Talk:2024 United States elections

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)

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)

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 [1][2][3] 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)

Since you posted this talk, I went back and made a few changes within the "Issues" section. After careful reading and consideration, I removed 2 paragraphs on "Abortion" as one was sensible pre-election but wildly out of place post-election, and the other was completely focused on documenting a single random politicians career history on the issue...which is weird. Would be one thing if it was tracking Trump or Sanders or some other household name, but even then it would still have been slightly out of place.

As for the point you bring up about the Indictments, each part of that section was there when I started editing the page post-election, but Im responsible for expanding on each of them. While there is something to be said for wanting and trying to keep things trimmed down and to the point, I always personally put more weight on the idea that the devil is in the details ESPECIALLY about controversial or otherwise important things. His repeated indictments and the cases that followed were international news these last couple of years, and many pundits and political commentators have attributed this "lawfare" as being at least a small part of the reason he saw significant gains in polling and in the election within "minority" communities.

So a favor if you will...would you mind coming back and reading the updated "Issues" section from start to finish? Id like to know if in its current form you still believe it warrants the "biased" warning/tag, and if you do then Id be interested to hear what exactly you think could be done to un-bias it. Teamwork makes the dream work. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

The economy & abortion section are now more balanced, but eight paragraphs about Trump's indictments seems far too much for this section. Do reliable sources really say that Trump's legal issues affected the campaign more than the economy, abortion, and foreign wars combined? ypn^2 19:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

With the benefit of hindsight, clearly not. George Santos clearly has no relevance to the 2024 elections. I removed it and the Menendez indictment, and the Trump and Hunter Biden indictments can be shortened. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Just as a reminder, this is not the page dedicated to the Presidential election, but to all elections this cycle. Santos and Menendez are just as relevant on this page as Trump is.

Trump is the "main character" here, but that doesnt mean the B and C plots get tossed in the bin here. TheRazgriz (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Gave the section another re-read with fresh and rested eyes, and I agree. Your point here is also valid.

Instead of just hitting "undo" to all that, Ive trimmed it WAY down, and also restructured the section into "Federal" vs "State" indictments. I ask the same favor again, give it a read and share what you think. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok since the economy section is now big enough I will remove the undue weight template Billionten (talk) 00:16, 21 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)

Page lede subject matter

Based on precedent set by several previous election cycle pages (2008 in particular, but far from exclusive), the mention of the historical (first) assassination attempt in the lede is entirely valid. I will be undoing its removal, though if someone would like to make a good faith creative edit that can find a way to trim it down while still presenting its historical relevancy, that is obviously entirely encouraged.

On this particular issue, I think it would be wise to seek a consensus prior to removal of this piece of the page, as it seems to be one of the most relevant and historical parts of this election cycle. Others and I have taken the liberty of restructuring or outright removing pieces of this page prior, but again this bit is a headlining historical matter, not a bit of policy or politicking. And no, I dont feel this way because I wrote it, I only wrote it because based on the content of previous pages it was striking that it was missing. It isnt like the page lede is exactly bursting with paragraphs and other info. Its surprisingly lean even compared to midterm cycle pages. TheRazgriz (talk) 21:50, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For another example, one in which I had nothing to do with if it makes you feel better, you can also look to 1968 US election page lede, but again go through all prior pages to this one and you can and will find similar historically important information in their ledes as well, not just on the Presidential pages.

This information is relevant, is due, does conform with long standing precedent, and if there is a debate to be had about any part of that assertion then have it here first please. Insisting that it is undue because a related, more focused page also holds due that information, does not make it automatically undue.

I say again, if someone can creatively edit to trim down potential undue fat, that would be lovely. But let us please arrive at a consensus prior to removing that bit. I created this topic so it could be discussed and agreed to without risking "edit warring". TheRazgriz (talk) 14:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@TheRazgriz: The content you keep adding is wildly undue. If you insert it in the lead and it alone, we are suggesting that the assassination is the most important element of these elections. Consulting the sources in this article and the content of the 2024 United States presidential election, this is an inappropriate characterization. Inserting massive changes to the article and getting reverted means that you have the burden of defending its addition, per WP:ONUS. Please stop adding content back despite repeated reversions. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with your opinion that having it in the lede characterizes it as the "most important element" of the election. 1) it wasnt alone, it was the second paragraph, and as you yourself demonstrated it did not preclude additional information being added. 2) it is clearly noted in the context of its historical relevancy to the electoral cycle, not its perceived or real relevancy to the electoral results. 3) this information brief in the lede falls in line with the standards of our predecessor pages on similar historical events.

To my view, at this point you were reverting with disregard for WP:CON. Its one thing to challenge an edit as WP:UNDUE and "force" the other User(s) to justify the content existing under WP:ONUS, its another to assert something is undue by choosing to ignore and circumvent the pre-existing talk on the subject which already provided the contents justification and requested a consensus prior to reversion. So no the onus was not on me as I had already done my part and no one had challenged the argument for retaining the content (and there was no argument or reason given for attempting to remove in the first place, which is why I assumed it could have been a mistake), it was on you to participate here and challenge the merits of the content as already laid out, prior to you making a unilateral reversion, per WP:REVEXP.

It is only now that you are participating here and attempting to explain yourself, which I appreciate and Im sure other current and future users will as well. Thank you. Though I do also take the highest level of disagreement possible to the actually wild assertion that this piece was "inserting massive changes", and the inherent assertion that I have a history of "adding content back" after reversions. Of all of the changes that I have made on this page, I would rank that change near the bottom of the list, and none of my other changes have been reverted. Where another User has found fault in my work here, I have sought to work together to fix it, and time and again defer to others judgement and taste. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Above aside, you're a very new editor who doesn't seem to grasp the policy here. As a fellow editor, please take my word for it: this is a case of WP:UNDUE and you have failed to sufficiently justify your insertion of that content. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Incorrect. Irrelevant to this discussion, but since you bring it up: This account is "new-ish", my time on wiki is not. I never cared to create an account until a few months ago, but I have been participating actively for well over a decade, mostly focused on bringing the English-translation versions of South American historically-focused pages from other languages into proper English grammar standards and adding citations and relevant missing context when/where appropriate.

So no, I will not take your word for it as you are not an infallible authority on deciding what is and is not undue, or what is or is not sufficiently justified, simply by self-assertion at being right, hence WP:CON being a thing. I justified my position with reference outside of myself. Please keep the discussion limited to the issue at hand and the arguments for or against it. If you do not wish to further argue the issue, then let it rest. If you are inclined to dismiss the "equal but opposite" portion of WP:COTD to ignore counter-argument, then I cannot help. TheRazgriz (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your years as an editor, especially in an area subject to systemic bias that diminishes English-language coverage. The current lead seems fine (it needs expansion, but it's adequate). Please consider brushing up on WP:UNDUE, WP:ONUS, and other relevant standards. Welcome to the world of registered editing! ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED Your edit to the lede and edit note doesnt make sense. Can you better explain (as your edit does not match the content of the page)?

Here, here, and here are counters to your stated reason for removing the previous portion, in addition to the material already present in the article. If one was arguing that "lawfare" was the number one issue, that could be disproven and dismissed easily. Asserting that it was not at all a major issue in this cycle is factually inaccurate according to the data at hand, especially when applying critical thinking to exit polling showing that most Trump voters were agreeing that the more broad-brush idea of "Democracy being threatened" was a major issue (Source: here).

As Users here just recently came to WP:CONSENSUS on the content within "Issues" and the portion of the lede removed refers to a section still present, sourced, and due within it, I will be reverting your edit and hoping to see "immigration" and "democracy" possibly added by you (or another bold editor) both in the lede and actually discussed in the issues section to match. TheRazgriz (talk) 03:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The sources you provided are either opinion pieces or primary sources from right-wing pollsters. A majority of reliable, secondary sources which are preferred state that the economy, abortion, immigration, and democracy were the biggest issues in this election. The assertion that Trump's legal cases are "lawfare" are not asserted by reliable sources, and such a claim is false. Claiming that Trump is the victim of "lawfare" is false, as no reliable source states that the claim has any basis in fact and is baseless. BootsED (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

A further follow up, I will be adding in sections on immigration and democracy once I have some more free time. These are well documented and covered on the related issues section of the 2024 presidential campaign page and should be included on this page as well. This should address concerns over the lead not following the body. BootsED (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I look forward to their inclusion, that was a massive oversight on our collective part to not add those in post-election. I daresay the exit polling warrants the "immigration" being the top or second listed issue. That is a good find there so thank you for spotting. I actually laughed aloud that none of us caught that before.

And I do appreciate the edit on Foreign interference section. Another good spot there, thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:21, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Once I get home from work I will add in the immigration and democracy sections. Within the democracy section I will be sure to include claims by conservatives of lawfare, but I will be sure to include statements by RS that describe them as false to avoid making claims in wikivoice that are not backed up by reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 20:49, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Here, here, and here, for yet more examples, each explicitly considered to be reliable here on wiki as subject matter experts from the realms of political science, journalism, and legal practice, to fully dismiss this poor argument of reliability. An opinion by a subject matter expert is an expert opinion, not to be dismissed lightly. Referring to it as "lawfare" is accurate per its accepted scholastic definition and its real world application. That is not personal opinion, that is objective truth, supported by subject matter experts themselves doing so.

This is a discussion relating to a major election cycle, aka politics. We can not in good faith operate as if media, opinions, and perspectives shared by roughly half the electorate in the cycle are inherently WP:UNDUE to the topic. Even operating with an understanding that "right wing" sources are not objective (which is true in most cases anyway), it is wrong to assert they have no relevance to the discussion. Our goal is to present a WP:NPOV, that is not accomplished by dismissing half of the relevant conversation and content. Regardless of if you disagree with the term being used, the fact of the matter is that it was used throughout the election cycle to refer to the many legal woes of Donald Trump after he announced his re-election bid. I have proven that assertion to be true. Can you disprove that assertion? TheRazgriz (talk) 18:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

The problem for me is that the "lawfare" allegations are backed by no reliable sources indicating that the multiple legal actions against Trump were politically motivated. Trump and his supporters (including in the opinion pieces cited here) may have successfully characterized the actions as politically motivated, but that doesn't equal them actually being politically motivated in the eyes of NPOV, reliable, secondary coverage. I've added "allegations of" to the lede as a first step to qualify the statement, but I would support removing the charged term and putting a more NPOV description in place. It's notable that the phrase does not appear elsewhere in the article. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

You have not proven this assertion to be true. You have posted opinion pieces and used them to state in wikivoice that Trump is the victim of "lawfare". See this article by the NYT that specifically states, "Long before announcing his candidacy, Mr. Trump and his supporters had been falsely claiming that President Biden was 'weaponizing' the Justice Department to target him". Or this article that describes Trump's numerous claims of lawfare against him by the Democrats as false. There are multiple articles online that describe Trump's claims of "weaponization" and "lawfare" as false.

You also claim that lawfare was a big factor in this election. However, there is no source provided for your claim that it was a big factor in the election. At this point, your assertion that Democrats are using lawfare against Trump is WP:OR and WP:FALSEBALANCE. I believe this falls under WP:BLPRS and calls for instant removal without discussion as no reliable sources per WP:BESTSOURCES have been provided for this claim.

I believe my upcoming edit adding immigration and democracy sections to the article will address your concerns. But including this statement in the lead in wikivoice is entirely undue and original research.

BootsED (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I have not accused Democrats of anything, Ive not defended Trump of anything, etc. I am presenting the perspective of a side relevant to the topic, arguing that it is indeed relevant, and defending the accurate use of a term to describe/summarize a piece of the article. That is all I am doing with this. Please do not mischaracterize or misconstrue my actions as otherwise.

On the actual point, read the pieces and the credentials of the people writing them. Those are expert opinions, and by WP:RS actual guidelines, absolutely RS as per WP:RS/SPS. Handwaving valid sources in this manner just comes across as WP:IDL beyond this point. My sources are valid, so if you take further issue with this descriptor being used then your issue is with the Professor of Political Science Emeritus at the University of Chicago, Charles Lipson (among many others), not with me. Please see WP:APPLYRS, in particular "Conflict between sources" section as I feel that may be the cause of this dramatic case of "talking past each other" here.

I did however see your valid point that it could be viewed as contentious or otherwise "hot button" which is why I opted in the revised version to add it within quotations, in line with WP:ASF and WP:VOICE guidance. TheRazgriz (talk) 22:05, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, so there are opinions that Trump is the victim of lawfare. However, we have multiple RS that state he is not. It is WP:FALSEBALANCE to give these opinions greater prominence than the majority of reliable sources state. You are stating in wikivoice that the opinions of a few are greater than the consensus of reliable sources. We can mention these allegations in the body only if they are followed up by stating how such allegations are baseless as per reliable sources. BootsED (talk) 22:17, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

There are EXPERT opinions that he is, of which I have provided merely a select few. Please cease this highly fallacious line of argumentation that assumes the "side" you are representing in this discussion holds de facto more weight than the "side" I am representing, and as if the RS I have provided are not RS, when neither of those points are true. I am trying to engage this discussion honestly and in good faith, but I can not do that if you display no intention of arguing the issue itself and instead wish to continue to bullishly stand against both the letter and the spirit of WP:RS guidelines.

I am not "stating in wikivoice that the opinions of a few are greater than the consensus of reliable sources". Donald Trump won the popular vote, not just from his traditional base of support, but by increasing support in Democrat areas as well. What exactly did the Trump supporting side note as a "threat to Democracy" this entire election cycle? We dont have to do WP:OR to speculate, they were telling us point blank the whole time, loud and clear.

So in line with WP:NPOV we have an obligation to state the relevant issue without giving WP:UNDUE to the side highly critical of this perspective and dismissing the side that highly supports this perspective, per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS. It is not WP:FALSEBALANCE to do this, it is actual balance to explain "how Trump won" to readers of the page. It is NPOV to note the dissenting sides view that it is not "lawfare". It is not NPOV, nor is it factually correct, to treat the matter dismissively as if there is expert consensus that it is not "lawfare", when that is not the case. TheRazgriz (talk) 14:15, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are arguing right now. Are we talking about Trump's vote totals? I don't see how that has anything to do with the lawfare discussion we were having. Your expert opinions are just that, opinions. There are several, reliable secondary sources that talk about how such claims are false. The consensus is that it is not lawfare. I don't think I have much more to add to this discussion.

And no, you were claiming in wikivoice that Trump was the victim of lawfare using those opinions. As per WP:ALLOWEDBIAS, "A neutral point of view should be achieved by balancing the bias in sources based on the weight of the opinion in reliable sources and not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view. This does not mean any biased source must be used; it may well serve an article better to exclude the material altogether."

The allegation itself is mentioned in the page as it stands right now, followed by reliable sources stating that such claims of "election interference" are false. Putting this in the lead is unnecessary, and we do not need to add in every single opinion piece where someone describes how they think the consensus is false. BootsED (talk) 19:50, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I have already answered this in the meat of my previous reply:

"What exactly did the Trump supporting side note as a "threat to Democracy" this entire election cycle? We dont have to do WP:OR to speculate, they were telling us point blank the whole time, loud and clear."

Again, your argument is seated in this odd insistence that it is a fringe view, when it is not, and that it doesnt hold significant weight to the subject, when it does. That is why I reference the time specific polling, because we directly saw time and again where the public directly responded in support of the assertion of lawfare, for 2 years. You cannot just ignore facts and data in this discussion. Here, yet another free RS on this issue.

And again, please stop discrediting RS as "just opinions" by inherently asserting that your RS are the only RS here. This is now multiple times you have done this, and it is nonsensical. Please note: "...not by excluding sources that do not conform to the editor's point of view." in WP:ALLOWEDBIAS, the chief reason I referenced this guideline here. Your inclination to not want this included is not validated by a guideline which cautions against such action unless it better serves the purpose of the article. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I would like to clean this discussion up, and as such from this point I will no longer engage with arguments seated in an assumption or assertion that previously citied RS are not actually RS. Such claims and lines of argument will be ignored as they have already been properly addressed.

So for the purpose of putting this back on its actual worthwhile discussion; This is my stance, and a summary of why I take this stance:

It is WP:NPOV to note the view of "lawfare" as an assumed positive assertion while noting critical counter perspectives, seeing as all data shows it was perceived as such by the electorate throughout the election cycle. Had Trump lost, or had the issue not shown any effect during the electoral cycle, then noting "lawfare" purely as an assumed negative assertion while noting critical supporting perspectives (or even not mentioning it at all) would be valid. TheRazgriz (talk) 20:42, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm lost. Again, the RS you provided says that many Republicans viewed the prosecutions as politically motivated. It did not state that they were. We have other RS that explicitly state that they were not. We can mention the belief that they were motivated, but we cannot say that the were, as we have multiple RS that state in no unclear terms they are not. The fact that a lot of people believe in something or that Trump won the election does not "prove" the belief. You are attempting to claim that because some people disagree, the truth is thus unknowable so we must treat both claims as if they were valid. This is textbook WP:FALSEBALANCE. BootsED (talk) 21:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

"Insisting upon itself" is a fallacy, your repeat WP:IDONTLIKE arguments around RS masked under vague and irrational cherrypicked references to guidelines are moot as far as I am concerned. I entertained them long past their due, and this is where that ends.

It is WP:NPOV to note the view of "lawfare" as an assumed positive assertion while noting critical counter perspectives, seeing as all data shows it was perceived as such by the electorate throughout the election cycle. Had Trump lost, or had the issue not shown any effect during the electoral cycle, then noting "lawfare" purely as an assumed negative assertion while noting critical supporting perspectives (or even not mentioning it at all) would be valid.

If you have valid argument in reference to this, I welcome rigorous discussion and debate as always. If all you have to offer is more circular logic around RS, then your view has been excessively noted already and I ask to not continue to add un-necessary clutter. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 23:22, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I have done my best to explain my position. I don't understand your second paragraph. I believe I have responded sufficiently to this in my prior response. BootsED (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

House of Representatives Map

The House of Representatives map is different compared to all other years. Is this a new, agreed-upon version (with more insets), or did someone just make a new map for fun? If the former, the map itself seems a bit rough, with some weird formatting/sizing issues. If the latter, I would recommend that we return to the traditional House map, since those insets and spacing seem to work fine as is. Dillguy9 (talk) 01:00, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

US House 2024.svg says that Coolxsearcher1414 created it and US House 2022.svg says that Ketrit created it. Looking back pass 2022, it seems like File:US House 2016.svg had a debate about formatting in the edits, which led to the more current style with this being the preceding style. Other than that, I don't see where there is a guideline regarding what the map should look like. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues - Economy

Ive taken the liberty at trying to expand on this section, as we seem to have consensus here and on other pages that this is at minimum one of the top issues of the 2024 election cycle (if not the issue of the cycle).

I'll be the first to admit Im no expert on economic issues, and am likely lacking in being able to adequately do that section justice. Id ask other Users please give it a good read and double check my cited sources for accuracy (and find better sources if you can find them), and if you have a better idea for how to write that section up then please share as I fear the way it reads may still be perceived as having too much bias (though trying to keep in mind Democrats are/were the incumbents and lost, so focus is/was explaining why the incumbents lost to the opposition party on this issue). Thank you! TheRazgriz (talk) 16:36, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Mayors

The reformatting of the mayoral election takes away a lot of pertinent information such as party switches and which candidates were defeated. I see this has been used on other pages but it seems to take out some information that would be helpful. I wonder what others think about bringing back the initial list with all of the info Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

My default opinion on nearly everything WP is "more relevant information is always the better option", so I will say I do like additional info stating who was defeated and noting party switches. However, I do think it is important that we follow precedent to be in line with predecessor and successor pages, and I feel that the more detailed information on every Mayoral race would better fit in a dedicated page rather than here on this one. That is my $0.02(USD) on it. TheRazgriz (talk) 02:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2024

Change "Republican +4" to "Republican +TBD" in the Senate Election inbox. This is to align with the rest of the infobox because of the ongoing recount in Pennsylvania. A-nicer-guy (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Every reporting outlet has called PA Senate race in favor of the Republican, and official count makes it a Republican victory. Initial results are to be presumed valid until proven otherwise at the conclusion of recount, recount itself does not justify contradicting initial official results.

If somehow recount changes the final results, then at that point info would be adjusted. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Issues - Immigration

Did somebody scrub this article for the word "immigration"? It seems weird that the word doesn't appear once. LordofChaos55 (talk) 16:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Immigration was a big issue in this election. Not sure why it isn't included. BootsED (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. I dont believe it has ever been mentioned on the page at least since I started contributing. Shamefully, it didnt even cross my mind as I was editing all this time. I was so focused on cleaning up and updating the pre-election state of the page to match the post-election reality, but we completely missed that topic. Actually embarrassing, as my own family are Mexican immigrants lol.

BootsED has already volunteered to add the topic into the page, so I wont do any editing on that front until he has a chance to finish his work. TheRazgriz (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Background

The more I read this article and compare it to other election cycle articles, the more I feel like it would be wise to add at least a 1 or 2 paragraph overview of the Biden admins public perception, note of his perceived mental decline's effect on the cycle, and his eventual drop out and replacement with VP Harris, (preferably) before the Trump indictments in this section. I feel it would be appropriate "background" for the election itself. Currently, the background is soley focused on Trumps legal issues.

I think it is fair to assume that a reader of the "Background" section would expect to have at least a brief explanation of how the top of the ticket changed before election day. I also believe it could present a potential WP:NPOV issue where a reader of the section could assume Trumps legal issues were the only important notable events in the lead up to the election. Instead of making yet another bold and brash edit, especially in greater context, Id like to first get feedback on this and see if this is shared with others or is just me. Im happy to sandbox something up if others share this view, but dont want to waste time if consensus is that it is fine as is. Thank you. TheRazgriz (talk) 18:57, 26 November 2024 (UTC)