topic with feelings firing instantly at the mention, but i do feel omiting info, partially giving details or speaking opinion rather than fact benefits no one. People , I assume , when searching on topics want to know the whole answer not part. For example, he didnt lose 64 cases. For technicalities, many courts refused to hear the case. There is no mention of the , numerous states, senators filing lawsuits and going before.supreme court who refused to hear case. thousands of affidavits signed under risk of jail, perjury stating fraud, non partisan eye witnesses , no mention of the states changing their election laws unconstitutionally or allowing ballots violating election laws. No mention of 2 sets of electors sent to vote. No mention of the audits and canvasing results verifying inaccuracies. No mention of illegal campaign donations targeting voters and creating voter suppression in certain states, 500,000 donations and directions placed on officials. zuckerburg.. conflict of interests, poll witnesses not allowed in to view or suffering harassment. Numerous Chain of custody breaks in numerous ways, software compromised on election equipment, connections to the internet verified in front of senate. Also the most secure election comment was referenced then the person stating this said he did not verify all aspects of the election. He focused primarily on foreign influence. Just a thought, maybe we can paint a more accurate portrayal of 2020. Andstillirise (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Andstillirise-- I agree entirely. I was rather surprised when I read the entry, since I do not usually find Wikipedia to be so editorial. Talk Page responses like: “…not Trump talking points designed to grift from supporters,” from 331dot, or whoever it is, very much highlight the issue. No one has suggested citing Trump talking points as objectively factual, either. But the fact that a case was not heard on the merits, for example the SC petitions, does not mean that there were none to be heard. To imply so is not encyclopedic, but misleading. “None of the protests were legally successful” sufficiently and impartially conveys the facts.
The entire third paragraph is problematic. E.g.:
“Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states.”
This, intentionally, I am sure, gives the subjective impression that Trump and “numerous Republicans” were attempting to illegitimately, even illegally, (subvert. falsely alleging) influence a process that they knew was not corrupt, as they alleged. That is not factual. There is no evidence at all that warrants dismissing the idea that they honestly believed they were challenging an illegal or rigged outcome and were right in doing so. There are no facts, including court actions, that support subversive intent. Venqax (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
The fact that much of the large increase in mail-in voting was attributable to states changing their election laws is something that I think we should consider mentioning in the article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
It seems that our fellow contributors who complain of an inaccurate portrayal of events often lack RS to portray them more accurately. Either the sources are being eaten by the deep state, or maybe the article is as close to accurate for a general overview as we can get it. Tyrone (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it is factual to say the 2020 election was perhaps one of the most controversial elections. It is factual to say the Trump legal team filed numerous unsuccessful lawsuits in relation to election practices and alleged voter fraud. There were numerous unsuccessful senatorial objections on Jan 6th to the electoral vote submission count. Joe Biden was elected the 46th President, scheduled for inauguration on January 20th. As far as the Jan 6th riot, to be fair and accurate i would like to see the results from the investigative committee because the only definitive comments are by DOJ stating it was not an insurrection and the arrests/convictions. I think properly it deserves more attention commentary. Andstillirise (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
LGBT voters ratio among Biden voters to Trump voters is 64:27 2603:6081:7943:279C:D850:E971:4014:AB19 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Kamala Harris is Jamaican, not African-American, please fix this issue. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Second paragraph, line 2: Change Biden's running mate, Harris, became the first African-American to Biden's running mate, Harris, became the first Black. Kamala Harris is of immediate Jamaican descent through her father. <ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/13/donald-kamala-harris-father/</> Adrierising (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Should the following report be referenced? It appears to be a notable piece of work, conscientious and thorough. https://lostnotstolen.org//wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lost-Not-Stolen-The-Conservative-Case-that-Trump-Lost-and-Biden-Won-the-2020-Presidential-Election-July-2022.pdf 2601:601:1501:8320:6DE4:B5CB:2040:EC74 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Section of concern: "Biden became the second former vice president, after Republican Richard Nixon in 1968, to be elected president without having succeeded to the office on the death of a previous president."
I don't believe this is true. Gorge HW Bush was surely a case of a Vice President succeeding Reagan to the Presidency in 1989 not as a result of the latter's death, making Biden the third such case? 195.89.130.7 (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I think this info should be added to the article.
Hi there 25132dre4rgd (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The current text reads as follows: "GSA delays certifying Biden as president-elect Main article: Presidential transition of Joe Biden § Delays in initiating the transition Although all major media outlets called the election for Biden on November 7, the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), Trump appointee Emily W. Murphy, refused for over two weeks to certify Biden as the president-elect. Without formal GSA certification or "ascertainment" of the winner of the election, the official transition process was delayed.[472] On November 23, Murphy acknowledged Biden as the winner and said the Trump administration would begin the formal transition process. Trump said he had instructed his administration to "do what needs to be done" but did not concede, and indicated he intended to continue his fight to overturn the election results.[473]"
I believe some of this text to be heavily biased & unnecessary per the context of "GSA delays certifying Biden as president-elect". The text I proposed be removed are the following in order of appearance: - "Although all major media outlets called the election for Biden on November 7," on the basis that newscasters & viewership have no legal grounds & may only represent public opinion instead of fact - " Trump appointee " as it is unimportant unless this is proven to sway the head official's opinion on the matter. While it is a statement of fact, it appears to be for dishonest reasons. - " Trump said he had instructed his administration to "do what needs to be done" but did not concede, and indicated he intended to continue his fight to overturn the election results.[473]" as it seems irrelevant to the passage; fluff without need.
In summary, I believe the topic would be better served if the article read something to the affect of the following:
"GSA delays certifying Biden as president-elect Main article: Presidential transition of Joe Biden § Delays in initiating the transition The head of the General Services Administration (GSA), Emily W. Murphy, refused for over two weeks to certify Biden as the president-elect. Without formal GSA certification or "ascertainment" of the winner of the election, the official transition process was delayed.[472] On November 23, Murphy acknowledged Biden as the winner and said the Trump administration would begin the formal transition process.[473]"
Thank you for your time in reviewing my comment. I believe this is an important subject to get correct & separate from fiction & mudslinging. 96.27.160.54 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
((edit semi-protected))
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)In intro - " This is the second time in American history, after Harrison in 1892, that the Republican Party was voted out after a single term, and the first for either party since 1980. " Is this accurate statement ? What about daddy Bush ?? M.Karelin (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
CNN, may have some use here on in a sub-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
The second paragraph under the "statistics" heading under the "results" section ends with:
"Biden is the fifth vice president to become president without succeeding to the office on the death or resignation of a previous president."
Biden is actually the sixth, the first 5 are:
1. John Adams (VP under Washington, elected to the Presidency in 1796)
2. Thomas Jefferson (VP under Adams, elected to the Presidency in 1800)
3. Martin Van Buren (VP for Andrew Jackson's second term, elected to the Presidency in 1836)
4. Richard Nixon (VP under Eisenhower, elected to the Presidency in 1968)
5. George H. W. Bush (VP under Reagan, elected to the Presidency in 1988)
And Biden (VP under Obama, elected to the Presidency in 2020) makes 6. Jeffmalarts (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Arvin Vohra presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Arvin Vohra presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ken Nwadike Jr. presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Ken Nwadike Jr. presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Michael E. Arth presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Michael E. Arth presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Robby Wells presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Robby Wells presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Leading from "Biden secured the Democratic presidential nomination over his closest rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, while Trump secured re-nomination against token opposition in the Republican primaries. GillettDaniel (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
I posted this before and I'm posting it again because this article is STILL wrong.
The second paragraph under the "statistics" sub-heading under the "results" heading says: "Biden is the fifth vice president to become president without succeeding to the office on the death or resignation of a previous president." Biden is the SIXTH. The first five were:
1. John Adams (VP under Washington, elected President in 1796)
2. Thomas Jefferson (VP under Adams, elected President in 1800)
3. Martin Van Buren (VP under Jackson [Jackson's second term only], elected President in 1836)
4. Richard Nixon (VP under Eisenhower, elected President in 1968)
5. George HW Bush (VP under Reagan, elected President in 1988)
and Biden makes six. The 538 article that mentioned as a source (reference 312- Azari, Julia (August 20, 2020). "Biden Had To Fight For The Presidential Nomination. But Most VPs Have To". FiveThirtyEight.) doesn't say ANYWHERE how many VPs have ascended to the Presidency without the President they served under dying/resigning. Maybe there's some confusion because Adams and Jefferson were from different parties and wound up serving together, or because Richard Nixon himself wound up resigning the Presidency, or maybe because Nixon and Biden are the only two to ascend to the Presidency after leaving the Vice Presidency rather than going DIRECTLY from VP to President, but the fact is that Biden is the sixth.
The first time I posted about this, someone said the entire statement about how many VPs have become President without succeeding on the death or resignation of their successor should be removed because it's irrelevant. Please, either remove the sentence entirely OR fix it to say Biden is the sixth, because as it currently stands that statement is just sitting there, being wrong. Jeffmalarts (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Some of the wording in the articles could be toned down to make the article is neutral. EmpereorPaul (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
The first section says: “This is the second time in American history, after Harrison in 1892, that the Republican Party was voted out after a single term, and the first for either party since 1980.”
This doesn’t seem to be correct since George HW Bush was voted out after one term in the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. 24.229.207.185 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Do not include VAP in turnout rate calculation, since noncitizens have never been eligible to vote and should not be counted for this purpose, and this population is not comparable to the population used to calculate turnout rate for previous elections. Only include CVAP. Also, CVAP turnout increased 11.1 pp from the 2016 election, not 5.4 pp as shown 70.36.193.68 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
((Edit semi-protected))
template. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please fix this horrible setence in the lede: "Trump became the first Republican, and first incumbent president of either party since 2004 to increase their share of the popular vote, and the first losing incumbent to do so since 1828."
First, Trump is obviously not the first Republican to increase his popular vote. This is either false, or it means "first republican since 2004 and first of either party since 2004" which is stupidly redundant.
Second, "Trump becamse the first...to increase their share..." is bad grammar. Singular "they" may be appropriate generally, but definitely not for a specified person whose gender is known. Either use the male pronoun, since every president has been male, or rephrase the sentence if it must be gender neutral.
My suggested replacement: "Trump became the first incumbent president since 2004 to increase his share of the popular vote, and the first losing incumbent to do so since 1828." 1.145.236.142 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The lede says "However, on January 7, one day after the violent Capitol attack and two months after Biden's victory was declared, Trump acknowledged the incoming administration without mentioning Biden's name in a video posted to Twitter."
Please either clarify who "declared" Biden's victory, or remove that part. If it means the media, they don't have the power to declare anything, they merely report. If it means officials in various states, this should be specified and sourced. If it means the electoral college (the most obvious meaning) "two months" should be changed to "two weeks". If the meaning can't be clarified or sourced, please change the sentence to "However, on January 7, one day after the violent Capitol attack, Trump acknowledged the incoming administration without mentioning Biden's name in a video posted to Twitter." 1.145.236.142 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
There have been several mentions of the trivia in the page needing to be looked at, both from me, users like marbeh raglaim in the thread above, and others, and so I thought it would be a good idea to form some sort of consensus on what should be done about the amount of trivia included on this page, if anything needs to be done at all. I feel that, because of WP:nottrivia, which states that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and becuase this page currently contains a lot of data, in the form of trivia points, that are not used to make broader points, the trivia in the article largely should either be removed or contextualized.
What qualifies as trivia and what qualifies as not trivia I have a little more trouble with, as something like "it was the first election since 1992, and the first in the 21st century, in which the incumbent president failed to win a second term" is pretty clearly important and relevant, as it is a pretty good indicator that there was significant disgust at the incumbent, but perhaps by virtue of being in the lede it feels to me like it can go without being contextualized, as that is done later in the article. Other information in the lede, like "[t]his is the first election since 1880 in which both major party candidates won the same number of states" I think is very clearly trivia that doesn't belong anywhere in the article, and should be removed. I've picked examples from the lede here because I would be very willing to go through the article and be WP:BOLD and edit a lot of the trivia out/change some of the trivia, but I wanted to make sure there was a broad consensus for changing the way trivia is in the article before I went through such a time consuming process. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi all - Howard Stern stated on his 9/19/22 show that he was not actually running for President. Not sure if his section/Bradley Cooper’s should be taken out, moved, or updated, hence my post here.
Stern on 9/19: “Did anyone think I really was? I mean, I’m not gonna run for President. You make me President I don’t even know if I’d accept it.”
Baba Booey to you all. Boomerthebobcat (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
My apologies - it was meant for 2024. Not sure how I made that mistake. Reposted on the correct page. Boomerthebobcat (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add to General Election Campaigns, Ballot Access: (Color = Gold [or] Dark Purple), Presidential Candidate - Aaron Liebowitz, Vice Presidential Candidate - Connor Miller, Party or Label - Unionist Party, Ballot Access - 8, Electors - 66, Voters - 11.4%,
Citations remaining from the campaign presence online Campaign Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liebowitzmiller2020/?hl=en Campaign Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/liebowitzmiller2020/ Campaign Website(No longer in use): https://liebowitzmiller2020.com/ Party Regional Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/unionistpartyny/?hl=en 108.30.149.79 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
rfpp request LAWFHUII19 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
Every once in a while when reading this article, I pay attention to the “heading”/intro (does Wikipedia have a term for it?), one part of which mentions the post-election lawsuits and other attempts by Trump and many other Republicans to subvert and overturn the election and its results. The article mentions that at least 63 lawsuits were filed and that Trump lost all of them. However, I distinctly remember Trump winning one of these otherwise ridiculous suits; while looking online, I found a PolitiFact article that corroborates my memory. They mention at least 64 lawsuits, with only one Trump victory. (If you have not been able to tell this by post, I am not a Trump supporter; I am very much a staunch Democrat.) Should this intro section be modified? Technically, this section is not currently entirely accurate, and I don’t want to spread misinformation (or possibly even embolden election deniers who might think we’re “erasing” their sole win). I just wanted to hear everyone’s thoughts, and I worried it would be very quickly reverted if I changed it without trying to get consensus among the article’s regular editors and/or readers.
Thank you and hope to hear your thoughts, |EPBeatles EPBeatles (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
I think the Voter Eligable Turnout should be used instead of Voting age Turnout because US Election pages till 2012 election used the Voter Eligable Turnout calculated by the US Election project, https://www.electproject.org/2020g RogerTheBear (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Edison exit polling was quite inaccurate this year. Also now AP and Fox have left and made their much more accurate poll as well AP Votecast.
Why not instead use the much more reliable Cooperative Election Study which surveyed three times as many respondents, is much more transparent, and was accurate, with only a median error of 0.6% per state compared to actual election results? Even AP Votecast is better than Edison. Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
We are here to be an encyclopedia guys, not list every single thing related to a topic. The goal is to provide the most informative and relevant information on a topic. I might come off a bit contrarian by saying this, but WP:RECENT certainly applies here. To be frank, it's just too damn long, in part (imo) thanks to recency bias. Is there anything that can be cut? I mean just skimming through this for example: Why the huge paragraph on Maine RCV? Why the huge "background" section on how the presidential election works? That seems to be something more fit for the US President article, or a general presidential process article, then the 2020 US Presidential election article. No other Presidential Election Article (except 2016, another sufferer of recency bias IMO) has all that. Alexcs114 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
The introduction currently includes It was the first election since 1992 in which the incumbent president failed to win a second term. I suggest we delete that, as:
Misleading trivia is a good thing to scoop from the intro. I'm avoiding article editing at this point, but recommend that others consider this concern and act appropriately. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
2020 United States presidential election § Simultaneous elections needs a minor update, because it uses the future tense. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The final paragraph of the lead says, in part, "The Trump campaign... continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing 63 lawsuits in several states (all of which were withdrawn or dismissed)". But that link, specifically its "Counts" section, says that not all suits were withdrawn or dismissed: in six of them, the court made a ruling (one for the plaintiff, five against).
The lead is for giving an overview, but it shouldn't summarize in such a way that it factually misstates the case. The simplest change would be to make it say "(most of which..."; a more involved but more precise change would be to say "(all but one of which were withdrawn, dismissed, or resolved against the plaintiff)". 2605:A601:AB56:CB00:3580:897A:4655:F715 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
... by filing numerous lawsuits in several states (most of which were withdrawn or dismissed) ...Xan747 (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
"The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020." This is factually incorrect. The date of the presidential election was December 14, 2020. There was a series of 50 independent State elections (and one in Washington D.C.) on Nov 3 to choose the 538 people who would vote in the presidential election. 70.27.151.248 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
This article stats that The Democratic Party won black voters by 75%, the lowest margin since 1980, but its citation (359, https://www.brookings.edu/research/2020-exit-polls-show-a-scrambling-of-democrats-and-republicans-traditional-base) states that The Black Democratic margin—while still high, at 75%—was the lowest in a presidential election since 2004.
I'm not sure where 1980 came from, but the citation doesn't reference this year at all, and the paragraph the statistic is written is based on a report entitled "Exit polls show both familiar and new voting blocs sealed Biden's win" , which said citation contains. Zolax9 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
The county government of Ohio County, Indiana messed up their initial vote totals but then later issued corrected ones, per Dave Leip's Election Atlas. The actual results were 2,392 votes for Trump, 750 for Biden, 22 for Jorgensen. This works out to 75.60% Trump, 23.70% Biden, and 0.70% Jorgensen, the numbers cited on the Ohio County page itself. However, the initially reported results were 2,054 votes for Trump, 668 votes for Biden, 353 votes for Jorgensen, or 66.8% Trump, 21.7% Biden, 11.5% Jorgensen. This messes up almost every single county map for the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Indiana - Trump should be shaded to 70s percent range, not 60s percent range in Ohio County and the swing is going to be different too - and I believe it also impacts the overall election data for Indiana, perhaps even nationwide? I just fixed the county result on the Indiana page, but this deserves a systematic review and bigger fix, to an extent that I'm not even sure of. Journob (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
incluing = including 2603:8000:D300:3650:F148:65F1:720C:E69 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
The Votes column Totals do not agree with the same Totals from this full table cut and pasted into Excel. That is, the article totals v Excel totals disagree: 81283501 v 8209315; 74223975 v 75141558; 1865535 v 1899970; 407068 v 415298; 649552 v 655493; and 158429631 v 160205475. Also, a check on the Libertarian + Green + Other Vote columns shows 2922155 v 2970761. The overall article total v Excel total vote count difference is 1775844. Tegangwer (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
The Prince William County Office of Elections recently issued a correction [7] for their vote totals in the 2020 election. I've updated the article for the election in Virginia, but I figure the changes in this article should be handled by someone with more experience. Chaidantalk 02:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Is there any mention of widespread voter fraud? How dropboxes were used and the postal system used to defraud the American public? It should be mentioned that ballot boxes were thrown in rivers. 2A00:23C7:C603:6A01:F1AB:CB70:D27B:BD6A (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
The last paragraph is written in a biased manner. For example it fails to clarify that American citizens have a right to file lawsuits challenging election results and members of Congress have a right to challenge electoral votes as long as they follow the lawfully correct procedures to do so. Even if the lawsuits and challenges are based on faulty logic or incorrect information.
An example is this preceding comment "'It should be mentioned' that posting this kind of misinformation is just an outright lie, and/or is evidence of shocking ignorance. Take it somewhere else." That was uncalled for and indicates the author is openly biased against the other side. Articles as important as these should be kept strictly neutral. This article gets an F on the neutrality front. 2600:6C50:5CF0:7690:2CFA:408E:8771:2DEF (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
There are FIVE maps purporting to be 2020 results are actually 2016 results.
[9]https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28C2FR/
and please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election to see that 3 are exact copies, other than slight changes to Hawaii.
Results by county (2020) Matches Results by county. Red denotes counties that went to Trump; blue denotes counties that went to Clinton. (2016) Slight changes to Hawaii, otherwise identical
Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote (2020) Matches Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote (2016) Once again slight changes to Hawaii, otherwise identical
Election results by congressional district (2020)
Absolutelely identical to
Results of election by congressional district, shaded by winning candidate's percentage of the vote (2016)
Shaded election results by county (red-purple-blue scale) (2020)
Counties shaded by margin of victory (2020)
These are both based on 2016 results. Just different shading Magundy (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I have county flip maps to upload for presidential elections spanning from 2020 to 1940. PlasmaMcNuggets (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)