Talk:2024 United States elections

Noticed vandalism here

I created an account for this, idk how things work but obviously someone vandalised the article, can we revert it to a previous state or smth? Therealcrumbles (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

News papers or news TV endorsement?

Is something here on Wikipedia getting this for information? 73.189.88.136 (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

They are being tracked in this article: News media endorsements in the 2024 United States presidential election. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 17:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming/current changes

Suggest changes here and someone could do them and update us all on the election Justhereforresearch (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Maps

The maps seem to be incorrectly formatted or something, as the legend and the maps don’t match up. BrokenSquarePiece ^{(complete me)} 23:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes; the legends are for the preelection maps. Elli (talk | contribs) 23:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024

Change “Trump was shot at” to “Trump was shot” Travis Morger (talk) 03:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

This would be inaccurate as he was hit by a bullet. 99.10.110.201 (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

❌ Not Done: the attempt was failed SKAG123 (talk) 05:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Trump won

Edit the article 197.91.18.157 (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

AP hasn't called it (and I don't think it's gonna be long until they do). When they do, it will be changed. LilianaUwU ^{(talk / contributions)} 08:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

IT'S CALLED! AP HAS CALLED IT!

TRUMP HAS WON! AP HAS CALLED! Cormio (talk) 10:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (2)

I believe his name is Tim Walz, not Tim Waltz. Please change | president_map_caption = Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Harris/Waltz, red denotes those won by Trump/Vance, and gray denotes those yet to be called. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia. to | president_map_caption = Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Harris/Walz, red denotes those won by Trump/Vance, and gray denotes those yet to be called. Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia. LennnyLo (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Already done Text search didn't find any matches for "Waltz", so I'm presuming that the error was in a previous version of the page. Liu1126 (talk) 00:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2024 (3)

Change

Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia.

to

Numbers indicate how many electoral votes each state has

The Electoral College has not convened yet. The wording at 2024_United_States_presidential_election.207.96.32.81 (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've used the text Numbers indicate allotted electoral votes. as that seemed to be the consensus for the 2020 election during the equivalent period. Thanks! Skynxnex (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Domestic Election Interference

Someone has inserted references to domestic groups interfering in US elections. What they mean by this is that US citizens are donating money to AIPAC. This is pretty beyond the pale. The idea that you can characterize US citizens donating money to an American political group as "election interference" because those citizens have donated money to a cause that OP does not personally support is a pretty flagrant violation of WP:NPOV.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

That's great, honey 197.91.18.157 (talk) 10:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I saw the "ping pong" match in the edit history on this issue and decided to find a happy and productive medium for both "sides". "Election Interference" I changed to "Alleged Foreign Election Interference" to clarify that its for discussing other nations tampering with the process (not citizens engaging in the process) and moved to the bottom of the Issues section (because it honestly was 1 paragraph asserting the possibility of interference, should not have been anywhere near the top of the section anyway).

I then created a new subsection "Foreign Relations" with a sub-subsection of "Israel-Hamas War", added context relevant to the 2024 election cycle and loads of citations.

Now everyone can feel better. Those that have a big issue with AIPAC can still have it mentioned in a much better format with more citations and context, without trying to come across as insisting that American voters/supporters were somehow engaging in election interference for engaging in their nations democratic process via donations, volunteering, or activism on a foreign relations issue. TheRazgriz (talk) 03:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Photo caption in 'Indictments' section

The caption for this must be updated to insert 'Alleged' before '[c]lassified' as the case brought was dismissed [1]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652/gov.uscourts.flsd.648652.672.0_2.pdf (So ordered on the final page, page 93). Complicating the matter is that the documents themselves were mishandled as per prosecutions' admission [2]https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653/gov.uscourts.flsd.648653.522.0.pdf (See B-4 on page 8, footnote 3)

Updated caption proposed:

Alleged classified intelligence material found inside Mar-a-Lago

31.187.2.147 (talk) 22:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No. 197.91.18.157 (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I have made the change, based on the facts of the evidence in question as of this time. In the pre-trail phases of the case in question, both the Office of the Special Council (Jack Smith) and the FBI admitted to the court that the materials had been mishandled and tampered with.

While the factual extent of the tampering would have had an opportunity to be established later in the case at another phase, the Judge dismissed the case prior to those facts being established, leaving us to await the possible appeal of that dismissal and the continuation or "reset" of the case.

Until such time as the materials can be established to be what the OSC and FBI allege them to be, it is objectively correct to identify the material as part of an allegation. TheRazgriz (talk) 18:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Underlying Data?

Is there a way I can see/download the underlying data used to make the maps? I'm interested in vote totals by state by candidate for presidental election years.

Thanks, KathyS158 (talk) 23:09, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Not sure if there’s an answer to this but Wikipedia:Help desk may be able to help. Justanotherguy54 (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2024

Not sure how to do it, but the new Pennsylvania senator is a republican not a independent. 2600:6C44:27F:618A:49BE:4097:FDF8:AB23 (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ⸺(Random)staplers 19:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Falsehood in lede

In the intro, it is stated that "This marked the first time since 1896 that the Republicans completely rolled back a Democratic trifecta and replaced it with a Republican trifecta in a single presidential term." This is not true.. disregarding the fact that the Democratic Party did not hold a trifecta prior to the election, the last time that partisan control shifted from the Democrats to Republicans in all three elections is 1952, as in 1950, Democrats held their preexistent trifecta, and Republicans won a trifecta in 1952. 50.235.136.53 (talk) 11:04, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I did some research into this, and you are absolutely correct. Going into the 1952 election, the Democrats held a trifecta and the win of Dwight Eisenhower in the Presidential Election brought both a popular vote victory over his Democratic opponent and brought control of both chambers of Congress, resulting in a Democratic trifecta flipping into a Republican trifecta, and this has not happened since then.

I went ahead and removed that part of the lede entirely, as both the underlying premise (that Democrats held a trifecta going into the 2024 election cycle) and the point it was trying to make (Republicans havent flipped a trifecta since 1892) were both false, so no other creative edit to it gave it any merit to remain on the page. TheRazgriz (talk) 17:52, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Format & Info Updates

Hello all.

A quick glance at the edit history at the moment of this writing will show that Ive made a number of edits and updates to the page recently. A mix of trying to reformat certain sections of the page to better lay out and expand on information as well as to end some bickering back and forth between different "sides" on what should or should not have been mentioned under the previous format, and Ive also done quite a bit of expanding on contexts and adding links and citations while updating information that was very lean and in need of updates.

I would assume the most "controversial" edits I made were: 1) to remove the incorrect information from the lede which implied that Democrats held a "trifecta" across POTUS, House, and Senate going into 2024, when they did not, while trying to insist that Republicans had not previously flipped a "trifecta" since 1892, which ignores the 1952 "trifecta" flip of Eisenhower, and; 2) the changes I made within the "Issues" section, where I created 2 new "subsections" titled "Foreign Relations" and "Alleged Foreign Election Interference" to better sort out the previous edits trying to talk about AIPAC under a context of "election interference". I understand that other users opinion that a domestic lobby for or against a certain other nation is in their opinion the same as "foreign interference", but I think most objective people would disagree that its the same as Iran hacking into a candidates emails and leaking them, or China using AI social media accounts to try and shift the perception of politics on social media and pop culture, or Russia's own President very publicly endorsing one particular candidate.

These and my other edits were done with the hope to end bickering by finding a professional middle-ground that I think honestly enhances the quality of the page, to highlight objective truths and give information readers my not have previously known before reading, and to hopefully foster some users to actually take the lead themselves and not be afraid to make edits they believe will enhance the page (such as the user who had all of the facts already to verify that "trifecta" info in the lede was outright false, but chose to only make a talk topic instead of making the good faith edit). I hope my edits and the reformatting of some of the subsection formatting will be appreciated and expanded upon if needed. If there are any minor edits to be made, then make them. If there are major issues to be sorted out, then lets sort them out. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Undue weight in "Issues"

The economy, which various sources [3][4][5] state one of, if not the main reason that the Republicans (and Trump) did so well, is given a single paragraph while abortion, which wasn't nearly as important is given 3 entire body paragraphs, which could just be in a separate article and trimmed down. The indictment stuff should also be trimmed down but it isn't that biased since most indictments were on Trump but it still is pretty biased against him.

Billionten (talk) 03:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

I somewhat agree on the Abortion vs Economy issue...I was actually stunned to see the Abortion subsection was that lengthy, but imho when you see the demographic split between men and women voters (especially within "minority" communities) I figure it could merit a good overview.

But when you consider that Trump being only the second POTUS to successfully have a non-consecutive term, and both who have done it have done it because in-between was an administration that took the blame for a horrible domestic economy that the non-consecutive candidate was promising to fix with tariffs and such...yea, seems to me the economy just might hold more weight to the topic than abortion does.

Im not the guy to look to for expanding a conversation on the economy in this setting, but if someone can think of a way to expand on the economy issue here, that would be great. TheRazgriz (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Abortion was an important issue in this campaign. But, it could be that the economy was more important. As we figure out "why Trump won", we will revise the article to better reflect that, I expect. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Pa senate

What’s with the yellow coloring? I know it’s not called yet from some major sources so grey would make sense but the yellow has no meaning Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

On Commons the file key has yellow meaning "too close to call" ... ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)