Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Lead sentence

GoodDay, why do you oppose this edit? Surtsicna (talk) 00:08, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it best, to get a consensus for such a change, in an article that is under 1RR sanctions. Intros tend to be the first part viewed in an article. We must keep in mind, non-Americans may actually be interested in the 'numbering' of this quadrennial election. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

What makes you think that anyone might be interested in the numbering of the election? This numbering is not found anywhere else in the article, which suggests that it's not important; MOS:LEAD suggests that the lead should not contain information not found elsewhere in the article. It might be mentioned later, but I do not see why it should be in the very first sentence of the article. Can you explain, please? Surtsicna (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, readers would be interested in knowing that the 2016 US prez election, is the 58th quadrennial election, that was held. GoodDay (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Do you think it's so essential that it should be in the lead sentence too? Surtsicna (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

As it currently is, yes. GoodDay (talk) 00:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I do not get it now. You believe it is essential because it is now in the lead sentence? Despite it not being sourced or mentioned ever again in the article? And that is the reason why it has to be mentioned in the first sentence rather than, say, second? Surtsicna (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Invite others into this discussion, so they can review what you're proposing. For the moment, it doesn't appear as though you & I are going to reach an agreement here. GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have yet to see any arguments for or against including the "58th quadrennial" in the lead sentence. That being said, the more information the better. I see no reason to delete it. Axedel (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I believe possible interested parties @David O. Johnson:, @HiLo48:, @Devonian Wombat:, @MozeTak:, @Jgstokes:, @Nightenbelle:, @Axedel:, @Impru20: & @WittyRecluse:, would have a better read on this. GoodDay (talk) 01:09, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

I have only the very vaguest interest in the numbering of US elections. To me, it's really not an important attribute of any particular one. If I wanted to know how many there had been, I would look for a broader article, such as United States presidential election. And the number is there. HiLo48 (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

HiLo48, how would you compose the lead sentence? I take it that you are not keen on the fancy term "quadrennial" either. Surtsicna (talk) 01:41, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

From my home state in Australia, we have 2018 Victorian state election, which begins "The 2018 Victorian state election was held on Saturday, 24 November 2018 to elect the 59th Parliament of Victoria." These elections also happen quadrennially, though that hasn't always been the case. Personally, I would not have either known nor cared that it was for the 59th Parliament. I guess somebody does. HiLo48 (talk) 01:58, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. @Surtsicna: GoodDay asked for input from WP:POLITICS/US. In my opinion, there should be no change to the lead because the 2016 lead is supposed to match the 2012 lead which matches the 2008 lead... and so on. I see no reason why we need to have this kind of discussion coterminously with the 2020 lead RFC. The article should just stay at the stable version until the 2020 RFC finishes (which I agree was started a little too soon there). However, once it ends, I can help you set up a more centralized RFC for all the articles on past US presidential elections to ensure they match. Sound good? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Hi, MJL. Thanks for your input. The 2020 RFC is malformed and useless. It forces editors to choose between the present wording and two draft versions when instead we should come up with the ideal wording through discussion. Do you believe that defining the 2016 United States presidential election as the American presidential election in 2016 is the best Wikipedia can do? I think it is absurdly superfluous. For what it's worth, I'd rather have 49 articles with silly lead sentences than 50 articles with silly lead sentences; though nothing prevents us from applying whichever logic we come up with here to the other articles. Surtsicna (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: Well, there actually is something that prevents us from doing that; we need to notify all 49 separate pages. For example, if I substantially contributed to the 1860 presidential election article (and was a fanatic about the current lead), then I probably would get upset the local consensus in the 2016 presidential election article is the justification to change the article where Lincoln got elected.
We can workshop proposals if you want as part of the wider RFC-like discussion, but there is a lot of stakeholders we need to reach out to if we want the change to last. Wikipedia is a work in progress, so there's no reason to rush things. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@MJL: I am still curious whether you think that the present wording (defining the 2016 United States presidential election as the American presidential election in 2016) is the most sensible and informative lead this article can have. To me, it is akin to defining the black panther as a panther that is black. Surtsicna (talk) 13:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: to tell you the truth, I'm undecided; and the more I think about it the less decided I get. I really just don't know. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I see, @MJL:. Could you then tell me what the pros of such repetition are, in your opinion? Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@Surtsicna: If I were to focus soley on the pros of the current lead (without thinking of the cons as well as the responses to the cons), I would say... (1) doing nothing is easier than doing something; (2) it conveys information some readers may find useful; (3) it feels more encyclopedic and academic; (4) changing 50+ articles can be really hard, and we'll have to get everyone on the same page there; and (5) change can be scary sometimes, I guess. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@MJL:, the problem is that no information at all is conveyed when the lead sentence says that the 2016 United States presidential election was the American presidential election in 2016. This pointless redundancy should be scary, not the idea of cutting it out. The structure of the lead sentence of this article is not, at present, identical to those of other 50+ articles anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 15:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to clarify @MJL: are you recommending that if the lead in this article were changed? that alteration should be applied to all the US presidential election articles? GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay and Surtsicna: Yes, that is my contention. The only one that exists in isolation is the 2020 election since that's a future one. However, the remaining articles all adhere to roughly the same layout. Surt, I don't know why you say it doesn't because it does. The 2016 United States presidential election was the 58th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016 is exactly like The 2012 United States presidential election was the 57th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 6, 2012. They all do that. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:04, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

But it's not the same as in 1996 United States presidential election, for example. The date and the day of the week are found in the lead sentences of the articles about the three most recent elections, the elections held between 1940 and 1864, and the elections held between 1856 and 1804. The lead sentences of the articles about the first four elections, among many others, do not include this. It is thus not true that the only one in isolation is the article about the 2020 election, nor is there any uniformly applied standard that must be adhered to. As far as I can tell, there has been no discussion that could have resulted in such a standard. In other words, the poor wording of this lead sentence is being upheld in the name of consistency that does not even exist. Surtsicna (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I checked over all those articles from 1788 to 2016 & they all open with "Year United States presidential election" followed by "was the Xth quadrennial election.." After those, there's small variations to the articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's not true. Some say "was the Xth American quadrennial election". Some say "was the Xth United States presidential election". The inclusion or exclusion of the precise date and the day of the week is not a minor difference either. There is no consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I've just fixed them, to align with the others. Not a major problem. PS - Thanks for pointing those differences out. I'm usually on top of those things. Getting older, I reckon. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I am a little late to this party but I much prefer the prose in Surtsicna's edit and believe all POTUS election articles should reflect that change. The numbering of the election is not important to most people (although I do believe it should appear in either the "Background" section or elsewhere in the lead). What is important is the date of the election, the major candidates/parties, the results, and any abnormalities (such as the popular/electoral vote discrepancy) which can all be succinctly put in to one sentence as in Surtsicna's edit. IMO, Surtsicna's is better both as an encyclopedic article (in that it provides the most information most clearly) and as the beginning of a narrative work (as it draws the reader in and is the most digestible). If we can agree to a consensus to make that change here, I will gladly put some time into every other election article to do the same.

Further, I think this change could work well for all election articles (Congressional, Gubernatorial, Legislative, etc.) for the same reasons. I know this is a major (!) change and I would want consensus before moving forward, but I believe it would be a worthwhile change.

I am going to also bring this discussion up on the 2020 talk page so that everyone is aware of what is happening and two counter discussions over the same topic are not happening concurrently. PrairieKid (talk) 21:10, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

PrairieKid, how do you suggest that we proceed? Surtsicna (talk) 11:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Note @PrairieKid:, the same discussion is occurring at 2020 United States presidential election article :) GoodDay (talk) 12:58, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Two third candidates to win more than 1% since 1980

I like to point out that this is the first time that two third candidates in Gary Johnson and Jill Stein have won more than 1% since John Anderson and Edward Clark in 1980. 114.73.110.224 (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Results are a Hot Mess

227+304 != 535 ME is 4 (3+1), not 3 (2+1) WA is 12, not 8 - and this is reproduced on the Washington 2016 election page where the summary says 8 but the body of the text says 12. So multiple pages need to be fixed on this. 173.53.29.213 (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

There are faithless electors who voted for neither Trump nor Clinton and they are shown in the map. The total number of electoral votes is 538, not 535, because D.C. gets 3 electors.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:27, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Results table footnotes

In the Candidates table section footnote [d] appears in cells containing vote counts and percentages for Bernie Sanders, John Kasich, Ron Paul and Colin Powell, but contains material (all but the first sentence of the footnote) that's only relevant to Sanders. I can't work out how to fix this. Ideally the first two instances (in the Sanders row) would be left as they are, but subsequent uses would be changed to a different footnote reading only "Candidate received votes as a write-in." – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:00, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Any reference(s) for the popular vote?

Are there any references for the popular vote? CaribDigita (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

This page is a mess

Why can't I easily see what percentage of the vote the minor parties got? For anyone unfamiliar with the US electoral system, it would be nearly impossible to understand the information as presented without reading multiple paragraphs and multiple other articles.--Senor Freebie (talk) 11:47, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Default sort by popular vote instead of attainable electors?

Prior to a presidential election, it makes total sense to order alternative party candidates by attainable electors. However, after the election, it makes much more sense to order candidates by their actual votes instead of their potential. The 2016 United States presidential election#Other nominations section has them sorted by attainable electors.
I changed it to sort by popular vote, by default: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=947821722
User:DeNoel reverted that change: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2016_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=947881667
Can we get a consensus on which is the better default sort order? Dhalsim2 (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The Electoral College decides the outcome, and most of the time they vote based on the outcome of their state's elections, which is decided county by county. The national popular vote does not decide, it's decided by Electoral representatives. I provided the link to the Electoral College article. You're welcome to hold your own election about whether the article should prioritize national popular vote or elector vote, but I would ask an Admin to add to the discussion.

Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand how the electoral college works and agree that those who have electoral votes can be ordered by that vote count. However, those in the Other nominations section have received no electoral votes, so need something other than an electoral vote count for ordering them. The issue is whether attainable electoral votes is more important than the popular vote. I believe that it's clear that popular vote, that is the actual general election votes cast for a candidates, is more relevant than the potential votes cast for the candidate in the December electoral college election. Dhalsim2 (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Dhalsim2 here that popular vote makes more sense for ordering than attainable electoral vote. Orser67 (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

 Comment: Once a consensus is achieved, use the {{Admin help}} template to specifically ask for admin assistance, who will review the discussion, and officiate as necessary. Don't forget to change the hidden text at the top of the section that specifies how candidates will be sorted. Thank you.
Christopher, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of Donald J. Trump

The portrait that is used has to be changed to a portrait image from before he became President. It would follow the precedent set by each and every portrait of a President on an election wikipedia page. I recommend File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aricmfergie (talk • contribs) 05:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons stated at Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 28#Run-off voting. And that precedent doesn't exist. --Wow (talk) 08:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - prior presidential elections use official portraits of the president's first term in office if they were the eventual winner. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Portrait of Hillary Rodham Clinton

I think it would be much better to use cropped portrait File:Hillary Clinton crop.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Onghai1929 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I have no objections to changing the infobox photo, but I think this crop you're referring to needs to be recropped. --Wow (talk) 20:25, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't have much preference one way or the other, but whichever is decided upon it must also be used in the accompanying infoboxes of the states' respective results. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the following portrait of Hillary Clinton File:Hillary Clinton official Secretary of State portrait crop.jpg is best for the page.Browniesandicecreamcake (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Foreign influence section (UAE, Ukraine, etc)

I've read the discussion about the inclusion of Ukrainian influence section and I agree that it would fail the WP:UNDUE policy. Perhaps it would be best to create a section dedicated to foreign influence by all other countries after the Russian involvement section.

There are reliable sources for the Emirati influence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/politics/indictment-uae-influence.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share) and for the allegations of Ukrainian influence (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/05/us/politics/indictment-uae-influence.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share). I don't think anyone would argue that it's so unimportant that it doesn't warrant a single mention in the article. Alaexis_¿question?

the entire section is riddled with inaccurate information, narrative, and opinion from non credible sources with biases against then candidate trump. IE. Cnn, the NYtimes, vanityfair, the newyorker etc. Have 90% and above negitive reporting on trump, this percentage alone should disqualify theese sources from citation on this subject-matter. Pc casto (talk) 03:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

biased sources are not credible

the overwhelming majority of sources cited in the foreign interfere section are political activist organizations. Ie... cnn, the new york times, vanityfair, the post, and the newyorker, are all not credible citeable sources, as all have well documented biases against one of the candidates (trump) from this election. All materials that use or are supported by theese citations should be removed. Pc casto (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

CNN, The NYT, are most certainly not political activists. You can take this to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 11:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Data not complete

The data according to state in 2016 United States presidential election lists in a footnote that the source is a November 9th, 2016 article in the New York Times. According to these data, the total popular vote tallies are 60,966,953 and 60,328,203 for Clinton and for Trump, respectively. As everyone is aware, the final certified vote tallies were not published until December 21, 2016 ("The Independent". Retrieved 2020-05-06.). However this wiki article makes little mention of the final vote count. I need to know the final and certified votes by state as in the table presented here sourced from the November 9th, 2016 New York Times article.
Izmirlig (talk) 19:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Results by State Table

I like the edits to the "Results By State Table" overall, but I miss having the second column with the state abbreviation. As the table currently exists, I can't see the margin and the state abbreviation at the same time on my computer. Orser67 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Intelligence Agencies

"The U.S. government's intelligence agencies concluded on January 6, 2017 that the Russian government had interfered in the 2016 elections.." Those same U.S. governmental agencies also conclude that events that happened on April 7 (7/4 in European date convention) happened on July 4 (7/4 in American date convention) in their report. If a source can't even get basic facts right, how can it possible be considered reliable?23.129.0.30 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

One typo in a report does not invalidate the entire report. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"Despite losing the popular vote"

What is the point of including these words in the very first sentence of the lead? The fact that Clinton lost despite winning more votes than Trump is already discussed in-depth with multiple sentences in the third paragraph. Including these words in the first factual statement of the lead infers that Trump's victory is some kind of unfair anomaly despite the fact that it is perfectly valid and not unprecedented under the U.S. electoral system for candidates to win presidential elections without winning the popular vote. I think these words should be removed from the first sentence. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 11:37, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement, the tidbit about losing the popular vote is already elsewhere in the lead, no reason for this to be included in the first paragraph. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

What? The "very first sentence of the lead" did not contain those words. The information that was removed accurately commented on the election, and how anyone could take an inference that Trump's win was unfair is beyond me. The information contains a legitimate record of one element of the election, and I have restored it. Anyone who disagrees could start a RfC. Moriori (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

You're not making a case for why is should be included in the first paragraph beyond referring to it as accurate, which no one is disputing but are instead correctly observing how its mention is already within the lead and who's inclusion in the head introductory paragraph is wholly irrelevant, especially when taking into consideration the popular vote does not decide the outcome of the election. I suggest you start the RfC, as you're the one seeking its inclusion. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 07:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Mention of the popular vote has been in the first paragraph, in some form, for a very long time. It has been discussed on the talk page a few times already (Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_index), and the other elections where the winner lost the popular vote consistently mention that fact in the first paragraph. The burden doesn't fall on the editors restoring the status quo. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Status quo installed without established consensus, a content's presence being "for a very long time" can mean next to nothing if its placement has little relevancy to the overall article topic beyond trivia at best. The burden falls on editors to maintain the article in the form of what proves the most useful to the reader in understanding the topic, and considering the popular vote, again, doesn't determine the winner it has no place in the head paragraph. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu has recently undid the edit under the pretense of, "No reason given for deletion. Stop edit warring." Ignoring this talk page so they may reinstate it in an easy fashion without addressing points made. I await an argument for this inclusion that addresses the points I make and not one that wishes to sweep it under the rug, should we also include in the lead paragraph for 1951 United Kingdom general election and 2019 Canadian federal election how they are the X election to be won by the party without having the popular vote? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Lead Paragraph

It was the fifth and most recent presidential election in which the winning candidate lost the popular vote.

Should this portion of the current paragraph be kept in the first paragraph of the article (not concerning the entire lede, just the introductory sentence)? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 02:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• No, its use in the third paragraph only is sufficient as this is where the other statistics and vote breakdowns are mentioned. It's not more key than the second or fourth paragraphs, if we want the first paragraph to contain a summary of the lead itself. — Bilorv (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, keep it in the first paragraph. The electoral/popular vote divergence is absolutely one of the most significant aspects of the election. Take a look at how various reliable sources treat it: Britannica mentions it in the very first sentence. Change and Continuity in the 2016 Elections (CQ Press): first sentence of the preface. Atlas of the 2016 Election: second sentence of page 1. Trumped (ed. Larry Sabato et al.): quite early in the intro and again on page 1. Identity Crisis by John Sides et al. mentions it frequently; p.154 refers to it as one of the "extraordinary" aspects of the election. -Avial Cloffprunker (talk) 01:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes it should be kept, per points raised by Avial Cloffprunker above, as it is a vital part of the elections. Idealigic (talk) 06:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • How is it vital when it doesn't determine the winner. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, it's completely fundamental to the result, besides being a rare and noteworthy outcome in any election. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep – It’s a highly notable part of how the election played out. It is irrelevant to how the winner was determined, but the article is about the circumstances surrounding the election, not just its mechanics. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 19:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
  • It's not more vital than Russian interference and that isn't catered to the position of the first paragraph. Its use is a trivial insertion at best, it's like adding, "This is the last election until 2016 where the winning Republican ticket didn't have a Nixon or Bush", to 1928. MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken (talk) 04:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per above. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 07:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
• Remove It's nothing more than a biased attempt by editors that can't accept that he is their president to smear him as "unpopular". The fact that he lost popular doesn't matter because he won, and it is also inaccurate in the face of the silent majority. 2601:644:8B00:DEF0:65A8:A6B2:2D7:7E72 (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
• Keep per above arguments, I agree with keeping the result in the first paragraph. Furthermore, in two of the four articles regarding other elections where this result occurred, the outcome is mentioned in the first paragraph. Quorum816 (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
• Yes To non-Americans it's bewildering and confusing that not the one with the most votes won. ImTheIP (talk)
• Yes, it's treated as noteworthy by both the sources and the article, and we have similar wording on comparable elections. --Aquillion (talk) 04:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Voter Demographics table falsely claims that 53% of white women voted for Trump

This false and divisive statistic has been thoroughly debunked by many sources, Time is just the first one that comes up:

"The 52% statistic appears to be one of those myths. According to a later analysis that experts consider more reliable, a study published in August by the Pew Research Center, the percentage of white women who voted for Trump was actually 47%, compared to 45% for Clinton." https://time.com/5422644/trump-white-women-2016/

Another cite: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/20/donald-trump/trump-said-52-women-voted-him-2016-s-misleading-re/

The Pew Research numbers: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/

This article is understandably locked down, and any attempt on my part to edit a table of inter-related numbers would lead to a mess. I will leave this to people who know Wiki better than I do, but this misleading number should not be allowed to stand. A majority of white women did not support Trump. --Pciszek (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Flight 93 election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Flight 93 election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 30#Flight 93 election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Request to edit results by state

The following values in the table results by state are incorrect and should be changed to the following:

• Arkansas, Johnson, Votes: 29,949 instead of 29,829
• Arkansas, Johnson, %: 2.65% instead of 2.64%
• Arkansas, McMullin, Votes: 13,176 instead of 13,255
• Arkansas, Total votes: 1,130,676 instead of 1,130,635
• California, Clinton, Votes: 8,753,792 instead of 380,494
• California, Trump, Votes: 4,483,814 instead of 684,872
• California, Stein, Votes: 278,658 instead of 9,473
• California, Total votes: 14,181,604 instead of 14,181,595
• New York, Clinton, Votes: 4,556,118 instead of 4,556,124
• New York, Trump, Votes: 2,819,533 instead of 2,819,534
• New York, Stein, Votes: 107,935 instead of 107,934
• New York, McMullen, Votes: 10,397 instead of 10,373
• New York, Other, Votes: 50,861 instead of 50,890
• New York, Margin, Votes: −1,736,585 instead of −1,736,590
• New York, Total votes: 7,721,442 instead of 7,721,453
• Rhode Island, McMullen, Votes: 773 instead of 516
• Rhode Island, McMullen, %: 0.17% instead of 0.11%
• Rhode Island, Other, Votes: 9,337 instead of 9,594
• Rhode Island, Other, %: 2.01% instead of 2.07%
• Vermont, McMullen, Votes: 640 instead of 639
• Vermont, Other, Votes: 23,649 instead of 23,650
• Total, Other, Votes: 1,152,384 instead of 1,154,084

Also change the second paragraph after the table from:

'Results are from The New York Times.[449]' to 'Results are from the Federal Election Commission.[1]'

I would do this my self, but I don't have the permission to do so. If you want to check the numbers have a look at the first reference of the article or directly at https://www.fec.gov/introduction-campaign-finance/election-and-voting-information/federal-elections-2016/ L.xschlag (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Question: Did you also check all of the other state's election results that were listed in the table so that the amount of votes each candidate got is not conflicting with what the source says? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

For the votes I double checked pretty much every number. Some of the total values don't fit to the individual numbers of votes right now, but will with the changes I suggested. The amount of votes should therefore be consistent. For the percentages I checked only those values which might change with my edit.L.xschlag (talk) 16:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

 Doing... Verifying, please wait... --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 19:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

OK, all from [2] unless otherwise noted:

• Arkansas, Johnson, Votes: 29,829 is correct per the Governor and Secretary of State's official certification to the President of the United States Senate, see [3].
• Arkansas, Johnson, %: Correct per above.
• Arkansas, McMullin: 13,255 is correct per same official certification.
• Arkansas, Total votes: 1,130,635 is correct (sum of all totals in the official certification)
• California: Something is wrong here. The Governor and Secretary of State's official certification to the President of the United States Senate ([4]) (on December 12 2016) is different than the official Statement of Vote (certified by the Secretary of State on December 16 2016).
• New York: Something is also wrong here. There are differences between the December 8 2016 certification by the Governor, Secretary of State, and Board of Elections to the President of the United States Senate ([5]) and the amended August 17 2017 (!!!) report by the Board of Elections ([6]). I believe these may account for the difference you observed.
• Rhode Island: Not sure what to do with this: I don't see any official RI statement on write-in candidate results.
• Vermont: Per [7] (You must select the 2016 General election in the top-right, then click on Federal, then "Total Write-ins"), McMullen has 629 votes, or 0.20%. I can't find a more official VT document. What to do?

Thoughts? --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 21:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Margin of victory information at table is misleading

At the voting table the margin of victory part is confuse and should be changed or at least a new collumn could be added. At hawaii hillary had 62.88% of the votes and trump had 30.36%, the margin of victory should show ((100/(62.88 + 30.36)) * 30.36) - ((100/(62.88 + 30.36)) * 62.88) but its showing 30.36 - 62.88 this is a misleading information. If at some state trump as some example trump get 1% of votes and hillary get 4% of the votes, the result will show just -3% but hillary got 4x times more votes than trump.2804:7F2:594:4C46:D112:8292:A388:37B3 (talk) 13:59, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Margin of victory shows the overall election winner over the highest candidate that isn't them in that district. In some cases, it will turn out to be negative - this means that the overall election winner lost by that much there. This is how most election articles are done and it would be a very significant change to not use that method. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 17:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Gary Johnson

Since Johnson had access to all ballots, should he be in the infobox? I'm confused about why Johnson (and Stein) had access to all ballots and the infobox only shows Trump and Clinton. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 16:24, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Because the consensus (don't know where the link to it is) says that candidates only go in the infobox for an election that concluded if they (1) received 5% of the popular vote, or (2) earned at least one electoral vote. Though we did agree to exclude the protest votes from faithless electors. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Full Results

Why aren't the full results listed? There were more than 6 candidates for President but the vote totals for most are not on the page.--User:Namiba 15:43, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:2016 United States presidential election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Babegriev (talk · contribs) 06:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article 2016 United States presidential election in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Babegriev (talk) 06:02, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
· · ·

GA Review and Notes

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): Reviewer Comments: Per MOS:QWQ the passage: "was in contact with one or more apparently well-connected Israelis at the height of the 2016 US presidential campaign, one of whom warned Stone that Trump was “going to be defeated unless we intervene” and promised “we have critical intell[sic].” is improperly punctuated. In Results by state section, the passage "This would be the first election in which the winning candidate would lose their home state since Woodrow Wilson lost New Jersey in 1916." uses a conditional tense, when the results of the election should be referred to in the past, as to make it unified with the verbiage in the rest of the article. The last paragraph of Statistical analysis does not follow the method of citation used throughout the rest of the article and breaks the natural flow. Citation 377 is used repeatedly instead of utilizing several sources, or simply placing it at the end of the paragraph to encapsulate the entire statement. There is a forecasting section under Results, however, the entirety of the General election polling heading only consists of a hatnote directing to the main articles. I would strongly advise moving forecasting into this section, and condensing it as there are subsidiary articles covering it in more depth. By placing it as far down on the page as it is, not only does it interrupt the pre-established chronological organization of the article sections, but it also should not be placed under results. If you wanted to keep a section there regarding the forecast compared to the actual outcome, then I could understand it's purpose, but at current, it is confusing and misplaced for the average reader. b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): Reviewer Comments: A few instances of vague terminology per MOS:REALTIME and WP:SAID are used, but do not warrant necessary change as they are appropriate in their context and remain neutral. In the section Electoral College lobbying, "This group's members may have become faithless electors in the presidential election." is in violation of MOS:OPED as it is entirely speculative and contains no citation. In the same subsection above, the frequent single-sentence paragraphs result in a violation of MOS:PARA within MOS:LAYOUT. I would consider rewriting that section, or at least reformatting it. It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): Reviewer Comments: Unremarkable. b (citations to reliable sources): Reviewer Comments: Lack of citation for a direct quotation for the very last sentence of the lead section. While I have no doubt as to the legitimacy, 2b requires all direct quotations to have an in-line citation to it's source. If it is the same as the above citation 22, then this is made distinctly unclear as citations 23 and 24 are presented after the end of the previous quotation but before the next. Please reuse or create a reference for the quotation. "the computer networks of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) and the Democratic National Committee (DNC)" does not contain any form of in-line citation. Reference 311 would suffice, however, it should be immediately after the end of the quote, and not wait until the end of the paragraph, as they are grouped together with sources about later information that are not related to the direct quotation. "awfully good someone with the temperament of Donald Trump is not in charge of the law in our country" lacks in-line citation. Results by State table is factually incorrect per the citations provided. Although sources of Arkansas vote tallies through an ascertainment to the senate from the state, this citation is not provided in the Article proper, and the numbers in the table for Johnson and McMullin are thus inaccurate per the cited sources (2, 395 and 450). Please either update sources, or statistics. In the same Results by state section as above in 1a, the passage "This would be the first election in which the winning candidate would lose their home state since Woodrow Wilson lost New Jersey in 1916." contains no citation. I would consider this to be contentious to be said without citation, not for the 1916 date (as a link to that election is provided), but for every election between 1916 and 2016. The citation for Viewership is unclear as it is only under the "legend" title. Some additional content here would be beneficial per GA criterion 1, even if it were a simple explanatory paragraph. The 2016 Presidential vote by demographic subgroup table should include a linkable citation to the Edison exit polling. I would suggestion reusing reference 494, however, the link should be directly with the table. While it is implied that the contents of the table are from the above source(s), it is ambiguous. c (OR): Reviewer Comments: There is no evidence of Original Research per WP:OR d (copyvio and plagiarism): Reviewer Comments: All major violations flagged in Earwig's Copyvio Detector were properly cited and referenced quotes. Other discrepancies were common phrases and, thus, do not constitute WP:COPYVIO. With over 600 citations, there are no evident plagiarism violations, as all content has been attributed appropriately. It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): Reviewer Comments: This article goes into a great deal of depth and covers a very intricate and complicated topic well. While there are several subsidiary articles to this main 2016 election page, this article does a remarkable job at covering most all of the general aspects that would be expected of an article regarding an election. b (focused): Reviewer Comments: As mentioned above, there are many subsidiary articles to this main topic. Each of those articles has a summary section with a proper hatnote (or intext hyperlink) directing to the in-depth article. There are no significant tangents, and all additional detail to elements pertaining to topics beyond the main topic are beneficial and constructive, rather than distracting. It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: Reviewer Comments: This article is of a political nature, and is thus inherently susceptible to the dangers of bias. By having a community that spans both sides of the political aisle, as well as an international community that are completely removed from U.S. politics, the article as a whole has done a very good job at using neutral language, and reporting on only the facts as presented by the sources listed. I have found that overall, the sources used are somewhat left-leaning, and as a result, the article has a slightly liberal lean. That being said, I am nevertheless considering this article impartial as an active effort has been made to list both sides of political discourse evenly and accurately. Charged language and speculation is avoided well, except as listed above, and the statistics are taken from legitimate reporting agencies. No article involving politics will ever be completely free of bias, but this article does it about as effectively as possible. It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: Reviewer Comments: Although there is a fair deal of general discourse on the talk page, even regarding some critical aspects of data, this is to be expected of any page that is of such a general topic that has high traffic of views and edits. From an assessment of the past 500 edits: warring occurred in May and October of 2019 and again in February of 2020. All incidents were fairly brief and ended in a moved discussion. This being said, self-policing, in conjunction with site moderation, have forced all recent discussion into the talk page, instead of through constant reverts, and the use of democratic consensus regarding changes warrants stability in my eyes. Ultimately, failure of GA criterion 5 requires that disputes interfere with the day-to-day reading experience. Political articles, as with all things of a political nature, will have disputes that may never resolve. This fact of life should not withold GA status from an otherwise good article. As an aside: Thank You] to everyone who has cleaned up vandalism and grammar whether manually or through bot automation. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): Reviewer Comments: All images are in the public domain or are Creative Commons attributed. Although some are trademark protected, GA does not require assessment of such conditions, but only copyright. b (appropriate use with suitable captions): Reviewer Comments: Party Conventions Map (Under Party conventions) does not contain a caption. Otherwise, all images in this article relate to the main topic and enhance the content.
Overall: Pass/Fail: Reviewer Comments: See below.
· · ·

Additional Comments

Let me preface this with an apology if anything here is repeated from above. When conducting this review, I simultaneously took general article notes and notes specific to GA criteria. I will also say that this article is very in-depth and is a good resource for anyone looking to study the 2016 general election.

Lead Section

Everything is fairly eloquently written, and the introductory paragraph is remarkable, the content of the lead degrades progressively the deeper you get into it. When assessing this article, I followed the style of User:Hamiltonstone who reviewed the 2008 presidential election GA nomination, and assessed this from the perspective of a non-US reader or a reader who lacks significant political knowledge. This mentality is going to be especially applied to the lead section. The term "free media" could mean very different things depending on your prior knowledge on the topic. Is it media that has no cost? Is it media that can be practiced without restriction? Is it media that is paid for by someone else? The context from this paragraph does not suffice to make the term common knowledge. I would advise a link to Earned media is included, if no additional context is provided. I digress that the citations provide more clarity, however, for a reader whose first experience with the 2016 presidential election is this article, they should not have to jump into citations for an easy-to-digest executive summary in the lead section. On the topic of impartiality, the section does a good job (for the most part) at providing cases for and against either ticket. I would advise including a reference to concerns regarding Hillary Clinton's health during the campaign alongside the other arguments for opposition, however I will defer to the consensus of the talk page. Finally, there is one failing condition per GA criterion 2b, being the lack of citation for a direct quotation for the very last sentence of the lead section. While I have no doubt as to the legitimacy, 2b requires all direct quotations to have an in-line citation to it's source. Please consider revising.

Primary process Section

This section seems extremely out of place and does not fit the style of the rest of the article. I was expecting it to summarize the primary process in the united states as a whole, just as the Background section gave context to the presidential election process in the united states. It seems as if the contents of this section could be better integrated into the "primaries" section of each party under the Nominations heading. I like the idea of having the primary section there, as context should be given regarding the primary election overall, however, as it is written currently, it seems clunky and does not match the flow of the rest of the article. I would consider revision.

Overall Linkrot

WP:LR is not a disqualifying criteria for GAs. That being said, it would be completely wrong of me to not point out that several of the links that I assessed from the citations lead to dead links. Among the ones I recorded: 243 (Good4Utah), 401 (dcboee), 408 (in.gov), 441 (vtelectionresults), and others that require paid subscriptions that are not appropriately marked (e.g. 244 (Financial Times). Additionally, the sources to the FEC website in the Campaign finance section all go to the same search page instead of their respective result pages for the candidates in question for the election year in question. Archive links ought to be considered and links overall should be reviewed in more depth.

Campaign finance Section

This is another section of the article that caught my eye, particularly the chart. The sources have become so out of date that the numbers in question cannot be verified through the listed sources. While I personally trust whoever originally compiled the figures from these legitimate sources, if archived links are not provided, the data cannot be verified. Also, given that the statistics for the 2016 election have been finalized with both the FEC and the Center for Responsive Politics, I would strongly suggest that the data in that table be updated to reflect accurate final sums.

Overall thoughts

As a politically-minded resident of the united states, a lot of this content made sense and was entertaining to read. I think this article is definitely on it's way to earning GA status. Many of the elements that I have held this review for are simple fixes, and with a bit of general cleanup and attention, can be rectified without too much effort. The graphics and other media compliment the content well. The layout, for the most part, is intuitive and easy to follow (excepting the ones I have discussed above). I'd like to conclude that this is not an exhaustive list of comments, but is what I had found thus far and was enough to come to this conclusion. Please do not hesitate to reach out with any questions or concerns and I would be more than happy to reassess this article after the changes above are made.

All the very best,

Babegriev (talk) 06:40, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Babegriev: thanks for the review! I'll work on addressing all of these issues within the next few days. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:54, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Update 9/8/20

Just an update, I will be taking another in-depth look on the 11th of September to make it an even 14 days after initial review. There are still a few problems that stand out, particularly regarding criteria 2b and 6b. Thank you! --Babegriev (talk) 01:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Secondary GA Review

As per notes I, III, V, and VII under 2b and criterion 6b above, this article does not meet the 6 GA criteria at this point.

--Babegriev (talk) 07:29, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Babegriev: hey, I'm sorry for the lack of progress and very late reply - after making the nomination, I got far busier with school than I anticipated. Anyway, I've addressed pretty much all of the issues you brought up - would you recommend renominating? (not sure of the process here). Thanks Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Elliot321: Hi Elliot, I'm currently in the middle of some college work and will be busy for the next day or two. I have seen this message and I will take a look at the article as soon as possible. I want to take enough time to really look through the article again and give some good feedback. Feel free to give me a shout if there's any concerns. Babegriev (talk) 21:24, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

@Babegriev: makes sense, no hurry - I know what it's like to be in the middle of a lot of work myself. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 16:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Elliot321: Thank you immensely for your patience, that was a long wait. As per the initial review, the article overall was very good, and all of the notes that were most important have all been addressed. I cannot find anything after reading through the article, with the exception of the captioning of the party convention map, however, I've gone ahead and made that edit myself since it took a matter of 30 seconds. The article is written from a very neutral perspective, overall, and the few missing citations that would have lead to the slightest implication of bias have been addressed. Article is illustrated very well, and the section organization has since improved. Likewise, the inconsistencies with the voting statistics seem to have been resolved. Besides that, this article seems to be in a very good position for reassessment. Thank you for your contributions, and best of luck.

As stated in a lower comment, unless a candidate gets over 5% of the popular vote (like Ross Perot in the 90s) or wins at least some electoral votes (like Strom Thurmond in '48), they're not included in the infobox. Johnson and Stein, along with others, are listed further down 24.186.90.232 (talk) 22:34, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Trump's strategy to deter 3.5m Black Americans from voting in 2016

Many sources are reporting on efforts by the Trump campaign to deter 3.5 million black voters, I don't know very much about the details of the election but here are some sources for it:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=reae0qgZ8bM
• https://www.channel4.com/news/revealed-trump-campaign-strategy-to-deter-millions-of-black-americans-from-voting-in-2016
• https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/sep/28/trump-2016-campaign-targeted-35m-black-americans-to-deter-them-from-voting
• https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/09/28/trump-campaign-used-sophisticated-algorithm-dissuade-black-voters/

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:21, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Comparison to pre election forecasts

Table color scheme could be improved.

See example: https://i.imgur.com/RrHFxa0.png — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiBot9000 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Results by State Nevada percentages are incorrect

Look specifically at the Nevada results in the "Results by State" spreadsheet.

Compare this to the results on the Nevada wiki page.

The vote totals for Clinton and Trump are correct.

But, the percentages are incorrect.

I first noticed something was wrong with the percentages when I compared them to the right column "-2.42%" as the percent margin.

The two percentages (for Clinton and Trump) of 47.50% and 45.98% as shown in the chart on this wiki page do not generate a difference of 2.42%.

At first, I thought the error was in the column showing the difference of 2.42%.

However, after visiting the Nevada page for the 2016 Presidential Election, I observe that the vote totals are consistent with this spreadsheet, the 2.42% difference between Clinton and Trump is consistent, but the error is in the two percentages for Clinton and Trump.

On the Nevada Wiki page, 47.92 and 45.5 are correct, and, generate the 2.42 as the difference.

This is not consistent with the 47.50 and 45.98 shown on this wiki page.

This wiki page seems to be in error.

John.Brydels (talk) 07:21, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2020

In the table showing the percentage of votes given to each candidate, the table shows that Texas has 36 electoral votes, when in fact, Texas has 38 electoral votes. Rafanoodles (talk) 01:14, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. 2 electoral votes went to other candidates, indicated in the table. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 02:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Close states

Almost every other presidential election lists states won by a less than 10% margin. I can see an argument for limiting it to 5%, but keeping it at 6% seems arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 23:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the 2016 and 2020 United States Presidential election

@Jehochman: I didn't get an opportunity to respond to you before you on Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors before the entire discussion was deleted, and your talk page is semi-protected, which means that I cannot start a discussion on the talk page, but since your comment addressed the 2016 election as well I decided to put it here. Your comment was as follows:

• 73, was it an error when we posted Trump "wins" the 2016 election, or is it only an error now that Trump is the loser? How about all the congressional elections where we have named the winners, even though those results aren't certified yet either? Should we add weasel words to all those articles saying they are the "projected" winners instead of plainly saying they are the winners? Jehochman ^Talk 13:43, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

What Wikipedia did in 2016 was incorrect as well; Trump did not win the 2016 election on Election Day. There was a movement for 37 Republicans electors to become faithless electors and vote for a candidate that is not Donald Trump, which if succeeded would have resulted in a contingent election. This is a problem that not just affects the 2016 and 2020 elections, but most United States presidential elections. Mentioning that the voters' role on Election Day is to select electors for the electoral college and the projections for the electoral college are projections and not the actual result is not using weasel words; it is simply more accurate. Now, what most people seem to miss is that elections in the United States are a process that occurs over many months. If the 2016 United States presidential election only referred to the events on Election Day, then there wouldn't be entire sections dedicated to the primaries and caucuses of each political party in the United States. There is a section in the 2016 United States presidential election article about the Electoral College vote, and so plainly saying that they are the winners of the Electoral College vote makes sense, but only because the Electoral College vote has already taken place. That is not true in 2020, and would not be under 14 December 2020 when the electoral college votes. And provided Donald Trump loses the electoral college in December, if Donald Trump decides to run again in 2024 and ends up being projected the winner by the news organisations on Election Day, he still hasn't won the election until the electoral college votes in December 2024. This would be true until the United States decides to amend its constitution to change or eliminate the function of the electoral college. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

@PFHLai: In the same Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors discussion you commented,

• Isn't this a bit overly pedantic? Where were you folks when ITN failed to properly call Tsai Ing-wen the president of the Republic of China? I'd leave the current ITN blurb as is. --PFHLai (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

The difference between electing the President of the Republic of China and the President of the United States is that in the Republic of China, the president is elected by popular vote (a direct election), while in the United States, the president is elected by its Electoral College (an indirect election, where the people vote for the electors, who in turn then vote for the president). Thus, in the Republic of China, when the voters vote on whatever election day, they are actually voting for the president, rather than for the electors. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

sources

sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.252.78 (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

For what? -- Politicsfan4 (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2021

67.3.89.249 (talk) 23:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Either delete or edit this page so it does not reflect any political bias. It was found in there investigation which concluded 2019 there was no Russian collusion in our election.

 Not done. The end of the lead already states that an investigation didn't establish that collusion occurred between Russia and the Trump campaign. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mention of Russia in the lead?

Is "Russian interference", a media obsession, really so relevant to the 2016 election that it justifies a paragraph in the lead?

I have no doubt that Russia, as the intelligence community says, favored Trump and created fake social media accounts to promote him. But is this really lead-worthy information, especially given that Mueller and co found no support of the more flamboyant "collusion" theory? LongtimeLurkerNewEditor08 (talk) 07:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2021

2603:8080:700:336B:B977:424D:632F:317F (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

"Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 21#Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 January 2021

Please add the following section to the results section for consistency with other election pages:

Counties

Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Republican)

1. Roberts County, Texas 94.58%
2. King County, Texas 93.71%
3. Motley County, Texas 92.03%
4. Hayes County, Nebraska 91.83%
5. Shackelford County, Texas 91.62%

Counties with Highest Percent of Vote (Democratic)

1. Washington, D.C. 90.86%
2. Bronx County, New York 88.52%
3. Prince George's County, Maryland 88.13%
4. Petersburg, Virginia 87.20%
5. Claiborne County, Mississippi 86.80% 73.110.217.186 (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

References

Done Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:01, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Things to possibly add

1. Trump is the most recent person to lose his home state(New York) 2. Trump is the most recent person to win an election despite losing his home state. 3. This is the most recent election where the candidates have the same home state — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:644:8103:5DB0:D5CA:496A:88E9:615B (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

My request is to at Gary Johnson to the top right of the page to be along with Trump and Clinton, given that he had the best third party campaign in recent history. Plumblm1 (talk) 22:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. MadGuy7023 (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Portrait of Donald Trump

Almost every other president or presidential candidate is shown with different portraits for their separate presidential runs. Since Jimmy Carter's portrait was changed in November on the 1976 United States presidential election page, this is now true for every presidential candidate since 1896 except Bill Clinton and Donald Trump. Now, official portraits are the preference for election infoboxes. Fortunately, there have been two official photographic portraits of Donald Trump published by the US government. Since this one File:Donald J. Trump, 45th President of the United States (37521073921) (cropped).png was taken earlier, before his inauguration, I suggest that this portrait be used on this page, and the 2017 portrait continue to be used on the 2020 page.AJD2002 (talk) 04:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2021

Change Hillary Clinton to 379 electoral votes and Donald Trump 269 electoral votes 2600:1700:9E90:5C50:FCA8:CA01:CD63:6CE2 (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 May 2021

The 2016 election is not the only one to have both major candidates from the same state. Happened in both 1940 and 1944. Also, New York both times. 2601:643:8202:EF40:D9F2:C6EA:F9A0:894A (talk) 22:22, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Alduin2000 (talk) 22:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Trump total is 306 (not 304)

Texas awarded Trump 38 (not 36) for a total of 306. The table shows Texas as 36 with a total of 304. The footnote source for the table is correct - if you click through to the New York Times you will see that their website correctly reports 38/306. So the footnote is fine, but the table is wrong.Kevinshields (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Kevinshields, They were faithless electors for Texas electoral vote count. If you look closely at the election map, you will see that. ₛₒₘₑBₒdyₐₙyBₒdy₀₅ (talk) 18:10, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Ah ha! Very sorry and THANK YOU for correcting me! Whew, now it all finally makes sense! Kevinshields (talk) 14:47, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 July 2021

Change Trump Electoral Votes To 232 Change Clinton Votes To 306 2600:1700:9E90:5C50:79EA:3686:92BD:1C02 (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:07, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Opposition to “many” free-trade agreements

Citation #4 does not mention any free-trade agreements. L1324523 (talk) 23:12, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Change Donald trump portrait

Should I change it? YellowHippo8264 (talk) 22:57, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2021

Please revert Snooganssnoogans's recent change of "an fbi investigation" to "a controversy" which (a)removes useful information from the lead (b)is not supported by sources (c)is vague weasel wording and (d)appears to lack any consensus. 1.145.247.151 (talk) 03:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

 Partly done: Met in the middle. Curbon7 (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

basket of deplorables comment in introduction

I don't think that the basket of deplorables comment should be part of the summary of what Hillary Clinton's campaign "ran on" in the introduction, as it was not intended to be a major part of it and in fact was spoken at what was meant to be a private fundraiser.

i agree Luke99108 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Include margin swing in "Results by State" section

In the page for the 2020 presidential election, in results by state (section 6.5), the margin swing from 2016 is included. In the results by state section in the article for the 2016 presidential election (section 8.4), the margin swing from 2012 is not included as it is in the article on the 2020 election. This might be beneficial to add, both to be consistent and to be informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditPen9986iihf (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Change Donald Trump in 2016

I think it would be a better idea to show other portrait of Donald Trump in 2016 like the one that was taken before his inauguration or the one that the article used to have before the official portrait, this is for keep the tradition of having 2 different portraits for different presidential runs, in this case the official portrait should be better used only in the 2020 presidential election and maybe in a future run of Trump for office.

This is something I think it would look good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperGion915 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Handling of illegal votes

Section is only linked to a single opinion piece and should be removed.128.151.71.7 (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur that this section should be removed. It contains only a few sentences, which in principle is not enough information to justify a separate section. Furthermore, the section is inappropriately titled for the information it contains. Additionally, it cites only one source, which is an opinion source.

The topic is germane to the article, and ought to be included in some form-- perhaps it can be merged with a relevant portion of another section. But before this can be done, the information needs to be re-cited from a reliable source. Atomic putty? Rien! (talk) (talk) 16:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

why locked????

this is old news now and 6 years old 71.223.228.79 (talk) 07:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

There are a lot of older topics that have semi-protection on them due to various reasons. Are there any specific changes you'd like to make to the article? You are welcome to make an edit request if there is a specific change to you article you'd like to propose. - Aoidh (talk) 08:40, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Pence 304 or 305?

In one spot on this page (2016_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_results), Pence is recorded as receiving 304 electoral college votes for V.P., same as Trump got for P. This despite a footnote (note d) saying one faithless elector in Texas didn't for for Trump for P., but did vote for Pence for V.P. So, shouldn't it be 305? Indeed, in another place on the page (2016 United States presidential election#Faithless electors), Pence is recorded as getting 305 electoral college votes for V.P. So, which is it? Have we a proper source to cite for either 304 or 305? TuckerResearch (talk) 16:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2023

Change the picture of Trump Wooducus (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2023 (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. to? Cannolis (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No mention of Donna Brazile / Clinton election fraud by leaking debate questions?

Why no mention of Clinton / Donna Brazile's election fraud scheme which involved Donna Brazile leaking the candidate questions ahead of time to the Clinton camp?

• CNN Parts Ways With Donna Brazile, a Hillary Clinton Supporter
• Donna Brazile out at CNN amid leaks to Clinton campaign
• Elizabeth Warren agrees Democratic race 'rigged' for Clinton

CaribDigita (talk) 14:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

CaribDigita, there was no "election fraud" scheme. Brazile gave Clinton some questions prior to primary debates, which I believe are covered at 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries. This page focuses on the general election. What relevance does Brazile's actions have on the general election? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Muboshgu, IMHO giving only one candidate questions ahead of time on one of the official national televised debates is giving unfair advantage to one of the national candidates. It is a bias. It appears none of the other candidates were giving this leg up in the national television debate(s).

This would be no different than if in Miss Universe one of the candidates was told the pageant's question ahead of time. The debates are an official and big part of the U.S. election season / cycle. Why should one candidate's camp be fed questions to come up with a right answer in advanced? and none of the others? Would you find that fair if you were debating? There's more than just the 'Russian scandal' that took place that election cycle. CaribDigita (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

This is not about what you or I find "fair". It's about what the WP:RS say and providing WP:DUE weight to aspects of the event. There was much going on in the 2016 election. Does Donna Brazile giving Hilary Clinton a heads up to a debate question in the primaries have any significance in the general election? That's the question we'd have to answer. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox image

Hi,

The inbox image for Donald Trump is his official presidential portrait taken after he assumed the presidency. However, I believe it make sense to include a photo of him during the 2016 presidential primaries as has been done for Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, this would provide consistency with this page if we used the photo of him there: 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries Golfpecks256 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi, as for every president the official potrait is used also in the article about the presidential election (see Biden in 2020, Obama in 2008 and 2012, Bush in 2000 and 2004 and so on). Moreover, the official pic is used in all the articles linked to this election (see for example the election results in each state). So I think we should keep using it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the original poster, we should not use a picture from after the election to depict a candidate during the election. It seems as wrong as it would be to use a picture of Shrley Temple Black from her days as a diplomat in the aticle for the movie Curly Top. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Wording in infobox

I think the line "However, because of seven faithless electors (five Democratic and two Republican), Trump received just 304 votes to Clinton's 227" should be changed to "...Trump only received 304 votes and Clinton 227" or similar.

As is, the wording makes it sound like there was some massive numerical change, and trump had the tiny number of 304 votes cast for him, while clinton's numbers where unchanged. I propose changing it to the more dry factual wording above. I'd boldly change it, but ther may have been a previous discussion about it, though I cant find it in the talk page archives. Hydromania (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The present wording is a bit confusing, and possibly misleading. I like your suggested re-phrasing. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)