![]() | 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
In the first paragraph, we find the following sentence:
"Biden received the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election, beating Barack Obama's record, as did Trump."
This seems to place bias in favor of Biden. As Biden is shown to be the winner of the election earlier in the paragraph, perhaps
"Biden and Trump each surpassed Barack Obama's record of the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election."
would be better; attempting to show equal footing for the two major candidates. LuciusAreliusVerus ( talk) 13:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Devonian Wombat: There are some inconsistencies in the table:
Heitordp ( talk) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Once the final results are in, 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Candidate_table should be consistent with 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_results, which has a threshold of 0.05% of the popular vote or electoral votes received. It should not list each person who received zero coverage in the media and less than one vote in two thousand. Ballot access is undue. Reywas92 Talk 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everybody, what do you think about inserting this paragraph in the head of the article?
"Central issues of the election included the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left more than 230,000 Americans dead, as well as its economic impact; protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others; the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement; and Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act, with Trump pushing for its repeal."
I ping Basil the Bat Lord, who wanted to start a discussion about that, and Davide King, who thanked me for the edit which was later reverted by Basil :) -- Nick.mon ( talk) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don’t think these 3 states should be shaded for Biden, in light of the fact that Trump is/has been litigating the result in these 3 states. I’m not sure if there will be an appeal for the Michigan results, and unless there is no appeal within the next couple of weeks, I don’t think it should be called either way, at least at the moment. There could be an appeal, even up to SCOTUS, so I think it’s best if they are shaded grey, like the states that haven’t been called for either side. AlJenko98 ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we mention how this could be the first time since 1960 that Ohio hasn't gone to the winner? Cards 84664 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not opposed to including it, since we include something similar for Missouri in the 2008 article. Prcc27 ( talk) 07:40, 9 November 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. |
Biden electoral votes 279 -> 290, popular votes 75,551,684 -> 75,404,182, Trump popular votes 71,189,789 -> 70,903,094 (data from Associated Press) Herobrine ( talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
There have been a large number of lawsuits filed related to the results and counting process of the 2020 election. These lawsuits have been filed by a number of parties (mostly the Trump campaign), in a number of states, and on a wide variety of issues. Regardless of the eventual outcome of these cases, they are a notable facet of post-electon events and have been covered widely by reliable sources, though each individual lawsuit may not have been covered by all possible sources. It would be useful to have the relevant lawsuits enumerated or discussed in a way that is convenient for the reader and not mixed with other post-election events.
There are reliable sources on each of these lawsuits and some of them are already presented in the article as it exists now (in the "Election night aftermath" section). While this is good, there is enough material in the "aftermath" section for it to stand on its own without the lawsuit information. It is logical to separate the legal material into a new section and add to it discussion of the lawsuits which are not currently covered in the article. Of these, I can think of at least one lawsuit regarding Pennsylvania (concerning late-arriving mail-in ballots) and one regarding Nevada (concerning counting of ballots with certain "smudges"). I am sure that there are others which I have missed or which have not yet been filed.
My suggestion would be to list the sections in "Voting Process and Results" in the following order: "Election night" -> "Counting continues after election night" -> "Election calls" -> "Post-election lawsuits" -> "Election protests" -> etc.
104.13.110.123 ( talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The incumbent president is planning to challenge the election results in court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the incumbent, under "Elected President" the phrase "Election results annulled, Donald Trump remains president" must be added and the EV total must be changed to accommodate the court decision. This election has the potential to be the second annulled election in two years; the 2018 North Carolina's 9th congressional district election was annulled in January 2019. We are potentially going to see that election repeated on a national scale, which has never happened before. J4lambert ( talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The candidate table and results by state table currently state the number of electoral votes each candidate is projected to receive, but they do not note that these are not official totals that could change once electors actually vote in December (especially after seeing how many faithless electors there were in 2016). While I think the information is valuable and should be included, I think we should clarify somewhere in those sections that these numbers are projections (similar to how the article infobox currently says "Projected electoral vote" instead of "Electoral vote"). Thoughts? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In the candidate table (section 6.6) the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates for the Democratic and Republic parties have their middle names listed while third party candidates in general do not.
in various other places in the article Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence are named without their middle name (and the title of the articles for each of these people is just their first and last name). I think these four are notable enough under their short name (first name, last name) that inclusion of middle names is unnecessary unless a candidate is regularly called by that name (e.g. Donald J. Trump)
"This was the first election since 1992 in which an incumbent president failed to win re-election to a second term"
It should also be noted that this is the first time that a party has held the White House for one term since Jimmy Carter for the Democrats.
The one problem that George H.W. Bush had coming into the 1992 campaign was that he was a President who had followed on from a member of his party Ronald Reagan who had served for two terms.
This was a problem that neither Carter nor Trump had when they lost. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not trivia it is about how long people waited until they voted for change since Carter - 12 years for Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 8 each for Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and finally only 4 for Trump. There is also the fact of the 22nd amendment which prevents anyone from running for a third term. That is why Reagan could not run and H.W. Bush did and won in 1988 and why it added to the total of 12 years of Republican control of the White House. That is why because of 12 years H.W. Bush lost as a one-term president in 1992 because Clinton made a strong case for change. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That would be good mentioning it in that other article but I still think it should be mentioned here as well otherwise it gives a misleading impression that George H.W. Bush had the same difficulty in achieving re-election than Trump did. Bush did not, his task was much harder in that he had the difficult task in making a case to the people to extend Republican rule to the total of 16 years. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 15:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
From the 1980 election article: "Also, Carter was the first incumbent Democrat to serve only one full term since James Buchanan and lose re-election since Martin Van Buren; Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms while Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served one full term in addition to respectively taking over following the deaths of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy."
All that was stated without the citation, which isn't needed, can be included in that article, then what I had asked to be included in the 2020 article shouldn't be a difficult ask.
The fact that certain things have not been said in sources does not make it untrue. It just mean that the writers concerned hadn't thought if it.
Wikipedians should be able to make their own assessments without checking to see whether it has been stated from outside source(s) and don't quote me Wikipedia rules as I don't feel that you are getting what I am saying.
At least one media outlet I know of does not give Wikipedia any credence. If that is the attitude to Wikipedia from the media in general then I don't see Wikipedia owes them any favours. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I would propose using a different color for states the Trump Campaign is filing legal suits in. Regardless of ones opinion on the merit of the challenges, they should be represented on the map for accuracy of current events. My other option would be keeping them their current color but adding an identifier on the map to show they are contested BlackBird1008 ( talk) 23:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
For convenience with my cellphone, these tweets lead to more info from RS:
Valjean ( talk) 05:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Barr is Trump's ally in lying about unproven massive voting fraud. He's asking the DOJ to go fishing, IOW he's pushing Trump's conspiracy theories without having evidence, and Pilger and the lawyers are saying "Hell no. Don't misuse us in your specious crusade." That's the gist of what's happening. -- Valjean ( talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Direct links to the articles: Growing Discomfort at Law Firms Representing Trump in Election Lawsuits - The New York Times, Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims - The New York Times -- Related articles that might contain more information to use: Trump campaign lawyers worry about pushing lawsuits that could undermine election: report - The Hill, Barr tells prosecutors to investigate 'vote irregularities' despite lack of evidence - The Guardian, Barr OK for election-fraud investigations roils Justice Department - Politico, DOJ's top election crimes prosecutor quits in protest after Barr tells federal attorneys to probe unsupported allegations of voting irregularities - CNN, DOJ's election crimes chief resigns after Barr directs prosecutors to probe voter fraud claims - NBC News. Personally, I think there is something that can be added to the article, but the only current things to add would be a sentence about Barr's memo and a sentence about the resignation since nothing else has occurred yet as far as I can see. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Based on the clear pattern of questions from new users and IP editors, I WP:BOLDly created Talk:2020 United States presidential election/FAQ. Please modify or update as needed. My goal was to reduce energy and time repeating the same information. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A point was brought up at WP:ERRORS whether the election refers to the Nov general election, or does it also include the Electoral College vote in December. That could give background on the 2nd sentence of the lead currently reading "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence." It would seems like it refers to the Nov election, as the lead sentence reads: "The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020."— Bagumba ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
How are the firms used for showing the outcome predictions chosen? IIRC, in the past Princeton Election Consortium has come very close to a correct prediction, but they are not included. Apologies if this methodology is easily accessible on the wiki; I can't seem to find it. LuciusAreliusVerus ( talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I'm french and I have to say it's very difficult for foreigners to understand how the whole process works... Especially hard to get is why it takes so long to have the results. For example, Alaska still lags at 56% after a week ! But the main incomprehensible thing for me is the total of electors. They are 538. At this point you write 279 for Biden and 214 for Trump, total is thus 493 (which you write as well on this page). But the only missing are Alaska (3) and Georgia (16), it means 19. And 493 + 19 = 512 !!! What about the other 26 ??? Thanks a lot for helping me !!! Jagellon ( talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Should the following be appended to the Foreign interference §?
One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted. [1] [2] The newly released passages indicated that "federal prosecutors could not establish that the hacked emails amounted to campaign contributions benefitting Trump’s election chances." [1]
For relevance, pls see my comment in Discussion, below.
Humanengr ( talk) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
References
evidence that this has any impactrather than straightforward relevance been applied to anything else in this article? Humanengr ( talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Relevance to this article is indicated by this July AP analysis:
Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them.
and by the following points from this earlier VOA article, in particular, points #6 and 7:
- Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
- The Mueller report found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
- Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
- They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
- House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
- As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
- Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.
Humanengr ( talk) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election. —
Bilorv (
talk)
20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following two sentences in the introduction contradict each other:
The second sentence contradicts the first as it indicates that no winner has been chosen in the 2020 United States presidential election yet, as the election won't occur until 14 December 2020, while the first statement says that the election already happened and Joe Biden has already defeated Donald Trump. I should also point out that the first sentence has no sources, while the second sentence is sourced. 73.168.5.183 ( talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
References
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RealClearPolitics, which is often cited as authoritative by media during presidential campaigns regarding its opinion polling averages, has reversed the call of Pennsylvania and now displays the present result as Biden 259 - Trump 214 with four states still uncalled. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/president/
Some of their reasoning here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/10/the_media_should_not_have_called_this_election_144624.html
Should this be relevant towards whether this article displays a "certain" result in Pennsylvania, seeing as court challenges are ongoing? Also note that if mail-in ballots are rejected as invalid at the same rate that normally occurs (around 1-2% of mail-in ballots in recent elections are rejected) that alone could alter the outcome. [1] 85.144.218.248 ( talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The voting is over. One side has come out victorious in the count. The other side has disputed the counting, as per the statutory provisions in the US election codes.
So, the election result is still under dispute.
Let the dispute get settled, through the statutory procedures. Till then, it would be most unwise to proclaim anyone as the winner.
Why should Wikipedia jump the gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:309:B47F:7DD3:B9D5:4C82:7BAB ( talk) 10:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
By November 7, Biden and Harris were declared winners by all major news outlets projecting the results, including ABC, the Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, NBC, The New York Times, and Reuters, which is completely accurate. — Czello 18:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Until the results are certified nobody one. If Trump wins in the courts this site will say that he stole the election. Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 23:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
"After the presidential race was called for Democratic candidate Joe Biden, Republicans’ trust in the election system plummeted, while Democrats’ trust soared, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
Multiple new organizations announced Biden as the election winner on Saturday after four days of counting in several swing states. Following the news, 70 percent of Republicans now say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair, a stark rise from the 35 percent of GOP voters who held similar beliefs before the election. Meanwhile, trust in the election system grew for Democrats, many who took to the streets to celebrate Biden’s victory on Saturday. Ninety percent of Democrats now say the election was free and fair, up from 52 percent before Nov. 3 who thought it would be.
Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78 percent believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72 percent believed that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump, a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84 percent, said it benefited Biden.
The lack of trust in the election system has led to Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only 18 percent of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to Election Day, now 64 percent feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By contrast, 86 percent of Democrats say they trust the results.
Republicans were particularly wary of the results coming out of swing states, especially in Pennsylvania, which counted votes for four days before delivering Biden a decisive win on Saturday. Sixty-two percent of Republicans said the Pennsylvania results would be unreliable, a stark contrast to the 8 percent of Democrats who held the same beliefs.
Distrust is similarly high in Wisconsin (55 percent), Nevada (54 percent), Georgia (54 percent) and Arizona (52 percent). The skepticism has particularly been fueled by the Trump campaign, which has filed more than half a dozen lawsuits in states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan and Georgia since Election Day. Two days after the race was called for Biden, Trump continues to tweet out that “Nevada is turning out to be a cesspool of Fake Votes” and “Pennsylvania prevented us from watching much of the Ballot count.”
However, despite their lack of trust in the results, Republicans are split on whether or not the outcome will change. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans believe the results will be overturned, while 45 percent say it’s unlikely.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted Nov. 6-9, surveying 1,987 registered voters. Some interviews were done before the race was called, but the majority were after the official call. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points."
Count Iblis ( talk) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
While I agree with most of the points above it would be worth it to see if any of the other presidential election articles include statistics about each party’s acceptance of the election. And if they don’t would it be worth it to add the respective statistics to each respective article (provided there are statistics of this nature in other elections). For example we add a sentence to the 2016 election displaying the sway of opinion from Hilary will win fairly to Hilary had the election stole from her. As well as display the sway of opinion that trump will be robbed to trump won fair and square. What are your opinions? CaseyP513 ( talk) 22:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
That is true it is a different situation but it would still be important information pertaining to the acceptance of fair elections. Or if not all elections at least the ones with controversial results. But I see your point in this being a unusually contested election CaseyP513 ( talk) 23:56, 10 November 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. |
change "The President voted by mail" by "The President voted in person in Florida on saturday before election day" 2A01:E35:2E1F:6BE0:E116:C01B:5BBF:F175 ( talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Should the Viewership section be edited to clarify that these are Election Day numbers only? Atypically, the election results monitoring was covered on TV for several days this year, due to the long time it took to count the votes and make a call.
- KaJunl ( talk) 02:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Neutrality, you recently removed information on Hillary Clinton's comments about conceding the election, declaring that such information would need consensus to be added. I agree with you, but there was consensus to add it, see Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 14#Adding to "Potential rejection of election results". I ask that you revert that particular edit, since the article is under 1RR restrictions. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump has won alaska via abc news User:Rushtheeditor.
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
popular vote count has changed according to the new york times, would like to update it. [1] Mikeybeckjr1 ( talk) 13:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Based on the current map we have, if NC, AZ, and GA are considered as the uncalled states then Biden has won 23 (plus DC, NE-02), and Trump 24 (plus ME-02), not the other way around as the infobox indicates. (Assuming current leads hold, as they likely will, Biden will end with 25+DC+NE-02 and Trump with 25+ME-02) ScorpiumX ( talk) 16:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Oops my bad. I'm so sorry. User:Rushtheeditor
Can we please stop adding every single claim of fraud made to that section, it is already too large as it is. We should be adhering to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:58, 12 November 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. |
According to Fox News and Politico: Arizona has been called for Joe Biden, and Maine District 2 has been called for Donald Trump. That brings the electoral votes to 264 (Biden) - 214 (Trump). Kerim123456 ( talk) 02:03, 7 November 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. |
Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama is the first leader to congratulate Joe Biden despite official results to be released at that time (November 7, 2020 Fiji Standard Time UTC +12).
If it does not apply here, please add it to the International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election
Thanks. 27.123.140.8 ( talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
With Trump digging in his heels, I think the "Procedure" section needs something what officially happens from here. Specifically, there is no mention of when the Electoral College votes are cast (December 14) or when they are ratified by Congress. Adpete ( talk) 01:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
States report their election results in slightly different ways:
So far I copied the numbers exactly as reported, with notes explaining the discrepancies. When totals and percentages were not reported, I calculated them based on total valid votes (including write-in, but not blank or overvotes). This way the numbers are not fully comparable between states, and in case of Delaware the sum of the percentages exceeds 100%. Should we use the same method for all states? This would be more consistent but the totals and percentages would be slightly different from the sources.
I also noticed that in Vermont there were a few write-in votes for candidates already listed on the ballot, such as Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Vermont election law says that these write-in votes should be merged with the standard votes, but it looks like a few were missed. Should we merge them or just mention them in a note?
For the margins, should we use negative numbers for states where Biden had fewer votes than Trump? In the tables for previous elections, all margins are with respect to the candidate who won the entire election, so they are negative in states where that candidate didn't win. I prefer using negative numbers so the table can be sorted by political party strength. Heitordp ( talk) 19:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Note that although Fox News has called the state while some other networks have not, this is no longer a projection. The Arizona Secretary of State reports that 100% of the vote has been counted, and the margin of victory is larger than that under which the state allows a recount, so this is the final outcome. BD2412 T 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Arizona has been called by three separate news stations for Biden.
Fox, AP, and now Decision Desk have all called Arizona for Biden, time to update the count! SuperSaiyaMan ( talk) 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This site says there's about 25k votes left to count- https://arizona.vote/ballot-progress.html Topcat777 ( talk) 21:08, 12 November 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. |
Multiple sources including Google’s version claim Biden won Arizona. All links to sources are blacklisted. 99% of votes reporting. I say we add it and say Biden has 290 votes. HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if i'm doing this right... This isn't a big thing, i just thought this little fact could be added, that this is the first U.S. presidential election since 1880 where both major candidates won in an equal number of states. Demon Taka ( talk) 20:28, 13 November 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. |
Change the electoral vote tallies for the two candidates to 306 and 232 – North Carolina and Georgia were recently called by NBC news. Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 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 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | → | Archive 25 |
In the first paragraph, we find the following sentence:
"Biden received the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election, beating Barack Obama's record, as did Trump."
This seems to place bias in favor of Biden. As Biden is shown to be the winner of the election earlier in the paragraph, perhaps
"Biden and Trump each surpassed Barack Obama's record of the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election."
would be better; attempting to show equal footing for the two major candidates. LuciusAreliusVerus ( talk) 13:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
@ Devonian Wombat: There are some inconsistencies in the table:
Heitordp ( talk) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Once the final results are in, 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Candidate_table should be consistent with 2016_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_results, which has a threshold of 0.05% of the popular vote or electoral votes received. It should not list each person who received zero coverage in the media and less than one vote in two thousand. Ballot access is undue. Reywas92 Talk 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everybody, what do you think about inserting this paragraph in the head of the article?
"Central issues of the election included the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left more than 230,000 Americans dead, as well as its economic impact; protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others; the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement; and Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act, with Trump pushing for its repeal."
I ping Basil the Bat Lord, who wanted to start a discussion about that, and Davide King, who thanked me for the edit which was later reverted by Basil :) -- Nick.mon ( talk) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I don’t think these 3 states should be shaded for Biden, in light of the fact that Trump is/has been litigating the result in these 3 states. I’m not sure if there will be an appeal for the Michigan results, and unless there is no appeal within the next couple of weeks, I don’t think it should be called either way, at least at the moment. There could be an appeal, even up to SCOTUS, so I think it’s best if they are shaded grey, like the states that haven’t been called for either side. AlJenko98 ( talk) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we mention how this could be the first time since 1960 that Ohio hasn't gone to the winner? Cards 84664 15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I am not opposed to including it, since we include something similar for Missouri in the 2008 article. Prcc27 ( talk) 07:40, 9 November 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. |
Biden electoral votes 279 -> 290, popular votes 75,551,684 -> 75,404,182, Trump popular votes 71,189,789 -> 70,903,094 (data from Associated Press) Herobrine ( talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
There have been a large number of lawsuits filed related to the results and counting process of the 2020 election. These lawsuits have been filed by a number of parties (mostly the Trump campaign), in a number of states, and on a wide variety of issues. Regardless of the eventual outcome of these cases, they are a notable facet of post-electon events and have been covered widely by reliable sources, though each individual lawsuit may not have been covered by all possible sources. It would be useful to have the relevant lawsuits enumerated or discussed in a way that is convenient for the reader and not mixed with other post-election events.
There are reliable sources on each of these lawsuits and some of them are already presented in the article as it exists now (in the "Election night aftermath" section). While this is good, there is enough material in the "aftermath" section for it to stand on its own without the lawsuit information. It is logical to separate the legal material into a new section and add to it discussion of the lawsuits which are not currently covered in the article. Of these, I can think of at least one lawsuit regarding Pennsylvania (concerning late-arriving mail-in ballots) and one regarding Nevada (concerning counting of ballots with certain "smudges"). I am sure that there are others which I have missed or which have not yet been filed.
My suggestion would be to list the sections in "Voting Process and Results" in the following order: "Election night" -> "Counting continues after election night" -> "Election calls" -> "Post-election lawsuits" -> "Election protests" -> etc.
104.13.110.123 ( talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The incumbent president is planning to challenge the election results in court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the incumbent, under "Elected President" the phrase "Election results annulled, Donald Trump remains president" must be added and the EV total must be changed to accommodate the court decision. This election has the potential to be the second annulled election in two years; the 2018 North Carolina's 9th congressional district election was annulled in January 2019. We are potentially going to see that election repeated on a national scale, which has never happened before. J4lambert ( talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
The candidate table and results by state table currently state the number of electoral votes each candidate is projected to receive, but they do not note that these are not official totals that could change once electors actually vote in December (especially after seeing how many faithless electors there were in 2016). While I think the information is valuable and should be included, I think we should clarify somewhere in those sections that these numbers are projections (similar to how the article infobox currently says "Projected electoral vote" instead of "Electoral vote"). Thoughts? RunningTiger123 ( talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
In the candidate table (section 6.6) the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates for the Democratic and Republic parties have their middle names listed while third party candidates in general do not.
in various other places in the article Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence are named without their middle name (and the title of the articles for each of these people is just their first and last name). I think these four are notable enough under their short name (first name, last name) that inclusion of middle names is unnecessary unless a candidate is regularly called by that name (e.g. Donald J. Trump)
"This was the first election since 1992 in which an incumbent president failed to win re-election to a second term"
It should also be noted that this is the first time that a party has held the White House for one term since Jimmy Carter for the Democrats.
The one problem that George H.W. Bush had coming into the 1992 campaign was that he was a President who had followed on from a member of his party Ronald Reagan who had served for two terms.
This was a problem that neither Carter nor Trump had when they lost. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
It is not trivia it is about how long people waited until they voted for change since Carter - 12 years for Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 8 each for Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and finally only 4 for Trump. There is also the fact of the 22nd amendment which prevents anyone from running for a third term. That is why Reagan could not run and H.W. Bush did and won in 1988 and why it added to the total of 12 years of Republican control of the White House. That is why because of 12 years H.W. Bush lost as a one-term president in 1992 because Clinton made a strong case for change. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
That would be good mentioning it in that other article but I still think it should be mentioned here as well otherwise it gives a misleading impression that George H.W. Bush had the same difficulty in achieving re-election than Trump did. Bush did not, his task was much harder in that he had the difficult task in making a case to the people to extend Republican rule to the total of 16 years. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 15:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
From the 1980 election article: "Also, Carter was the first incumbent Democrat to serve only one full term since James Buchanan and lose re-election since Martin Van Buren; Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms while Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served one full term in addition to respectively taking over following the deaths of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy."
All that was stated without the citation, which isn't needed, can be included in that article, then what I had asked to be included in the 2020 article shouldn't be a difficult ask.
The fact that certain things have not been said in sources does not make it untrue. It just mean that the writers concerned hadn't thought if it.
Wikipedians should be able to make their own assessments without checking to see whether it has been stated from outside source(s) and don't quote me Wikipedia rules as I don't feel that you are getting what I am saying.
At least one media outlet I know of does not give Wikipedia any credence. If that is the attitude to Wikipedia from the media in general then I don't see Wikipedia owes them any favours. 49.3.72.79 ( talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
I would propose using a different color for states the Trump Campaign is filing legal suits in. Regardless of ones opinion on the merit of the challenges, they should be represented on the map for accuracy of current events. My other option would be keeping them their current color but adding an identifier on the map to show they are contested BlackBird1008 ( talk) 23:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
For convenience with my cellphone, these tweets lead to more info from RS:
Valjean ( talk) 05:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Barr is Trump's ally in lying about unproven massive voting fraud. He's asking the DOJ to go fishing, IOW he's pushing Trump's conspiracy theories without having evidence, and Pilger and the lawyers are saying "Hell no. Don't misuse us in your specious crusade." That's the gist of what's happening. -- Valjean ( talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Direct links to the articles: Growing Discomfort at Law Firms Representing Trump in Election Lawsuits - The New York Times, Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims - The New York Times -- Related articles that might contain more information to use: Trump campaign lawyers worry about pushing lawsuits that could undermine election: report - The Hill, Barr tells prosecutors to investigate 'vote irregularities' despite lack of evidence - The Guardian, Barr OK for election-fraud investigations roils Justice Department - Politico, DOJ's top election crimes prosecutor quits in protest after Barr tells federal attorneys to probe unsupported allegations of voting irregularities - CNN, DOJ's election crimes chief resigns after Barr directs prosecutors to probe voter fraud claims - NBC News. Personally, I think there is something that can be added to the article, but the only current things to add would be a sentence about Barr's memo and a sentence about the resignation since nothing else has occurred yet as far as I can see. -- Super Goku V ( talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Based on the clear pattern of questions from new users and IP editors, I WP:BOLDly created Talk:2020 United States presidential election/FAQ. Please modify or update as needed. My goal was to reduce energy and time repeating the same information. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
A point was brought up at WP:ERRORS whether the election refers to the Nov general election, or does it also include the Electoral College vote in December. That could give background on the 2nd sentence of the lead currently reading "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence." It would seems like it refers to the Nov election, as the lead sentence reads: "The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020."— Bagumba ( talk) 11:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
How are the firms used for showing the outcome predictions chosen? IIRC, in the past Princeton Election Consortium has come very close to a correct prediction, but they are not included. Apologies if this methodology is easily accessible on the wiki; I can't seem to find it. LuciusAreliusVerus ( talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi everybody, I'm french and I have to say it's very difficult for foreigners to understand how the whole process works... Especially hard to get is why it takes so long to have the results. For example, Alaska still lags at 56% after a week ! But the main incomprehensible thing for me is the total of electors. They are 538. At this point you write 279 for Biden and 214 for Trump, total is thus 493 (which you write as well on this page). But the only missing are Alaska (3) and Georgia (16), it means 19. And 493 + 19 = 512 !!! What about the other 26 ??? Thanks a lot for helping me !!! Jagellon ( talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Should the following be appended to the Foreign interference §?
One day prior to the November 3, 2020 election, the Special Counsel's office released previously redacted portions of the Mueller report per the federal judge’s order in the lawsuit mentioned above filed by BuzzFeed News and the Electronic Privacy Information Center, while allowing other portions to remain redacted. [1] [2] The newly released passages indicated that "federal prosecutors could not establish that the hacked emails amounted to campaign contributions benefitting Trump’s election chances." [1]
For relevance, pls see my comment in Discussion, below.
Humanengr ( talk) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
References
evidence that this has any impactrather than straightforward relevance been applied to anything else in this article? Humanengr ( talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Relevance to this article is indicated by this July AP analysis:
Ahead of the 2020 election, both [parties] are trying to reach the slice of Americans who have not hardened to partisan positions. A June poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found 31% of Americans said they didn’t know enough to say whether Mueller’s report had completely cleared Trump of coordination with Russia and 30% didn’t know whether it had not completely cleared Trump of obstruction. A CNN poll found that just 3% said they had read the whole report. Perhaps Mueller’s testimony, with his button-down lawyer’s approach, reached some of them.
and by the following points from this earlier VOA article, in particular, points #6 and 7:
- Wednesday, President Trump made sure to remind his supporters about the outcome of the Mueller report.
- The Mueller report found insufficient evidence of a criminal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and Russia to meddle in the 2016 election.
- Congressional Democrats have also vowed to keep the pressure on with oversight hearings and investigations.
- They are also moving toward citing Attorney General William Barr with contempt of Congress for not producing an un-redacted version of the Mueller report.
- House Judiciary Committee Chair Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., moves ahead with a vote to hold Attorney General William Barr in contempt of Congress after last-minute negotiations stalled with the Justice Department over access to the full, unredacted version of the Mueller report.
- As a political issue, many analysts said the Russia investigation appears far from over and could figure prominently in next year’s presidential campaign.
- Both Republicans and Democrats expect Trump will continue to proclaim vindication in the Russia investigation right through next year’s presidential campaign.
Humanengr ( talk) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election. —
Bilorv (
talk)
20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The following two sentences in the introduction contradict each other:
The second sentence contradicts the first as it indicates that no winner has been chosen in the 2020 United States presidential election yet, as the election won't occur until 14 December 2020, while the first statement says that the election already happened and Joe Biden has already defeated Donald Trump. I should also point out that the first sentence has no sources, while the second sentence is sourced. 73.168.5.183 ( talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
References
References
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
RealClearPolitics, which is often cited as authoritative by media during presidential campaigns regarding its opinion polling averages, has reversed the call of Pennsylvania and now displays the present result as Biden 259 - Trump 214 with four states still uncalled. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/president/
Some of their reasoning here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/10/the_media_should_not_have_called_this_election_144624.html
Should this be relevant towards whether this article displays a "certain" result in Pennsylvania, seeing as court challenges are ongoing? Also note that if mail-in ballots are rejected as invalid at the same rate that normally occurs (around 1-2% of mail-in ballots in recent elections are rejected) that alone could alter the outcome. [1] 85.144.218.248 ( talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The voting is over. One side has come out victorious in the count. The other side has disputed the counting, as per the statutory provisions in the US election codes.
So, the election result is still under dispute.
Let the dispute get settled, through the statutory procedures. Till then, it would be most unwise to proclaim anyone as the winner.
Why should Wikipedia jump the gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:309:B47F:7DD3:B9D5:4C82:7BAB ( talk) 10:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
By November 7, Biden and Harris were declared winners by all major news outlets projecting the results, including ABC, the Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, NBC, The New York Times, and Reuters, which is completely accurate. — Czello 18:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
Until the results are certified nobody one. If Trump wins in the courts this site will say that he stole the election. Guitarguy2323 ( talk) 23:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
"After the presidential race was called for Democratic candidate Joe Biden, Republicans’ trust in the election system plummeted, while Democrats’ trust soared, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.
Multiple new organizations announced Biden as the election winner on Saturday after four days of counting in several swing states. Following the news, 70 percent of Republicans now say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair, a stark rise from the 35 percent of GOP voters who held similar beliefs before the election. Meanwhile, trust in the election system grew for Democrats, many who took to the streets to celebrate Biden’s victory on Saturday. Ninety percent of Democrats now say the election was free and fair, up from 52 percent before Nov. 3 who thought it would be.
Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78 percent believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72 percent believed that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump, a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84 percent, said it benefited Biden.
The lack of trust in the election system has led to Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only 18 percent of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to Election Day, now 64 percent feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By contrast, 86 percent of Democrats say they trust the results.
Republicans were particularly wary of the results coming out of swing states, especially in Pennsylvania, which counted votes for four days before delivering Biden a decisive win on Saturday. Sixty-two percent of Republicans said the Pennsylvania results would be unreliable, a stark contrast to the 8 percent of Democrats who held the same beliefs.
Distrust is similarly high in Wisconsin (55 percent), Nevada (54 percent), Georgia (54 percent) and Arizona (52 percent). The skepticism has particularly been fueled by the Trump campaign, which has filed more than half a dozen lawsuits in states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan and Georgia since Election Day. Two days after the race was called for Biden, Trump continues to tweet out that “Nevada is turning out to be a cesspool of Fake Votes” and “Pennsylvania prevented us from watching much of the Ballot count.”
However, despite their lack of trust in the results, Republicans are split on whether or not the outcome will change. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans believe the results will be overturned, while 45 percent say it’s unlikely.
The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted Nov. 6-9, surveying 1,987 registered voters. Some interviews were done before the race was called, but the majority were after the official call. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points."
Count Iblis ( talk) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
While I agree with most of the points above it would be worth it to see if any of the other presidential election articles include statistics about each party’s acceptance of the election. And if they don’t would it be worth it to add the respective statistics to each respective article (provided there are statistics of this nature in other elections). For example we add a sentence to the 2016 election displaying the sway of opinion from Hilary will win fairly to Hilary had the election stole from her. As well as display the sway of opinion that trump will be robbed to trump won fair and square. What are your opinions? CaseyP513 ( talk) 22:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
That is true it is a different situation but it would still be important information pertaining to the acceptance of fair elections. Or if not all elections at least the ones with controversial results. But I see your point in this being a unusually contested election CaseyP513 ( talk) 23:56, 10 November 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. |
change "The President voted by mail" by "The President voted in person in Florida on saturday before election day" 2A01:E35:2E1F:6BE0:E116:C01B:5BBF:F175 ( talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Should the Viewership section be edited to clarify that these are Election Day numbers only? Atypically, the election results monitoring was covered on TV for several days this year, due to the long time it took to count the votes and make a call.
- KaJunl ( talk) 02:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
User:Neutrality, you recently removed information on Hillary Clinton's comments about conceding the election, declaring that such information would need consensus to be added. I agree with you, but there was consensus to add it, see Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 14#Adding to "Potential rejection of election results". I ask that you revert that particular edit, since the article is under 1RR restrictions. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Donald Trump has won alaska via abc news User:Rushtheeditor.
![]() | This
edit request to
2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
popular vote count has changed according to the new york times, would like to update it. [1] Mikeybeckjr1 ( talk) 13:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
References
Based on the current map we have, if NC, AZ, and GA are considered as the uncalled states then Biden has won 23 (plus DC, NE-02), and Trump 24 (plus ME-02), not the other way around as the infobox indicates. (Assuming current leads hold, as they likely will, Biden will end with 25+DC+NE-02 and Trump with 25+ME-02) ScorpiumX ( talk) 16:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
Oops my bad. I'm so sorry. User:Rushtheeditor
Can we please stop adding every single claim of fraud made to that section, it is already too large as it is. We should be adhering to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 00:58, 12 November 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. |
According to Fox News and Politico: Arizona has been called for Joe Biden, and Maine District 2 has been called for Donald Trump. That brings the electoral votes to 264 (Biden) - 214 (Trump). Kerim123456 ( talk) 02:03, 7 November 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. |
Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama is the first leader to congratulate Joe Biden despite official results to be released at that time (November 7, 2020 Fiji Standard Time UTC +12).
If it does not apply here, please add it to the International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election
Thanks. 27.123.140.8 ( talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
With Trump digging in his heels, I think the "Procedure" section needs something what officially happens from here. Specifically, there is no mention of when the Electoral College votes are cast (December 14) or when they are ratified by Congress. Adpete ( talk) 01:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
States report their election results in slightly different ways:
So far I copied the numbers exactly as reported, with notes explaining the discrepancies. When totals and percentages were not reported, I calculated them based on total valid votes (including write-in, but not blank or overvotes). This way the numbers are not fully comparable between states, and in case of Delaware the sum of the percentages exceeds 100%. Should we use the same method for all states? This would be more consistent but the totals and percentages would be slightly different from the sources.
I also noticed that in Vermont there were a few write-in votes for candidates already listed on the ballot, such as Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Vermont election law says that these write-in votes should be merged with the standard votes, but it looks like a few were missed. Should we merge them or just mention them in a note?
For the margins, should we use negative numbers for states where Biden had fewer votes than Trump? In the tables for previous elections, all margins are with respect to the candidate who won the entire election, so they are negative in states where that candidate didn't win. I prefer using negative numbers so the table can be sorted by political party strength. Heitordp ( talk) 19:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Note that although Fox News has called the state while some other networks have not, this is no longer a projection. The Arizona Secretary of State reports that 100% of the vote has been counted, and the margin of victory is larger than that under which the state allows a recount, so this is the final outcome. BD2412 T 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
Arizona has been called by three separate news stations for Biden.
Fox, AP, and now Decision Desk have all called Arizona for Biden, time to update the count! SuperSaiyaMan ( talk) 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
This site says there's about 25k votes left to count- https://arizona.vote/ballot-progress.html Topcat777 ( talk) 21:08, 12 November 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. |
Multiple sources including Google’s version claim Biden won Arizona. All links to sources are blacklisted. 99% of votes reporting. I say we add it and say Biden has 290 votes. HurricaneTracker495 ( talk) 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure if i'm doing this right... This isn't a big thing, i just thought this little fact could be added, that this is the first U.S. presidential election since 1880 where both major candidates won in an equal number of states. Demon Taka ( talk) 20:28, 13 November 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. |
Change the electoral vote tallies for the two candidates to 306 and 232 – North Carolina and Georgia were recently called by NBC news. Kokopelli7309 ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)