![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I added File:2020StatePredictions.svg to the "State predictions" section of the article, to demonstrate the predictions on an electoral map; @ The Kardiac Kid: removed it, saying that it's unnecessary. I think it's very useful as a concise summary/view of a large table, would be interested in other editors' thoughts on this. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m thinking we should stop hiding the table of results, it was hidden a while back as not necessary yet and is currently in the state predictions section, because its hard to maintain it when no-one can actually see it. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Kanye west is running on Republican/independent platform. However primarily its going to be Joe Biden vs, Donald Trump. 20username20 ( talk) 02:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No mention of kanye west? This should be changed — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.109.70.26 (
talk)
15:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the main infobox (along with Trump and Biden) Jo Jorgensen who reached 5% in a poll should be included. 67.231.194.182 ( talk) 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
User:David O. Johnson, can you please stop splitting bundled refs, there are so many in a row having them all unbundled is about a clear a violation of WP:OVERKILL as you can get. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as the lede is constantly being changed to include/not include demographic and/or third party information, I would like to establish what goes in the lede becuase I cannot find a previous discussion that solidifies a wholeistic and clear consensus on the content of the lede for this article, a fact that is reflected in the constant flux of information included and then removed from the lede. Effectively, I am doing this measure to try and derive a consensus without having to open an RFC as those, especially on this page, can become quite cumbersome. The main points of contestation I have noticed have been that Libertarians and Greens, who do not have a significant chance of winning the election, should not be included per WP:Lede's concern for WP:DUE, which is my basic summation of edits like these [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]]. This edits are usually quickly reverted citing some sort of consensus that Third Parties belong in the lede, but the only relevant discussion I can find relating to that topic is this one [ [4]] and this discussion doesn't seem to have resolved in consensus, though perhaps I am not reading the discussion properly. I cannot find anything about demographic information being included in the lede, and information about the 3rd Party candidates also gets bumped around between the lede and the relevant third party sections. Any thoughts on where this information belongs? WittyRecluse ( talk) 07:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Should it read as Vice Presidential selection or Vice presidential selection. I'm aware of WP:HEADINGS & its relation to WP:JOBTITLES, but honestly, aren't we pushing decapitalisation a bit too far? GoodDay ( talk) 19:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message to
let me know.)
19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Please see talk page discussion there about the inclusion criteria having been changed from those who "announced their opposition to the election" like as used in List of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign to instead be those who "have declined to endorse the re-election". Reywas92 Talk 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we find a way to write the lead so that we can wikilink to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign and Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign? Those are both very important pages for this topic. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The Vertical Header on top of the prediction table on my mobile device has been glitching. I literally have to click on the reference to predictors in order to see them. And I can’t see the link next to the name or date. In other words I have to find it. I reported the problem under the vertical headers section of Wikipedia. I have had this discussion under the State Predictions Table with two fellow editors @WMSR and @Jgstokes. We have been having disputes about it. They argue that the edits are necessary to better suit computer screens. I have tried to make edits to the prediction table twice to accommodate all users but all my efforts have been rejected. I realized that one size does not fit all. So then I tried to make two table to be accommodating. Then it was still rejected. I have tried discussing this and being pragmatic and trying to compromise. They have not been trying to compromise. @WMSR has implied that I was a liar. @Jgstokes called me disingenuous for keeping the predictions up to date for all to see. I have created this page in hopes that if anyone else is experiencing this issue that they come forward and say so. Due to glitch I think we should under the vertical header edit until the glitch is resolved.
To clarify @WMSR undid the first and third solution. Then @Jgstokes undid the second solution. I feel like my issue is being ignored. Pentock ( talk) 02:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The Vertical Headers are not currently being used on any election prediction table making it ok to remove them. Pentock ( talk) 02:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I made an edit a day or two ago where I added this sentence to the lead "Former Vice President Joe Biden secured the Democratic nomination in a competitive primary which featured the largest field of presidential candidates for any political party in the modern era of American politics."
I got to thinking about this more and I wonder if we really can refer to the primary as "competitive?" It was competitive in the sense that there were many different candidates who were viable in the early primary states. But it also wasn't competitive in the sense that Biden led polling throughout the entirety of the primary and pretty much dominated almost all primaries from SC on.
Just curious what everyone else thinks about this. Should we describe the primary as "competitive" in the lead? Should we instead mention that Sanders started with a lead and then Biden overtook him? Something else? Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Some mention or link to the Blue shift (aka "red mirage") scenerio that has been theorized to have potentially strong appearance (and possible ramifications) should be included on this page. SecretName101 ( talk) 09:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not "fearmongering" by media outlets. This is a phenomenon that has been outlined and projected in studies. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I just checked, the article was created in 2015. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I also want to briefly ask if in, say, 10 weeks, we created the 2024 page and have the RfC on its talk page. It would be a good idea to go over the rules again and make sure that if any changes in them need to be made that everyone's copasetic with it. I've been fighting with a few of you and I apologize for being slightly obnoxious. I don't want to do that again. Others are doing it too. So unless we have a situation not seen since 1876, we should discuss at that time issues like who is a major candidate and what we should do about the minor ones and the like, conflicts about pictures...when further articles should be created. Things like that. There was an agreement on something like this back in February, but I'd like to remind everyone about it now. Okay? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 election article was probably created early because a significant figure, Kanye West, had declared their intentions to run already by then in 2015. What major figures have delcared their intents yet to run in 2024? SecretName101 ( talk) 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The state predictions table is currently too wide to be viewed easily on many screens. I added vertical headers some time ago, but Pentock reverted that, saying that they are glitchy and difficult to read. I have not experienced any glitchiness with vertical headers, and am inclined to restore them based on the fact that a table that is too wide is also quite difficult to read. That said, I don't think we need all of these predictions featured on the page. 270toWin, for example, is just an aggregation of several other sources, and I think it can be removed (on the flipside, it is frequently cited by other sites). I'm also not sure we need CBS and NPR (since they predict using a different system). Either way, the width of the table needs to be addressed. Thoughts? -- WMSR ( talk) 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up. I think I should clarify what I mean by glitchy. What I mean is that when I was look at the table on my phone screen. The top of the vertical tables would appear mostly blank for awhile and would take time for the names of the predictors (ex. 538) to appear. The only ones that would appear right when I accessed the page were the first two or three on the left. When you look at the table in its current form are you able to scroll to the right or left and see the table? Pentock ( talk) 19:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I decided to change the states full names and shorten them to state abbreviations. If you have any problems you can let me know. Pentock ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I also shortened some of the headers. Hopefully it’ll be easier to view. Pentock ( talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Pentock: @ WMSR:: I'm posting here and pinging you both because Pentock again removed the vertical headers without a clear consensus to do so, which violates Wikipedia policies on consensus, and because it again messed up the table. Additionally, Pentock unilaterally included the likely electoral college votes for the different polls. Since polls are not definitive, and the data therein is subject to change with either new polls or the amendment to previous polls, the inclusion of the likely electoral college outcome for each poll appears to also be a disingenuous and highly speculative inclusion. I'd strongly encourage Pentock to not implement those changes again unless and until there is clear consensus to do so. For the record, for the reasons I outlined here, unless a better method can be found to include this information, I am currently opposed to the changes. So unless and until a majority supports these changes, I'd suggest leaving the content as is. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There was no consensus to add the vertical headers in the first place. I have not seen one election table on this site that used vertical headers. I made it accommodating to all users by adding the state column on the right so people wouldn’t have to scroll back and forth. I added an Electoral Vote column so you can see it at all times. I was going to say that I made the edit and wanted feedback to check to see that the edit was good. But I had to get off and do something.
And for the record removing the vertical headers is not breaking the rules unless I did so 3 times in a 24 hour period. I did not do that.
If anything we should go back and remove the vertical headers.
There is nothing wrong with keeping state predictions up to date. They change and I change the predictions accordingly. The amount of electoral votes per state will not change in the 2020 elections. I never added any polls. I updated forecasts. Forecasts and polls are NOT the same thing. But thank you for insulting me for keeping the page up to date. It’s out job as editors to keep the page up to date. You might as well of just said that you want me gone. Pentock ( talk) 22:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I added a new table for mobiles. The PC friendly one is on top of the mobile friendly one. The mobile friendly one has no vertical headers. The PC one does. Now we have a table that is easy to read for the PC’s and one that is friendly for mobiles. Pentock ( talk) 23:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest leaving PC friendly and mobile friendly one in place unless we can create one table accommodating for all users. Pentock ( talk) 23:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@WMSR @Jgstokes Can we please remove the vertical headers? The United States Senate Election Predictions and the house predictions don’t use vertical headers. There was no complaint for months about the old version being hard to read. Yet it didn’t take long for someone to complain about this edit. Why can’t we just follow other election tables? Can we please not insult each other for keeping the page updated? Why are you two playing hardball? I’m trying to compromise and provide alternatives that work for everyone. Yet you two continue to be stubborn. The vertical headers are glitchy on my phone. I’m open to solutions. If the vertical headers were not glitchy I would just let this whole thing go. The glitch needs to be resolved. Until it’s resolved we should not be using the vertical headers. I intend to report the problem on the Vertical Header page. Pentock ( talk) 01:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Instead of moving the headings and such all around, how does the idea of splitting the table into two sound? WittyRecluse ( talk) 10:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Numbers for prediction Cook (first column) doesn't add up correctly 77.87.224.98 ( talk) 09:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The information about the candidates' ages was removed from the lead. I think we should add the sentence which says they would both be the oldest candidate to ever be elected president. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This is completely irrelevant information and doesn't need to be in the article 217.209.1.128 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
There are 4 candidates for the 2020 presidential election and 3 of them are on the ballots in all 50 states.
Jo Jorgensen is the libertarian presidential candidate running with Jeremy 'Spike' Cohan as her Vice President.
She is a senior lecturer and Clemson University with a PhD in industrial psychology. She ran and sold a successful business and was the Libritarian Vice president candidate in 1996.
She is poling at 35% of over 18% verified voters in Veripoll.net and has broken fund raising records for the Libritarian party.
Jo20.com WrenAoife ( talk) 15:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5% per this consensus: Rfc on inclusion for the infobox.– Muboshgu ( talk) 16:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
poling at 35% of over 18% verified votersmeans. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There's no way to tell how each will do on election day: false. There is polling, which gives us an indication. I don't care about "crowding the infobox", it is simply UNDUE to equate Trump and Biden with Jorgenson and Hawkins. I don't see any other editors complaining about "crowding" at Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_12#Rfc_on_inclusion_for_the_infobox. It's just UNDUE. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The Libertarian Party (through Ron Paul) received an electoral vote in 2016. The consensus is very clear. "A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election."
Jo Jorgensen clearly should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zant739 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Both West and Pierce's campaigns are notable, having been the subject to several news articles, while I don't think they deserve mention in the lead as they don't have ballot access to 270 electoral college votes, their campaigns are certainly notable and should be mentioned in the main body of the article, just as how other notable third party candidacies are mentioned in the main body of other articles such as Evan McMullan's in 2016 and Eldridge Cleaver's campaign in the 1968 United States Presidential election.No in depth summaries of their campaign are needed, but it certainly needs to be mentioned that they are candidates in the election. We currently have a section for "other third party nominations" that has literally no text in it, such information regarding West, Pierce and any other newsworthy campaign should be included there. XavierGreen ( talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither of these should be included in the main page. There are many other campaigns with more ballot access. I am not sure why these two should not be relegated to the subpage ( Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election) when many other "campaigns" are.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Both of those campaigns are mentioned at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, and that is where they will stay, as they do not have access to 270 electoral votes. Anything else would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5%. And WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant as long as you are utilizing the argument. If a minor candidate for the 19XX Presidential Election appears in that page's infobox, that does not mean it belongs here. Each page must be evaluated individually. KidAd talk 03:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not a candidate has access to 270 electoral collage votes is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be mentioned in the body of the article. Write-in candidates tend to get very few votes and it's pretty well-understood that candidates without ballot access are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the election. You may think that's less important than I think it is, but it's quite a stretch, I think, to claim that ballot access is "irrelevant" to a campaign's viability. As for WP:WEIGHT, we need to see significant media coverage and poll inclusion. A case can be made for Kanye, possibly, as there is significant coverage, but it's mostly ridicule and doesn't cover him as if he's an actual candidate. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage of Pierce" you're claiming, and as the one advocating for him to be included, the WP:ONUS is on you to provide evidence of that. Evan McMullin was not mentioned in the 2016 article prior to the election; he's only included now because he got so many votes in Utah and Idaho. I'm not familiar with the results table inclusion criteria but they don't apply to other parts of the page. A single row in a table takes up much less space in the article than a whole section does, and the definition of what is WP:DUE for the table is therefore more inclusive. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 04:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Fist off, XavierGreen, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how WP:BRD works. You made a bold edit and were reverted. The next step is to discuss, not edit-war. I strongly encourage you to leave my revert in place until consensus is reached. Second, neither candidate can become President, and speculating about what impact they might have on the election flies in the face of WP:CRYSTALBALL. If, after the fact, reliable sources determine that West's or Pierce's presence on the ballot in some states had a demonstrable effect on the outcome, that would certainly merit inclusion, as was the case for McMullin (who received over 20% of the vote in Utah) in 2016 (though McMullin also had access to more than 270 electoral votes). Until reliable sources report not just that they are running, but that they are serious and that their presence in the election will make a difference, their presence on this page is completely undue. West, despite media mentions, is clearly not a serious candidate. A mention is not enough to be featured on this page; that's why Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election exists. -- WMSR ( talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I see the banner for the apparent "consensus" among editors that any party that received an electoral vote in the last election should be included in the infobox for this article. This seems like an arbitrary method of choosing the parties, since the only electoral votes outside of the major parties were cast by faithless electors, and some went to independent candidates. How would we go about handling independent candidates, or even some of the candidates that received a significant proportion of votes in one or many states but did not receive any faithless elector votes? I don't see where this consensus was reached, but I will state that I do not agree with it at all. River123 ( talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Full detail information about the candidates of the LP and GP are over at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election so why is the same stuff repeated on this page? It would save a lot of room to delete the Libertarian and Green nomination sections and just move up the link to this page. Wroclaw2468 ( talk) 15:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The death of Justice Ginsberg and her replacement is going to be a big issue in the campaign, so I put it in. There was a similar kerfuffle with the Fortas for chief nomination back in 1968. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Should Libertarian Jo Jorgensen be included in the infobox? Zogby and Verripoll have her at 5% or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 ( talk) 01:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. Ron Paul a Libertarian Party Member since 2015 received an electoral vote in 2016.
Based on these guidelines, Jo Jorgensen should be put into the infobox. Zant739 ( talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Zant739
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESsign at the top of this talk page). Impru20 talk 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
"You clearly cannot read then"Says the person who has clearly missed the "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" and "This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox" bits at the very top of this talk page. You are the one engaging in an edit war; no other editor has conducted more than one revert. Whatever action may be taken on you will surely depend on the benevolence of any sysop that comes and sees this mess. Impru20 talk 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Kanye West along with Brock Pierce was once (but briefly) included what happened? And also does the Blakenship/Mohr ticket belong on the page? The Constitution Party was mentioned on the previous presidential election page
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
184.91.218.114 ( talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
FOX News State predictions - https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results
I am somewhat unclear about the current consensus, but I believe that we include everyone (in the page, not infobox) that has access to 270 electoral votes including write-in access. The Gloria La Riva/Sunil Freeman ticket has ballot access to 191 EVs plus write-in access to a number of states. If you add the EVs together you get 272. Is this notable? Nojus R ( talk) 00:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Nojus R: I disagree that the other photo is "clearly superior". It's blurry and way too zoomed in. It also looks to me like she is smiling in the new one. The campaign was using the other photo previously, but they've switched to using this one as her official portrait: [17]. I was the one who placed the photos that you just reverted back too, as well, which I only did at the time because no others were freely available. The old photos are way too zoomed in to their faces; they don't match well with the uncropped Trump and Biden portraits. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 21:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIIW, I tend to prefer one of these nearly identical photos (the head on portraits). I do tend to think the current one is rather unfaltering. It is also not a head on portrait like the ones we have for Trump, Biden, or Hawkins.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: I just changed the photo. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but they look terrifying and dystopian together like that - https://i.imgur.com/EX7EQi5.png 86.26.37.149 ( talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
These are the official portraits of the candidates so we should be using them. Ciaran.london ( talk) 17:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I put a section on the mechanics of a "worst-case scenario" describing what would happen if President Trump makes good on his threat to refuse to accept the results. It's just below the predictions of how states would go and that's as WP:Crystal as this is, after all, it's not a whacked-out fantasy, the President has actually put this thing into motion. It's something that's real. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 16:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the 2012 and 2016 pages, I figure that we should have some reconstruction of the article. First thing we should do is the transclusion of the national aggregation stuff as mention just above. then...` Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
...that's how it was done in the previous two election articles. It makes things neater and the series more uniform. That is except for the Impeachment thing, which I suggest we move to the Republican primary section. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
As the Republican primary was pretty much a bit of a sham, and the challengers never had a chance (I think Weld may have gotten 10% in one or two primaries, I'm not sure), we should divide, as I mentioned above, the section into three subsections: "2019", "Impeachment", and the primaries themselves. The impeachment of the President WAS the Republican primary race. It was the part that counted, anyway. Also, Sanford left in 2019, and Walsh left immediately after Iowa. Rocky de la Fuente got over a hundred thousand votes. the primaries themselves were largely uncontested, with Trump getting 90% and more during the entire run. As to the Democratic race, we should do that too, but a bit later. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Starting November 4th, all hell is going to break loose. The cracks have already started to widen. Wild, insane conspiracy theories no longer seem wild or insane. People are starting to panic. The Trump campaign has already appealed one of the hundreds of lawsuits to the Supreme Court. A committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has already voted to create a select committee to investigate Trump's conspiracy theories and possibly recommend annulling the Presidential election and just handing the electors to Trump. This actually happened. The vote in the full House is this afternoon.
I tried to find a place to put what the post-November 3 mess. I tried to put it on the 2021 inauguration area, which is the perfect place for a background summary should worse come to worst. But a certain editor cut it out, warning me to...most of you remember. I tried to put some of that here, but the same person did it again, claiming that it was " WP:POV, original research and the like. It wasn't and isn't. Someone else tried too, but someone else removed THAT, saying the current brief paragraph is enough for now. It isn't. We need to inform our readers about the possibilities in a way that avoids going into WP:Crystal territory, but can be quickly spun off into that long article on the Steaming Hot mess on November 4th. yes, of course, Biden can win in a landslide big enough to force Trump to concede. I hope that happens, but I doubt it. I'm going to place a revised section sometime this afternoon. If no one objects too strongly (some here object to abosolutely everything I do), i will start acting on my suggetions this afternoon. Arglebargle79 ( talk)
We need to inform our readers about the possiblities...." I fundamentally disagree with your premise. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for extrapolation or speculation. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 15:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want my EXACT TEXT, that's fine. I want improvement. Look what they did to the article I created on the Barrett nomination. It's magnificent!!!! Arglebargle79 ( talk) 23:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | → | Archive 20 |
I added File:2020StatePredictions.svg to the "State predictions" section of the article, to demonstrate the predictions on an electoral map; @ The Kardiac Kid: removed it, saying that it's unnecessary. I think it's very useful as a concise summary/view of a large table, would be interested in other editors' thoughts on this. Chessrat ( talk, contributions) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
I’m thinking we should stop hiding the table of results, it was hidden a while back as not necessary yet and is currently in the state predictions section, because its hard to maintain it when no-one can actually see it. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Kanye west is running on Republican/independent platform. However primarily its going to be Joe Biden vs, Donald Trump. 20username20 ( talk) 02:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
No mention of kanye west? This should be changed — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.109.70.26 (
talk)
15:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the main infobox (along with Trump and Biden) Jo Jorgensen who reached 5% in a poll should be included. 67.231.194.182 ( talk) 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
User:David O. Johnson, can you please stop splitting bundled refs, there are so many in a row having them all unbundled is about a clear a violation of WP:OVERKILL as you can get. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. David O. Johnson ( talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
Seeing as the lede is constantly being changed to include/not include demographic and/or third party information, I would like to establish what goes in the lede becuase I cannot find a previous discussion that solidifies a wholeistic and clear consensus on the content of the lede for this article, a fact that is reflected in the constant flux of information included and then removed from the lede. Effectively, I am doing this measure to try and derive a consensus without having to open an RFC as those, especially on this page, can become quite cumbersome. The main points of contestation I have noticed have been that Libertarians and Greens, who do not have a significant chance of winning the election, should not be included per WP:Lede's concern for WP:DUE, which is my basic summation of edits like these [ [1]], [ [2]], [ [3]]. This edits are usually quickly reverted citing some sort of consensus that Third Parties belong in the lede, but the only relevant discussion I can find relating to that topic is this one [ [4]] and this discussion doesn't seem to have resolved in consensus, though perhaps I am not reading the discussion properly. I cannot find anything about demographic information being included in the lede, and information about the 3rd Party candidates also gets bumped around between the lede and the relevant third party sections. Any thoughts on where this information belongs? WittyRecluse ( talk) 07:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Should it read as Vice Presidential selection or Vice presidential selection. I'm aware of WP:HEADINGS & its relation to WP:JOBTITLES, but honestly, aren't we pushing decapitalisation a bit too far? GoodDay ( talk) 19:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
{{reply to|Eyer}}
to your message to
let me know.)
19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)Please see talk page discussion there about the inclusion criteria having been changed from those who "announced their opposition to the election" like as used in List of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign to instead be those who "have declined to endorse the re-election". Reywas92 Talk 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
Can we find a way to write the lead so that we can wikilink to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign and Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign? Those are both very important pages for this topic. {{u| Sdkb}} talk 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
The Vertical Header on top of the prediction table on my mobile device has been glitching. I literally have to click on the reference to predictors in order to see them. And I can’t see the link next to the name or date. In other words I have to find it. I reported the problem under the vertical headers section of Wikipedia. I have had this discussion under the State Predictions Table with two fellow editors @WMSR and @Jgstokes. We have been having disputes about it. They argue that the edits are necessary to better suit computer screens. I have tried to make edits to the prediction table twice to accommodate all users but all my efforts have been rejected. I realized that one size does not fit all. So then I tried to make two table to be accommodating. Then it was still rejected. I have tried discussing this and being pragmatic and trying to compromise. They have not been trying to compromise. @WMSR has implied that I was a liar. @Jgstokes called me disingenuous for keeping the predictions up to date for all to see. I have created this page in hopes that if anyone else is experiencing this issue that they come forward and say so. Due to glitch I think we should under the vertical header edit until the glitch is resolved.
To clarify @WMSR undid the first and third solution. Then @Jgstokes undid the second solution. I feel like my issue is being ignored. Pentock ( talk) 02:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
The Vertical Headers are not currently being used on any election prediction table making it ok to remove them. Pentock ( talk) 02:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I made an edit a day or two ago where I added this sentence to the lead "Former Vice President Joe Biden secured the Democratic nomination in a competitive primary which featured the largest field of presidential candidates for any political party in the modern era of American politics."
I got to thinking about this more and I wonder if we really can refer to the primary as "competitive?" It was competitive in the sense that there were many different candidates who were viable in the early primary states. But it also wasn't competitive in the sense that Biden led polling throughout the entirety of the primary and pretty much dominated almost all primaries from SC on.
Just curious what everyone else thinks about this. Should we describe the primary as "competitive" in the lead? Should we instead mention that Sanders started with a lead and then Biden overtook him? Something else? Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
Some mention or link to the Blue shift (aka "red mirage") scenerio that has been theorized to have potentially strong appearance (and possible ramifications) should be included on this page. SecretName101 ( talk) 09:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
It is not "fearmongering" by media outlets. This is a phenomenon that has been outlined and projected in studies. SecretName101 ( talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
I just checked, the article was created in 2015. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I also want to briefly ask if in, say, 10 weeks, we created the 2024 page and have the RfC on its talk page. It would be a good idea to go over the rules again and make sure that if any changes in them need to be made that everyone's copasetic with it. I've been fighting with a few of you and I apologize for being slightly obnoxious. I don't want to do that again. Others are doing it too. So unless we have a situation not seen since 1876, we should discuss at that time issues like who is a major candidate and what we should do about the minor ones and the like, conflicts about pictures...when further articles should be created. Things like that. There was an agreement on something like this back in February, but I'd like to remind everyone about it now. Okay? Arglebargle79 ( talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The 2020 election article was probably created early because a significant figure, Kanye West, had declared their intentions to run already by then in 2015. What major figures have delcared their intents yet to run in 2024? SecretName101 ( talk) 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
The state predictions table is currently too wide to be viewed easily on many screens. I added vertical headers some time ago, but Pentock reverted that, saying that they are glitchy and difficult to read. I have not experienced any glitchiness with vertical headers, and am inclined to restore them based on the fact that a table that is too wide is also quite difficult to read. That said, I don't think we need all of these predictions featured on the page. 270toWin, for example, is just an aggregation of several other sources, and I think it can be removed (on the flipside, it is frequently cited by other sites). I'm also not sure we need CBS and NPR (since they predict using a different system). Either way, the width of the table needs to be addressed. Thoughts? -- WMSR ( talk) 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for bringing this up. I think I should clarify what I mean by glitchy. What I mean is that when I was look at the table on my phone screen. The top of the vertical tables would appear mostly blank for awhile and would take time for the names of the predictors (ex. 538) to appear. The only ones that would appear right when I accessed the page were the first two or three on the left. When you look at the table in its current form are you able to scroll to the right or left and see the table? Pentock ( talk) 19:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I decided to change the states full names and shorten them to state abbreviations. If you have any problems you can let me know. Pentock ( talk) 19:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
UPDATE: I also shortened some of the headers. Hopefully it’ll be easier to view. Pentock ( talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Pentock: @ WMSR:: I'm posting here and pinging you both because Pentock again removed the vertical headers without a clear consensus to do so, which violates Wikipedia policies on consensus, and because it again messed up the table. Additionally, Pentock unilaterally included the likely electoral college votes for the different polls. Since polls are not definitive, and the data therein is subject to change with either new polls or the amendment to previous polls, the inclusion of the likely electoral college outcome for each poll appears to also be a disingenuous and highly speculative inclusion. I'd strongly encourage Pentock to not implement those changes again unless and until there is clear consensus to do so. For the record, for the reasons I outlined here, unless a better method can be found to include this information, I am currently opposed to the changes. So unless and until a majority supports these changes, I'd suggest leaving the content as is. Thanks. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
There was no consensus to add the vertical headers in the first place. I have not seen one election table on this site that used vertical headers. I made it accommodating to all users by adding the state column on the right so people wouldn’t have to scroll back and forth. I added an Electoral Vote column so you can see it at all times. I was going to say that I made the edit and wanted feedback to check to see that the edit was good. But I had to get off and do something.
And for the record removing the vertical headers is not breaking the rules unless I did so 3 times in a 24 hour period. I did not do that.
If anything we should go back and remove the vertical headers.
There is nothing wrong with keeping state predictions up to date. They change and I change the predictions accordingly. The amount of electoral votes per state will not change in the 2020 elections. I never added any polls. I updated forecasts. Forecasts and polls are NOT the same thing. But thank you for insulting me for keeping the page up to date. It’s out job as editors to keep the page up to date. You might as well of just said that you want me gone. Pentock ( talk) 22:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I added a new table for mobiles. The PC friendly one is on top of the mobile friendly one. The mobile friendly one has no vertical headers. The PC one does. Now we have a table that is easy to read for the PC’s and one that is friendly for mobiles. Pentock ( talk) 23:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I suggest leaving PC friendly and mobile friendly one in place unless we can create one table accommodating for all users. Pentock ( talk) 23:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
@WMSR @Jgstokes Can we please remove the vertical headers? The United States Senate Election Predictions and the house predictions don’t use vertical headers. There was no complaint for months about the old version being hard to read. Yet it didn’t take long for someone to complain about this edit. Why can’t we just follow other election tables? Can we please not insult each other for keeping the page updated? Why are you two playing hardball? I’m trying to compromise and provide alternatives that work for everyone. Yet you two continue to be stubborn. The vertical headers are glitchy on my phone. I’m open to solutions. If the vertical headers were not glitchy I would just let this whole thing go. The glitch needs to be resolved. Until it’s resolved we should not be using the vertical headers. I intend to report the problem on the Vertical Header page. Pentock ( talk) 01:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Instead of moving the headings and such all around, how does the idea of splitting the table into two sound? WittyRecluse ( talk) 10:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Numbers for prediction Cook (first column) doesn't add up correctly 77.87.224.98 ( talk) 09:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
The information about the candidates' ages was removed from the lead. I think we should add the sentence which says they would both be the oldest candidate to ever be elected president. — Naddruf ( talk ~ contribs) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
This is completely irrelevant information and doesn't need to be in the article 217.209.1.128 ( talk) 14:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
There are 4 candidates for the 2020 presidential election and 3 of them are on the ballots in all 50 states.
Jo Jorgensen is the libertarian presidential candidate running with Jeremy 'Spike' Cohan as her Vice President.
She is a senior lecturer and Clemson University with a PhD in industrial psychology. She ran and sold a successful business and was the Libritarian Vice president candidate in 1996.
She is poling at 35% of over 18% verified voters in Veripoll.net and has broken fund raising records for the Libritarian party.
Jo20.com WrenAoife ( talk) 15:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5% per this consensus: Rfc on inclusion for the infobox.– Muboshgu ( talk) 16:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
poling at 35% of over 18% verified votersmeans. – Muboshgu ( talk) 21:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
There's no way to tell how each will do on election day: false. There is polling, which gives us an indication. I don't care about "crowding the infobox", it is simply UNDUE to equate Trump and Biden with Jorgenson and Hawkins. I don't see any other editors complaining about "crowding" at Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_12#Rfc_on_inclusion_for_the_infobox. It's just UNDUE. – Muboshgu ( talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
The Libertarian Party (through Ron Paul) received an electoral vote in 2016. The consensus is very clear. "A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election."
Jo Jorgensen clearly should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zant739 ( talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Both West and Pierce's campaigns are notable, having been the subject to several news articles, while I don't think they deserve mention in the lead as they don't have ballot access to 270 electoral college votes, their campaigns are certainly notable and should be mentioned in the main body of the article, just as how other notable third party candidacies are mentioned in the main body of other articles such as Evan McMullan's in 2016 and Eldridge Cleaver's campaign in the 1968 United States Presidential election.No in depth summaries of their campaign are needed, but it certainly needs to be mentioned that they are candidates in the election. We currently have a section for "other third party nominations" that has literally no text in it, such information regarding West, Pierce and any other newsworthy campaign should be included there. XavierGreen ( talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither of these should be included in the main page. There are many other campaigns with more ballot access. I am not sure why these two should not be relegated to the subpage ( Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election) when many other "campaigns" are.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 21:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Both of those campaigns are mentioned at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, and that is where they will stay, as they do not have access to 270 electoral votes. Anything else would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5%. And WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant as long as you are utilizing the argument. If a minor candidate for the 19XX Presidential Election appears in that page's infobox, that does not mean it belongs here. Each page must be evaluated individually. KidAd talk 03:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not a candidate has access to 270 electoral collage votes is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be mentioned in the body of the article. Write-in candidates tend to get very few votes and it's pretty well-understood that candidates without ballot access are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the election. You may think that's less important than I think it is, but it's quite a stretch, I think, to claim that ballot access is "irrelevant" to a campaign's viability. As for WP:WEIGHT, we need to see significant media coverage and poll inclusion. A case can be made for Kanye, possibly, as there is significant coverage, but it's mostly ridicule and doesn't cover him as if he's an actual candidate. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage of Pierce" you're claiming, and as the one advocating for him to be included, the WP:ONUS is on you to provide evidence of that. Evan McMullin was not mentioned in the 2016 article prior to the election; he's only included now because he got so many votes in Utah and Idaho. I'm not familiar with the results table inclusion criteria but they don't apply to other parts of the page. A single row in a table takes up much less space in the article than a whole section does, and the definition of what is WP:DUE for the table is therefore more inclusive. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 04:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Fist off, XavierGreen, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how WP:BRD works. You made a bold edit and were reverted. The next step is to discuss, not edit-war. I strongly encourage you to leave my revert in place until consensus is reached. Second, neither candidate can become President, and speculating about what impact they might have on the election flies in the face of WP:CRYSTALBALL. If, after the fact, reliable sources determine that West's or Pierce's presence on the ballot in some states had a demonstrable effect on the outcome, that would certainly merit inclusion, as was the case for McMullin (who received over 20% of the vote in Utah) in 2016 (though McMullin also had access to more than 270 electoral votes). Until reliable sources report not just that they are running, but that they are serious and that their presence in the election will make a difference, their presence on this page is completely undue. West, despite media mentions, is clearly not a serious candidate. A mention is not enough to be featured on this page; that's why Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election exists. -- WMSR ( talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I see the banner for the apparent "consensus" among editors that any party that received an electoral vote in the last election should be included in the infobox for this article. This seems like an arbitrary method of choosing the parties, since the only electoral votes outside of the major parties were cast by faithless electors, and some went to independent candidates. How would we go about handling independent candidates, or even some of the candidates that received a significant proportion of votes in one or many states but did not receive any faithless elector votes? I don't see where this consensus was reached, but I will state that I do not agree with it at all. River123 ( talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Full detail information about the candidates of the LP and GP are over at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election so why is the same stuff repeated on this page? It would save a lot of room to delete the Libertarian and Green nomination sections and just move up the link to this page. Wroclaw2468 ( talk) 15:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
The death of Justice Ginsberg and her replacement is going to be a big issue in the campaign, so I put it in. There was a similar kerfuffle with the Fortas for chief nomination back in 1968. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 13:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Should Libertarian Jo Jorgensen be included in the infobox? Zogby and Verripoll have her at 5% or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 ( talk) 01:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the infobox: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. Ron Paul a Libertarian Party Member since 2015 received an electoral vote in 2016.
Based on these guidelines, Jo Jorgensen should be put into the infobox. Zant739 ( talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Zant739
WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIESsign at the top of this talk page). Impru20 talk 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
"You clearly cannot read then"Says the person who has clearly missed the "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" and "This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox" bits at the very top of this talk page. You are the one engaging in an edit war; no other editor has conducted more than one revert. Whatever action may be taken on you will surely depend on the benevolence of any sysop that comes and sees this mess. Impru20 talk 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Kanye West along with Brock Pierce was once (but briefly) included what happened? And also does the Blakenship/Mohr ticket belong on the page? The Constitution Party was mentioned on the previous presidential election page
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
184.91.218.114 ( talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
FOX News State predictions - https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results
I am somewhat unclear about the current consensus, but I believe that we include everyone (in the page, not infobox) that has access to 270 electoral votes including write-in access. The Gloria La Riva/Sunil Freeman ticket has ballot access to 191 EVs plus write-in access to a number of states. If you add the EVs together you get 272. Is this notable? Nojus R ( talk) 00:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
@ Nojus R: I disagree that the other photo is "clearly superior". It's blurry and way too zoomed in. It also looks to me like she is smiling in the new one. The campaign was using the other photo previously, but they've switched to using this one as her official portrait: [17]. I was the one who placed the photos that you just reverted back too, as well, which I only did at the time because no others were freely available. The old photos are way too zoomed in to their faces; they don't match well with the uncropped Trump and Biden portraits. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 21:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
FWIIW, I tend to prefer one of these nearly identical photos (the head on portraits). I do tend to think the current one is rather unfaltering. It is also not a head on portrait like the ones we have for Trump, Biden, or Hawkins.-- Darryl Kerrigan ( talk) 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
Note: I just changed the photo. — Tartan357 ( Talk) 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but they look terrifying and dystopian together like that - https://i.imgur.com/EX7EQi5.png 86.26.37.149 ( talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
These are the official portraits of the candidates so we should be using them. Ciaran.london ( talk) 17:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
I put a section on the mechanics of a "worst-case scenario" describing what would happen if President Trump makes good on his threat to refuse to accept the results. It's just below the predictions of how states would go and that's as WP:Crystal as this is, after all, it's not a whacked-out fantasy, the President has actually put this thing into motion. It's something that's real. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 16:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
Looking at the 2012 and 2016 pages, I figure that we should have some reconstruction of the article. First thing we should do is the transclusion of the national aggregation stuff as mention just above. then...` Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
...that's how it was done in the previous two election articles. It makes things neater and the series more uniform. That is except for the Impeachment thing, which I suggest we move to the Republican primary section. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
As the Republican primary was pretty much a bit of a sham, and the challengers never had a chance (I think Weld may have gotten 10% in one or two primaries, I'm not sure), we should divide, as I mentioned above, the section into three subsections: "2019", "Impeachment", and the primaries themselves. The impeachment of the President WAS the Republican primary race. It was the part that counted, anyway. Also, Sanford left in 2019, and Walsh left immediately after Iowa. Rocky de la Fuente got over a hundred thousand votes. the primaries themselves were largely uncontested, with Trump getting 90% and more during the entire run. As to the Democratic race, we should do that too, but a bit later. Arglebargle79 ( talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Starting November 4th, all hell is going to break loose. The cracks have already started to widen. Wild, insane conspiracy theories no longer seem wild or insane. People are starting to panic. The Trump campaign has already appealed one of the hundreds of lawsuits to the Supreme Court. A committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has already voted to create a select committee to investigate Trump's conspiracy theories and possibly recommend annulling the Presidential election and just handing the electors to Trump. This actually happened. The vote in the full House is this afternoon.
I tried to find a place to put what the post-November 3 mess. I tried to put it on the 2021 inauguration area, which is the perfect place for a background summary should worse come to worst. But a certain editor cut it out, warning me to...most of you remember. I tried to put some of that here, but the same person did it again, claiming that it was " WP:POV, original research and the like. It wasn't and isn't. Someone else tried too, but someone else removed THAT, saying the current brief paragraph is enough for now. It isn't. We need to inform our readers about the possibilities in a way that avoids going into WP:Crystal territory, but can be quickly spun off into that long article on the Steaming Hot mess on November 4th. yes, of course, Biden can win in a landslide big enough to force Trump to concede. I hope that happens, but I doubt it. I'm going to place a revised section sometime this afternoon. If no one objects too strongly (some here object to abosolutely everything I do), i will start acting on my suggetions this afternoon. Arglebargle79 ( talk)
We need to inform our readers about the possiblities...." I fundamentally disagree with your premise. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for extrapolation or speculation. -- Spiffy sperry ( talk) 15:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want my EXACT TEXT, that's fine. I want improvement. Look what they did to the article I created on the Barrett nomination. It's magnificent!!!! Arglebargle79 ( talk) 23:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)