![]() | 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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
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 text has been suggested to be added to the article lede:
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections. [1] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." [2] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." [3]
Reference list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
The questions of the RFC are.
1. Should the lede of the article United States presidential election, 2016 mention 2016 United States election interference by Russia?
2. Should the article include the above text?
Casprings ( talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Regardless of any findings by the FBI, CIA & NI, there's no way to prove that enough voters were swayed to vote for Trump/Pence instead of Clinton/Kaine. GoodDay ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Russian)) to ((Russia))n
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.
This is based on the edit by user:JFG, [2] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [3] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [4], which was agreed to by myself [5] with no editor raising a red flag. The basic issue was also discussed here in the talk page for Russian interference. Casprings ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
(A) The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections. [1] [2] [3]
Versus
(B) The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. [4] [5] [6]
Reference list
|
---|
References
|
Note: Added RFC to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article as it also relates to discussion ongonging there. Casprings ( talk) 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Note 2: Past debates involving the proposed wording have occurred at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and United_States_presidential_election,_2016. This RFC, being posted on both pages, is meant to provide consensus for both articles. On this issue, an admin user:coffee stated "As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them" [6] However, the discussion is also ongoing here. Casprings ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"United States government intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."This is most accurate, since we know what the agencies have publicly revealed, either to media, or sources. The internal conclusions of intelligence agencies are often complex, contradictory, and public statements may convey exactly the opposite of what agencies internally conclude (as I noted above [7]). If that isn't possible, I would support Option A, being more accurate than B. - Darouet ( talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment Formal request to close RFC here. Casprings ( talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election". Politrukki ( talk) 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think there's some issues with the mark up of this RfC and how it fits into this talk page. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would point out that some US intel agencies had not been so conclusive. It should be clear that this is the case. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have calculated the proportion of Wasted votes at 80.20% or 109,949,984 votes that's all votes for any candidate other than Trump also excess votes for Trump (these count as wasted because they could have stayed home and the result have been the same) in every state he won and also all votes for Trump in Florida and Ohio as there were also excess electoral college votes. Theofficeprankster ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In the table of results the total vote overall and for individual cantidates is wrong. These totals have clearly been calculated in Excel using =SUM. They count not only Nebraska and Maine at large, but then include in their calculations the 5 congressional districts of these two states, effectivly counting these states twice. I put it in Excel myself and used =sum, and got the same total on here. When I manually deleted Maine and Nebraska's districts from the table, leaving the at-large votes, there were different numbers. This means everything including total votes, turnout, victory margin, votes for each cantidate and any references to this on Wikipedia (and potentially everywhere if the media use this total) are incorrect.
This appears to be a extremely major error that could affect dozens of pages so this needs to be fixed ASAP
Bomberswarm2 ( talk) 10:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Pictures with angry Trump compared with smiling Hillary are the best demonstration of WP:NEUTRAL. Speakus ( talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean the third Party candidates who received 1.% or more of the vote aren't even shown until after the nominations for the other two parties who received 0.% of the national vote (because they weren't even candidates in the final race). That has POV all over it. Endercase ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This whole paragraph about Russia hacking in the lead of the Election 2016 article needs another review, IMO. The government provided zero evidence that Russia influenced anything in this election. The intelligence report even had a disclaimer on it that they could not guarantee anything at all within the report; the report said, "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." This means they have ZERO evidence to back up their claims. The house intelligence committee said there is zero evidence and the DOJ refused to present their evidence to the house committee. All the sources in the paragraph (shown below) are from newspapers (like the NYT and WP) that are anti-trump. How is this Wikipedia quality content? There should be sources from all political sides to make it fair. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 ( talk) 17:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.[4] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[5] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]
I'm calling them biased because they have an overt and acute anti-trump sentiment which makes them have a bias, in my opinion. I want to reopen the RfC because it fails to even mention that the homeland security report has no credible evidence from their stated disclaimer. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 ( talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The United States government has accused.
The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity
I also suggest editing this statement: Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]
Edit it to : Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.[6] However, The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report had a disclaimer, which stated: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." [1] [2]
Okay, but there should be something added that points out that this report isn't credible by it's own admission. There are plenty of news sources that have discussed this point. It's only fair to point this out. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 ( talk) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
References
In a joint analysis report published on December 29, 2016, several United States intelligence agencies assessed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump. On the same day, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington and expanded sanctions to cover Russian individuals linked to the Russian secret services.
Short, accurate, and easily sourced. Opinions? — JFG talk 02:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In a joint analysis report published on December 29, 2016, severalUnited States intelligence agencies assessed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump.On the same day, tThe Obama administrationexpelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washingtonresponded with diplomat expulsions and expanded sanctions to coverRussianindividuals linked to the Russian secret services.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggested rewording:
The United States Intelligence Community concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump. [1] On the same day, the United States responded with diplomat expulsionsnand expanded sanctions to cover individuals linked to the Russian secret services.
Casprings ( talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
My suggestion. Casprings ( talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following parameter to the infobox:
| opinion_polls = Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016
. ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The vault 7 leak files reveal that the CIA developed tools that can hack a system and make it look like a foreign nation did it. Their entire dayabase of tools were leaked to private individuals. Anybody including the CIA or FBI could of made this hack appear from Russia in a politically motivated move. All the evidence is now extremely questionable. Bomberswarm2 ( talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed that File:2016 presidential election, results by congressional district (popular vote margin).svg does not show the results for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district. Would someone please add its result to the map? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section for swing states, the pre-election polling indicated that Clinton had a lead of 6 points in Minnesota: http://web.archive.org/web/20161107150211/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6138.html taken a day before the election. Please fix this if you have the privileges. Thank you BETTERmaid ( talk) 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As I noted above, please do change the polling averages in Minnesota from 10 points in Clinton's favor to 6 points (source used in the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20161107150211/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6138.html). I don't know where that wrong information came from. BETTERmaid ( talk) 20:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC) BETTERmaid ( talk) 20:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the large hatnote template at the top to a small lock. MB298 ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we make the page protection icon into the small padlock that appears in the corner instead, as to not interrupt the reading experience of a high traffic article? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The Federal Election Commission just released the official vote tally for the election: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf
Clinton: 65,853,516 - 48.18% Trump: 62,984,825 - 46.09%
Currently, we are using the results posted on David Leip's Election Atlas, which are useful until the official results come in. Could the page be edited so the official results are shown? -- yeah_93 ( talk) 13:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a larger FEC election report that comes out in the summer that has much more thorough state by state breakdowns and has turnout metrics, I would wait to adjust until that data is released. I would be interested to know what Leip is including that the FEC is not.-- Travis McGeehan ( talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the difference between Dave Leip and the FEC report is that Leip has about 420,000 more write-in votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Labine ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Recently I added a citation of James Clapper's statement on Meet the Press declaring that the FBI, CIA and NSA had found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and SPECIFICO reverted this as UNDUE and SYNTH. Well, Clapper is certainly a respectable figure and he supervised the ODNI report about Russian interference. If he says that the three agencies didn't find evidence of collusion, who are we to dispute him? If he is not DUE, then who is? And there is no SYNTH, we are just paraphrasing his own words, check the transcript. — JFG talk 04:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph of this section contains somewhat opinionated language: examples include asserting that "rude remarks" were made about Trump by protesters and directly quoting Giuliani regarding the protests. Can we try to fix this by adopting more neutral terminology? Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 06:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Based on the total number of votes cast: 136,669,237 [10] and the total number of people eligible to vote: 227,019,486 [11] the voter turnout rate can be calculated to be 60.2%. -- Proud User ( talk) 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Proud User. On Wikipedia, all US Presidential Elections page Voter Turnout data uses "Percentage of Voting Age Population casting a vote for President" as the standard, based on Census Data for the population totals. The primary source of truth is the FEC (they use the aforementioned methodology) - we're waiting for their final report which should come out in a few months. -- Happysomeone ( talk) 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia is not using voting-eligible population (see: http://www.electproject.org/2016g)? In that case voter turnout is 59.2%. This is what a country is defining as a pool of voters through legal means a country has. Wikipedia should not be redefining meaning of who can vote at elections using some global standard. Each country defines their own version of democracy. Moreover, if this is how it is done for all elections then it should be written in info box. Moreover, we should probably provide also legal version of turnout so that readers can choose which one to use. Mitar ( talk) 23:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I propose the replacement of the repeated of the word "gender" with the word "sex" in the Demographic headings. "Gender" in the use in this article (and many others in Wikipedia) is informal, imprecise, and probably inaccurate. Prior to the 1990's, 'gender' formally referred only to grammatical pronouns, and not to actual people, other than in colloquial (i.e., incorrect but understood) use (please review any old dictionary pre-1990). A political movement has promoted the use of the word 'gender' (as a Wikipedia's own article on it explains) in place of the word 'sex', but only to supplant it with a different meaning, not to have it mean 'sex' in its current sense. Whatever that ultimate intended meaning may be, there is no agreed upon definition of what 'gender' actually means that is different from 'sex', other than its long-standing application to pronouns, or some new references to a 'cultural' definition where it is unclear how a 'cultural' male or female is different from a biological one. Either way, 'gender' is inappropriate here. Demographics today referring to male and female are still accounted for by sex, and not some other measure. To use 'gender' here, while an increasingly common misuse of the word (check out the NGRAM on the use of 'gender' from 1800 to 2016), is to imply that something other than sex determined the demographics, and that is false. If Wikipedia is to be a dispassionate reporter of what is, and not what some would like the truth to be, it should use 'sex' when referring to male and female, until the use of the term 'gender' is more appropriate for clear, objective, viewpoint-neutral purposes. I opted not to make any changes on my own until others have had a chance to consider this. MEastman ( talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like this is the same team which leaked the Hilary Clinton and the Emmanuel Macron electronic mails. Might be added in the article... http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/elections/macronleaks-des-milliers-d-emails-de-l-equipe-de-campagne-de-macron-pirates_1905721.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.213 ( talk) 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we should put a section in on the Comey letter. This analysis is pretty good and lays it out well: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
In sum, I think there is some good evidence that the Comey letter is what tilted the election to Trump. Seems like an important fact to include. Casprings ( talk) 19:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Comey was just fired, which might merit a one sentence addition. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of articles where this issue should be addressed, and I'm not sure how to start. The issue is the widespread idea, reported in numerous RS, that the pre-election polls during the 2016 campaign were inaccurate, when in fact they weren't. The polls predicted that Clinton would get the most votes and win. Well, they were right, at least in part; she did get the most votes, but no polls could have predicted that this was one of those rare occasions where a popular vote win wouldn't translate into an electoral college win.
This article addresses the issue:
We should make an effort to fix/counter the mistaken impression, left by numerous RS, that the polls were wrong. They were not, and this source can be used to puncture that balloon. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The current section title is "Russian interference concerns". I propose changing "concerns" to "allegations", since "concerns" seems to be subtly endorsing claims about Russian interference which are currently controversial. Thoughts? Augurar ( talk) 09:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned in the article this section should be updated. As an European citizen I do not completely understand how American democracy works. I would at least exspect that the counted votes in an election are accurate. The sum of votes is not correct: In the list for US total wikipedia gives the count 136,669,237, but when I add the single states with Excel (Maine and Nebraska in mind) I come to 136,359,313. There are differences of some 100.000 votes for the candidates. Mysterious! And I can not find better figures in other sources. Strange. Armin D. A. ( talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2016/11/10/lies-damn-lies-and-exit-polls/ 69.67.84.39 ( talk) 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I may be already autoconfirmed, Because of a red link image, i'll replace the red link image with the image from Donald Trump's page because the red link in question is Donald Trump's image. Gary "Roach" Sanderson ( talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
Could someone please consider adding extra "–" to indicate "no result available" to the rows missing them? A global replace of "||||" with "||–||" might do the trick.
This would help me and other data scrapers to extract data more quickly and easily.
An example is shown below in the "=== Results by state ===" section:
old:
| align=left|[[United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016|Alabama]] || WTA ||729,547||34.36%||–||1,318,255||62.08%||9||44,467||2.09%||–||9,391||0.44%||–||||||–|| 21,712 ||1.02%||–||588,708||27.72%||2,123,372||AL||Official<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Alabama: Canvass of Results|url=http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2016/general/2016-Official-General-Election-Results-Certified-2016-11-29.pdf|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
new:
| align=left|[[United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016|Alabama]] || WTA ||729,547||34.36%||–||1,318,255||62.08%||9||44,467||2.09%||–||9,391||0.44%||–||–||–||–|| 21,712 ||1.02%||–||588,708||27.72%||2,123,372||AL||Official<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Alabama: Canvass of Results|url=http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2016/general/2016-Official-General-Election-Results-Certified-2016-11-29.pdf|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
Below is a list of rows in the results by state section that would benefit from the "||||" to "||–||" replacement, as a normal row should have 25 elements:
Thanks very much for your very valuable work!
Sincerely,
-Chris Krenn (democracygps) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democracygps ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan was 73 at his second inauguration. Should be edited to reflect Trump was the oldest at FIRST inauguration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.240.232 ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would like to add that Donald Trump became the first Republican to win a presidential election with at least 300 votes, since George H.W. Bush won over 400 in 1988. 2601:87:4101:A5E1:4D6D:8745:A1D5:C7B5 ( talk) 04:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't see this as important, but there might be regulars of this article that can contradict me.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
05:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)(Redacted)
I have removed the suggested edit as there's copyright content copied from the following sources:
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#RfC: Presumptive nominee:
Just a note. I request that I be pinged if there is any RfC or other dispute resolution (not ordinary discussion) regarding how we address the Comey letter's role in the 2016 election. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
is O_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.85.149 ( talk) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"...60.2 percent of the voting-eligible population, cast a ballot in November’s elections, according to data compiled by the U.S. Elections Project. That compares with 58.6 percent of eligible voters who turned out in 2012, but it’s below the 62.2 percent who turned out to help elect Obama for the first time in 2008."
Wikipedia says 54.7%, 54.9%, 58.2% instead of 60.2%, 58.6%, 62.2%. Why is there a difference?
Durindaljb ( talk) 09:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Today I restored the campaign-time consensus portrait of Donald Trump, [12] but Jean-Jacques Georges reverted. [13] During the campaign and until a few weeks after the election, there was a stable consensus to use the 2015 picture of Trump. This consensus is documented in the talk page headers, for portraits of Trump, Clinton and Johnson. We shouldn't replace this campaign picture by an anachronistic presidency picture taken in 2017. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeing no further comments after two weeks, I restored the campaign-time portrait, per prior consensus documented in talk page header. — JFG talk 15:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
In the lede, the article quotes Trump as tweeting:
This tweet contains a grammatical error. A corrected version would be
Since the error was in the original tweet, could someone please mark it with "[sic]"? Thanks, 2601:240:C400:D60:DD44:2986:D3CB:D38F ( talk) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
For a bit of quick evidence of relevance, the most viewed videos on Trump's Bush tape on Youtube have 2.2 million and 3 million views (from an independent uploader and Late Night with Seth Meyers), while the videos analyzing Hillary's health by independent uploader Dr. Ted Noel and Paul Joseph Watson have 4.6 and 5.9 million views collectively. TWICE as many. Which isn't even counting the footage of her being unconscious and carried at the 9/11 Memorial, which received multiple explanations from her campaign including the heat and pneumonia. Nonetheless, the words "health," "collapse," "faint," and "pneumonia," appear NOWHERE in this article. Not once. There's no mention of it then explanation of why it wasn't an issue. It *conceals* it, as though it *never even happened*. And I repeat, by objective numbers, this received *twice* the actual views from the public that Trump's Access Hollywood tape did. This is not currently an honest account of the issues surrounding the 2016 Election. At the very least, include both or neither. 173.2.64.195 ( talk) 12:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table "2016 Presidential vote by demographic subgroup" in this article, 24% of the jewish voted trump, and 5% other/don't know. According to the source attached (cnn exit polls http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president) 23% of the jewish people voted for trump, and 6% answered other/dont know. Yoavik ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not an objective, neutral statement of mere facts:
Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people who voted in the Trump states was over 75 million, whereas the number in Clinton states and DC was around 50.5 million.
Why are we now comparing number of states won? Why Is the total number of voters in aggregate a meaningful statistic? Why exactly aren't we interested in how many left handed voters voted for Trump? Who won the most states beginning with N or ending with an O? There's an infinite number of yardsticks you can invent out of whole cloth and use to make a point. It's not neutral. It's not a routine calculation. It's cherry picking and synthesis.
If the 30 vs 20 state metric is of any significance, then surely you can cite a quality source who says so, and tells us why this statistic is meaningful. Why do we analyze elections based on the 75 million who voted in the states of one candidate and the 50 million in the states won by the other? What does that mean? Tell us the name of the reputable analyst who said it, and tell us why they think it matters. If you can attribute this analysis to several different experts across a spectrum of media and points of view, then it carries significant weight. If you can't find anyone excpet highly partisan hacks in a small niche of the political punditocracy, that too speaks for itself. Cite it. Use in-text attribution.-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me say that I think it gets beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to get too deep into the pissing contest and woulda-coulda-shoulda excuses over election results. We should do our best to only discuss serious, reputable and grounded analysis of election results by statistical and political expert researchers. Off-the-cuff sophistry and rhetorical games played by pundits and partisans should mostly be ignored. If we wish to give any attention to the Trump camp's use of California to minimize Clinton winning the popular vote, combined with the unfounded Trump claim that this margin is attributable to voter fraud (which he then goes on to blame on Mexicans, because Trump), then we need to take a broader approach. Snopes.com has a good overview, and they trace the origins of the "take California out of the total" rhetoric. This is rough, but here is a draft of what we might include in this article:
Conservative and Republican leaning media have argued that Clinton's popular vote lead is due only to her large lead in California. Snopes.com said this began with "a conservative clickbait web site", The Federalist, on December 12, 2016, and was quickly picked up at Investors Business Daily [1] and Townhall, [2] spreading the argument "If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million." Snopes said that this line of logic could be applied arbitrarily: removing New York and Massachusetts would have the same result as removing California, or to say that Trump's win "came entirely from Texas", since without it Trump would not have one. Snopes said picking and choosing one state or another to remove from the vote count "wouldn't undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can't sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn't also have significant support from multiple other states." [3] Californians and others have taken offense at the appearance of conservative dismissal of the state on various occasions, as when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ignited controversy and coined a catchphrase when he said in 2015, "California does not count" with regard to the public acceptance of same-sex marriage. [4] [5] [6]
References
- ^ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
- ^ https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/17/without-california-trump-would-won-14-million-more-votes-than-clinton-n2261014
- ^ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
- ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/01/california-doesnt-count-as-part-of-west-column/29523957/
- ^ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-scalia-doesn-t-heart-california-or-get-us-20150626-story.html
- ^ http://documents.latimes.com/supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage/#document/p74/a224855
-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, we must be guided by sources. This stuff about discounting California for various reasons is out there, it gets a lot of attention, and it's treated as a valid topic of discussion. Which suggests maybe we shold try to cover it, if not in this article, then in one of the related ones, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, Voter suppression in the United States, Illegal immigration to the United States, perhaps. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I know mentioning it might hurt some feelings of editors that want to impose their POV....This is not useful. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, I agree that we must assume good faith and not snipe at others over their supposed motives. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
See also [15] [16] [17] [18]. Comment from WikiProject Elections requested. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose adding the following paragraph: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
On September 7, 2017, New Hampshire state House speaker Shawn Jasper announced that data showed that 6,540 people voted using out-of-state licenses. Of those, only 15% had received state licenses by August 2017. Of the remaining 5,526, only 3.3% had registered a motor vehicle in New Hampshire. In addition to the close vote for president, Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes. In Feburary 2017, President Trump had told a gathering of senators at the White House that fraudulent out-of-state voting had cost him and Ayotte the election in New Hampshire. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
References
It is entirely plausible that there are more than 6,000 out of state students residing in NH who voted with an out of state license, most of whom subsequently never registered a car (because they don't have a car, because they're students, obs) or failed to comply with the NH requirement to get a NH license within 60 days, because students are lazy. And probably haven't bothered to learn the finer points of New Hampshire driver's license bureaucracy (since they don't have car anyway), or if they do know, they don't care. For those unfamiliar with how this works in the USA, nobody goes and hangs out at the DMV unless they have no choice. It's considered one of the worst ways to waste hours of your time and do battle with stubborn bureaucrats. No college student would do this (even if they had the time) unless they really had to. No state is going to waste police resources trying to track down out of state residents who didn't update their license, so the rule is obviously not enforced. Quote: "It is likely that some unknown number of these individuals moved out of New Hampshire, it is possible that few may have never driven in New Hampshire or have ceased driving, however it is expected that an unknown number of the remainder continue to live and drive in New Hampshire," wrote Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes and Secretary of State Bill Gardner. [19]
The paranoid Trump/Pence/Scarbourgh interpretation that 6,000 illegal voters descended on New Hampshire is not impossible, but there are far simpler explanations that fit the facts and Jasper has failed to convince anyone outside the Washington Times that any voter fraud actually took place. What this amounts to is the same voter fraud allegations that Trump has been making all along and no law enforcement or Secretaries of State/Elections offices have found these allegations credible. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to do OR. The Washington post has already debunked this. Given that, I think that even mentioning it on 4 different pages is UNDUE. It doesn't belong on this page, for instance. Homunq ( ࿓) 00:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The columns in the election results by state table should be reordered to put Donald Trump first since he won. Previous elections put the winner first, even in the 2000 election when Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. 70.94.36.72 ( talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
According to the article, "On January 6, 2017, the United States government's intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."
This is not correct. Only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies signed off on the intel report (CIA, FBI, NSA, DNI) alleging Russia interfered (in some way), not all of them as implied in the article. The New York Times and the AP have both released corrections.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html?_r=0
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.210.173 ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I added "Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people who voted in the Trump states was over 75 million, whereas the number in Clinton states and DC was around 50.5 million."
This was deleted by User:Dennis Bratland who commented that it was unsourced and irrelevant. I claim that we don't need a source for a fact that can be verified simply by counting or adding. I redid the edit, saying that it is relevant because it shows that the electoral college gave a result in which most voters (in fact 60% of them) live in states that were won by Trump. Dennis then reverted again, with the comment, "this is absoultuely origional research and POV pushing. You must use in-text attribution and a citation to a recognized expert."
Needless to say, I don't agree. I'm not pushing a point of view. I did not vote for Trump. (I did vote.) It's silly to call a simple counting of states "original research". Adding up 21 numbers and 30 other numbers is also not original research. I think my edit presents two interesting facts, and I don't see why we should deprive people (like me) who came to this article to know these numbers. I didn't find what I wanted, so I did the addtion and the counting, and added it.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 08:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It's been over a year, so there's little attention to the 2016 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.49.49 ( talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The image showing the swing between 2012 and 2016 should be changed, the image shows Utah moving towards the Democrats with a blue arrow, the arrow should be changed to a grey arrow, as the state moved towards McMullin not Clinton.
Bomberswarm2 ( talk) 05:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's the quote from the page I'm referring to:
"In a surprise victory, the Republican ticket of businessman Donald Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence defeated the Democratic ticket of former First Lady, U.S. Senator of New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine"
I was just thinking that the in the top section, perhaps it should be more specific of Trump's past occupations. It lists 3 occupations for Clinton (FLOTUS, Senator, Secretary of State), which are all notable, but only one for Trump (Businessman). I feel like referring to Trump as businessman is like referring to Clinton simply as a politician: both candidates' descriptions could be condensed that way, but it seems a bit vague. I'd suggest replacing businessman with real estate developer and either reality television producer or reality television star, since these are the two jobs considered notable enough to put in the infobox on the Donald Trump page. Perhaps "businessman" was chosen because he's had a variety of different business endeavors and the two suggestions I brought up could both be considered business, but his stint on The Apprentice and in real estate seem to me to stand out as more notable than the rest.
-- pluma ♫ ♯ 03:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)!!!
Some facts that are perhaps, or perhaps not, worth including
SecretName101 ( talk) 16:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a better picture for each candidiate? 174.26.14.64 ( talk) 21:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate to use in the Infobox a picture of Donald Trump before he became president of the United States?
Theprussian ( talk) 18:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The picture of Donald Trump that is on the page now depicts him frowning and in an unfavorable light. The picture of him and Secretary Clinton are not equal. One portrays him in a negative light frowning while the other portrays Clinton smiling. Wikipedia should not even have the appearance of being biased, and it is guaranteed that I am not the only one that feels this way. Also, every other US recent presidential election has the official presidential photograph of the winner, so why is the precedent being changed so that some liberal editors can portray a bad photograph of Trump? Either depict a frowning photograph of Clinton next to the frowning photograph of Trump or portray both as smiling instead of only using a negative photograph of President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillsberrydoo7 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you please replace the photos of Trump and Pence from before becoming President and Vice President with the Official Portraits of them as President and Vice President? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C503:63C6:4C94:A91F:77AE:D0E3 ( talk) 13:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the old Donald Trump portrait looks garbage compared to all others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.121.90 ( talk) 16:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we outta change the current portrait of Trump, as he's frowning while Clinton is smiling which is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik Spoutnik ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The FEC published a " Federal Election 2012" report in July 2013 with the "official" turnout rate: Using the official tally of votes counted for highest office, divided by the total number of voting-age population in the United States. Back in March 2017, the FEC published the " Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results" with the tally of votes counted for highest office, 136,669,237, (which is used as numerator in the calculation to determine turnout rate) but didn't tabulate the turnout. In May 2017, the US Census Bureau published their estimate of what was used as the denominator in calculating the 2012 turnout: " U.S. Census Bureau Voting Age Population (Current Population Survey for November 2016)": 245,502,000.
My question is, if we already know the numerator & denominator for the turnout, why can't we publish 136,669,237÷245,502,000= 55.669297? (in other words, a turnout rate of 55.7%?) Thanks. Happysomeone ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
DUH! The middle is the best people O_o. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.14.64 ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need to have a lengthy discussion over this? Everyone complained about Trump's photo during the primaries. Now that there is an official photo, use it. The unofficial "official" photo was used with no problems until it got taken down, so why do we need to debate this? Common sense people! Sheesh! TL565 ( talk) 19:32, 9 November 2017 (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 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | Archive 24 |
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 text has been suggested to be added to the article lede:
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections. [1] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." [2] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump." [3]
Reference list |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
The questions of the RFC are.
1. Should the lede of the article United States presidential election, 2016 mention 2016 United States election interference by Russia?
2. Should the article include the above text?
Casprings ( talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Regardless of any findings by the FBI, CIA & NI, there's no way to prove that enough voters were swayed to vote for Trump/Pence instead of Clinton/Kaine. GoodDay ( talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
change ((Russian)) to ((Russia))n
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.
This is based on the edit by user:JFG, [2] which was reverted by user:Volunteer Marek, [3] While the wording in the RFC originally had "accused", user:DrFleischman suggest the wording conclusion [4], which was agreed to by myself [5] with no editor raising a red flag. The basic issue was also discussed here in the talk page for Russian interference. Casprings ( talk) 19:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
(A) The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections. [1] [2] [3]
Versus
(B) The United States government's intelligence agencies concluded the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections. [4] [5] [6]
Reference list
|
---|
References
|
Note: Added RFC to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections article as it also relates to discussion ongonging there. Casprings ( talk) 12:09, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Note 2: Past debates involving the proposed wording have occurred at both Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and United_States_presidential_election,_2016. This RFC, being posted on both pages, is meant to provide consensus for both articles. On this issue, an admin user:coffee stated "As long as the RFC clearly informs editors that the results of the RFC will apply to both articles, I think this RFC is well within process. Transclusions don't necessarily happen like that, but it's certainly not going to effect the outcome of consensus to keep them" [6] However, the discussion is also ongoing here. Casprings ( talk) 20:37, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
"United States government intelligence agencies have stated the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."This is most accurate, since we know what the agencies have publicly revealed, either to media, or sources. The internal conclusions of intelligence agencies are often complex, contradictory, and public statements may convey exactly the opposite of what agencies internally conclude (as I noted above [7]). If that isn't possible, I would support Option A, being more accurate than B. - Darouet ( talk) 22:37, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment Formal request to close RFC here. Casprings ( talk) 23:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
"In recent months, the FBI and CIA have concluded that Russia intervened repeatedly in the 2016 election". Politrukki ( talk) 00:28, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
I think there's some issues with the mark up of this RfC and how it fits into this talk page. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:05, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would point out that some US intel agencies had not been so conclusive. It should be clear that this is the case. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:18, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I have calculated the proportion of Wasted votes at 80.20% or 109,949,984 votes that's all votes for any candidate other than Trump also excess votes for Trump (these count as wasted because they could have stayed home and the result have been the same) in every state he won and also all votes for Trump in Florida and Ohio as there were also excess electoral college votes. Theofficeprankster ( talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
In the table of results the total vote overall and for individual cantidates is wrong. These totals have clearly been calculated in Excel using =SUM. They count not only Nebraska and Maine at large, but then include in their calculations the 5 congressional districts of these two states, effectivly counting these states twice. I put it in Excel myself and used =sum, and got the same total on here. When I manually deleted Maine and Nebraska's districts from the table, leaving the at-large votes, there were different numbers. This means everything including total votes, turnout, victory margin, votes for each cantidate and any references to this on Wikipedia (and potentially everywhere if the media use this total) are incorrect.
This appears to be a extremely major error that could affect dozens of pages so this needs to be fixed ASAP
Bomberswarm2 ( talk) 10:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Pictures with angry Trump compared with smiling Hillary are the best demonstration of WP:NEUTRAL. Speakus ( talk) 19:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I mean the third Party candidates who received 1.% or more of the vote aren't even shown until after the nominations for the other two parties who received 0.% of the national vote (because they weren't even candidates in the final race). That has POV all over it. Endercase ( talk) 21:32, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
This whole paragraph about Russia hacking in the lead of the Election 2016 article needs another review, IMO. The government provided zero evidence that Russia influenced anything in this election. The intelligence report even had a disclaimer on it that they could not guarantee anything at all within the report; the report said, "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." This means they have ZERO evidence to back up their claims. The house intelligence committee said there is zero evidence and the DOJ refused to present their evidence to the house committee. All the sources in the paragraph (shown below) are from newspapers (like the NYT and WP) that are anti-trump. How is this Wikipedia quality content? There should be sources from all political sides to make it fair. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 ( talk) 17:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections.[4] A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency."[5] Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]
I'm calling them biased because they have an overt and acute anti-trump sentiment which makes them have a bias, in my opinion. I want to reopen the RfC because it fails to even mention that the homeland security report has no credible evidence from their stated disclaimer. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 ( talk) 21:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The United States government has accused.
The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity
I also suggest editing this statement: Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."[6]
Edit it to : Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.[6] However, The GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity report had a disclaimer, which stated: "The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) does not provide any warranties of any kind regarding any information contained within." [1] [2]
Okay, but there should be something added that points out that this report isn't credible by it's own admission. There are plenty of news sources that have discussed this point. It's only fair to point this out. 2602:306:396F:22D0:80ED:F0FE:C130:4AC9 ( talk) 22:44, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
References
In a joint analysis report published on December 29, 2016, several United States intelligence agencies assessed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump. On the same day, the Obama administration expelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washington and expanded sanctions to cover Russian individuals linked to the Russian secret services.
Short, accurate, and easily sourced. Opinions? — JFG talk 02:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
In a joint analysis report published on December 29, 2016, severalUnited States intelligence agencies assessed that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump.On the same day, tThe Obama administrationexpelled 35 Russian diplomats from Washingtonresponded with diplomat expulsions and expanded sanctions to coverRussianindividuals linked to the Russian secret services.
-- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:42, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Suggested rewording:
The United States Intelligence Community concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections with the goal of denigrating Hillary Clinton and supporting Donald Trump. [1] On the same day, the United States responded with diplomat expulsionsnand expanded sanctions to cover individuals linked to the Russian secret services.
Casprings ( talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
References
My suggestion. Casprings ( talk) 02:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add the following parameter to the infobox:
| opinion_polls = Opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016
. ∼∼∼∼
Eric0928
Talk
23:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
The vault 7 leak files reveal that the CIA developed tools that can hack a system and make it look like a foreign nation did it. Their entire dayabase of tools were leaked to private individuals. Anybody including the CIA or FBI could of made this hack appear from Russia in a politically motivated move. All the evidence is now extremely questionable. Bomberswarm2 ( talk) 15:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I have noticed that File:2016 presidential election, results by congressional district (popular vote margin).svg does not show the results for North Carolina's 3rd congressional district. Would someone please add its result to the map? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 22:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
In the section for swing states, the pre-election polling indicated that Clinton had a lead of 6 points in Minnesota: http://web.archive.org/web/20161107150211/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6138.html taken a day before the election. Please fix this if you have the privileges. Thank you BETTERmaid ( talk) 20:46, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
As I noted above, please do change the polling averages in Minnesota from 10 points in Clinton's favor to 6 points (source used in the article: http://web.archive.org/web/20161107150211/http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mn/minnesota_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6138.html). I don't know where that wrong information came from. BETTERmaid ( talk) 20:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC) BETTERmaid ( talk) 20:48, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the large hatnote template at the top to a small lock. MB298 ( talk) 01:30, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we make the page protection icon into the small padlock that appears in the corner instead, as to not interrupt the reading experience of a high traffic article? UNSC Luke 1021 ( talk) 19:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The Federal Election Commission just released the official vote tally for the election: http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf
Clinton: 65,853,516 - 48.18% Trump: 62,984,825 - 46.09%
Currently, we are using the results posted on David Leip's Election Atlas, which are useful until the official results come in. Could the page be edited so the official results are shown? -- yeah_93 ( talk) 13:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
There's a larger FEC election report that comes out in the summer that has much more thorough state by state breakdowns and has turnout metrics, I would wait to adjust until that data is released. I would be interested to know what Leip is including that the FEC is not.-- Travis McGeehan ( talk) 15:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
I think the difference between Dave Leip and the FEC report is that Leip has about 420,000 more write-in votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vincent Labine ( talk • contribs) 23:58, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Recently I added a citation of James Clapper's statement on Meet the Press declaring that the FBI, CIA and NSA had found no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, and SPECIFICO reverted this as UNDUE and SYNTH. Well, Clapper is certainly a respectable figure and he supervised the ODNI report about Russian interference. If he says that the three agencies didn't find evidence of collusion, who are we to dispute him? If he is not DUE, then who is? And there is no SYNTH, we are just paraphrasing his own words, check the transcript. — JFG talk 04:49, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
The third paragraph of this section contains somewhat opinionated language: examples include asserting that "rude remarks" were made about Trump by protesters and directly quoting Giuliani regarding the protests. Can we try to fix this by adopting more neutral terminology? Helmut von Moltke ( talk) 06:49, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Based on the total number of votes cast: 136,669,237 [10] and the total number of people eligible to vote: 227,019,486 [11] the voter turnout rate can be calculated to be 60.2%. -- Proud User ( talk) 02:09, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi Proud User. On Wikipedia, all US Presidential Elections page Voter Turnout data uses "Percentage of Voting Age Population casting a vote for President" as the standard, based on Census Data for the population totals. The primary source of truth is the FEC (they use the aforementioned methodology) - we're waiting for their final report which should come out in a few months. -- Happysomeone ( talk) 19:56, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Why Wikipedia is not using voting-eligible population (see: http://www.electproject.org/2016g)? In that case voter turnout is 59.2%. This is what a country is defining as a pool of voters through legal means a country has. Wikipedia should not be redefining meaning of who can vote at elections using some global standard. Each country defines their own version of democracy. Moreover, if this is how it is done for all elections then it should be written in info box. Moreover, we should probably provide also legal version of turnout so that readers can choose which one to use. Mitar ( talk) 23:07, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I propose the replacement of the repeated of the word "gender" with the word "sex" in the Demographic headings. "Gender" in the use in this article (and many others in Wikipedia) is informal, imprecise, and probably inaccurate. Prior to the 1990's, 'gender' formally referred only to grammatical pronouns, and not to actual people, other than in colloquial (i.e., incorrect but understood) use (please review any old dictionary pre-1990). A political movement has promoted the use of the word 'gender' (as a Wikipedia's own article on it explains) in place of the word 'sex', but only to supplant it with a different meaning, not to have it mean 'sex' in its current sense. Whatever that ultimate intended meaning may be, there is no agreed upon definition of what 'gender' actually means that is different from 'sex', other than its long-standing application to pronouns, or some new references to a 'cultural' definition where it is unclear how a 'cultural' male or female is different from a biological one. Either way, 'gender' is inappropriate here. Demographics today referring to male and female are still accounted for by sex, and not some other measure. To use 'gender' here, while an increasingly common misuse of the word (check out the NGRAM on the use of 'gender' from 1800 to 2016), is to imply that something other than sex determined the demographics, and that is false. If Wikipedia is to be a dispassionate reporter of what is, and not what some would like the truth to be, it should use 'sex' when referring to male and female, until the use of the term 'gender' is more appropriate for clear, objective, viewpoint-neutral purposes. I opted not to make any changes on my own until others have had a chance to consider this. MEastman ( talk) 04:28, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
It looks like this is the same team which leaked the Hilary Clinton and the Emmanuel Macron electronic mails. Might be added in the article... http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/politique/elections/macronleaks-des-milliers-d-emails-de-l-equipe-de-campagne-de-macron-pirates_1905721.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.67.188.213 ( talk) 07:56, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
I think we should put a section in on the Comey letter. This analysis is pretty good and lays it out well: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-comey-letter-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
In sum, I think there is some good evidence that the Comey letter is what tilted the election to Trump. Seems like an important fact to include. Casprings ( talk) 19:52, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Comey was just fired, which might merit a one sentence addition. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of articles where this issue should be addressed, and I'm not sure how to start. The issue is the widespread idea, reported in numerous RS, that the pre-election polls during the 2016 campaign were inaccurate, when in fact they weren't. The polls predicted that Clinton would get the most votes and win. Well, they were right, at least in part; she did get the most votes, but no polls could have predicted that this was one of those rare occasions where a popular vote win wouldn't translate into an electoral college win.
This article addresses the issue:
We should make an effort to fix/counter the mistaken impression, left by numerous RS, that the polls were wrong. They were not, and this source can be used to puncture that balloon. -- BullRangifer ( talk) 05:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
References
The current section title is "Russian interference concerns". I propose changing "concerns" to "allegations", since "concerns" seems to be subtly endorsing claims about Russian interference which are currently controversial. Thoughts? Augurar ( talk) 09:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
As mentioned in the article this section should be updated. As an European citizen I do not completely understand how American democracy works. I would at least exspect that the counted votes in an election are accurate. The sum of votes is not correct: In the list for US total wikipedia gives the count 136,669,237, but when I add the single states with Excel (Maine and Nebraska in mind) I come to 136,359,313. There are differences of some 100.000 votes for the candidates. Mysterious! And I can not find better figures in other sources. Strange. Armin D. A. ( talk) 16:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2016/11/10/lies-damn-lies-and-exit-polls/ 69.67.84.39 ( talk) 15:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I may be already autoconfirmed, Because of a red link image, i'll replace the red link image with the image from Donald Trump's page because the red link in question is Donald Trump's image. Gary "Roach" Sanderson ( talk) 19:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hello,
Could someone please consider adding extra "–" to indicate "no result available" to the rows missing them? A global replace of "||||" with "||–||" might do the trick.
This would help me and other data scrapers to extract data more quickly and easily.
An example is shown below in the "=== Results by state ===" section:
old:
| align=left|[[United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016|Alabama]] || WTA ||729,547||34.36%||–||1,318,255||62.08%||9||44,467||2.09%||–||9,391||0.44%||–||||||–|| 21,712 ||1.02%||–||588,708||27.72%||2,123,372||AL||Official<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Alabama: Canvass of Results|url=http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2016/general/2016-Official-General-Election-Results-Certified-2016-11-29.pdf|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
new:
| align=left|[[United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016|Alabama]] || WTA ||729,547||34.36%||–||1,318,255||62.08%||9||44,467||2.09%||–||9,391||0.44%||–||–||–||–|| 21,712 ||1.02%||–||588,708||27.72%||2,123,372||AL||Official<ref>{{cite web|title=State of Alabama: Canvass of Results|url=http://www.alabamavotes.gov/downloads/election/2016/general/2016-Official-General-Election-Results-Certified-2016-11-29.pdf|date=November 29, 2016|accessdate=December 1, 2016}}</ref>
Below is a list of rows in the results by state section that would benefit from the "||||" to "||–||" replacement, as a normal row should have 25 elements:
Thanks very much for your very valuable work!
Sincerely,
-Chris Krenn (democracygps) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Democracygps ( talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Ronald Reagan was 73 at his second inauguration. Should be edited to reflect Trump was the oldest at FIRST inauguration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.240.232 ( talk) 20:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Would like to add that Donald Trump became the first Republican to win a presidential election with at least 300 votes, since George H.W. Bush won over 400 in 1988. 2601:87:4101:A5E1:4D6D:8745:A1D5:C7B5 ( talk) 04:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template. I don't see this as important, but there might be regulars of this article that can contradict me.
jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (
talk)
05:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)(Redacted)
I have removed the suggested edit as there's copyright content copied from the following sources:
You are invited to participate in an RfC at Talk:List of United States presidential assassination attempts and plots#RfC: Presumptive nominee:
Just a note. I request that I be pinged if there is any RfC or other dispute resolution (not ordinary discussion) regarding how we address the Comey letter's role in the 2016 election. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:21, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
is O_o — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.85.149 ( talk) 09:13, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
"...60.2 percent of the voting-eligible population, cast a ballot in November’s elections, according to data compiled by the U.S. Elections Project. That compares with 58.6 percent of eligible voters who turned out in 2012, but it’s below the 62.2 percent who turned out to help elect Obama for the first time in 2008."
Wikipedia says 54.7%, 54.9%, 58.2% instead of 60.2%, 58.6%, 62.2%. Why is there a difference?
Durindaljb ( talk) 09:12, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Today I restored the campaign-time consensus portrait of Donald Trump, [12] but Jean-Jacques Georges reverted. [13] During the campaign and until a few weeks after the election, there was a stable consensus to use the 2015 picture of Trump. This consensus is documented in the talk page headers, for portraits of Trump, Clinton and Johnson. We shouldn't replace this campaign picture by an anachronistic presidency picture taken in 2017. Comments welcome. — JFG talk 14:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Seeing no further comments after two weeks, I restored the campaign-time portrait, per prior consensus documented in talk page header. — JFG talk 15:59, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
In the lede, the article quotes Trump as tweeting:
This tweet contains a grammatical error. A corrected version would be
Since the error was in the original tweet, could someone please mark it with "[sic]"? Thanks, 2601:240:C400:D60:DD44:2986:D3CB:D38F ( talk) 21:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
For a bit of quick evidence of relevance, the most viewed videos on Trump's Bush tape on Youtube have 2.2 million and 3 million views (from an independent uploader and Late Night with Seth Meyers), while the videos analyzing Hillary's health by independent uploader Dr. Ted Noel and Paul Joseph Watson have 4.6 and 5.9 million views collectively. TWICE as many. Which isn't even counting the footage of her being unconscious and carried at the 9/11 Memorial, which received multiple explanations from her campaign including the heat and pneumonia. Nonetheless, the words "health," "collapse," "faint," and "pneumonia," appear NOWHERE in this article. Not once. There's no mention of it then explanation of why it wasn't an issue. It *conceals* it, as though it *never even happened*. And I repeat, by objective numbers, this received *twice* the actual views from the public that Trump's Access Hollywood tape did. This is not currently an honest account of the issues surrounding the 2016 Election. At the very least, include both or neither. 173.2.64.195 ( talk) 12:03, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table "2016 Presidential vote by demographic subgroup" in this article, 24% of the jewish voted trump, and 5% other/don't know. According to the source attached (cnn exit polls http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president) 23% of the jewish people voted for trump, and 6% answered other/dont know. Yoavik ( talk) 13:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
This is not an objective, neutral statement of mere facts:
Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people who voted in the Trump states was over 75 million, whereas the number in Clinton states and DC was around 50.5 million.
Why are we now comparing number of states won? Why Is the total number of voters in aggregate a meaningful statistic? Why exactly aren't we interested in how many left handed voters voted for Trump? Who won the most states beginning with N or ending with an O? There's an infinite number of yardsticks you can invent out of whole cloth and use to make a point. It's not neutral. It's not a routine calculation. It's cherry picking and synthesis.
If the 30 vs 20 state metric is of any significance, then surely you can cite a quality source who says so, and tells us why this statistic is meaningful. Why do we analyze elections based on the 75 million who voted in the states of one candidate and the 50 million in the states won by the other? What does that mean? Tell us the name of the reputable analyst who said it, and tell us why they think it matters. If you can attribute this analysis to several different experts across a spectrum of media and points of view, then it carries significant weight. If you can't find anyone excpet highly partisan hacks in a small niche of the political punditocracy, that too speaks for itself. Cite it. Use in-text attribution.-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 05:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Let me say that I think it gets beyond the scope of an encyclopedia to get too deep into the pissing contest and woulda-coulda-shoulda excuses over election results. We should do our best to only discuss serious, reputable and grounded analysis of election results by statistical and political expert researchers. Off-the-cuff sophistry and rhetorical games played by pundits and partisans should mostly be ignored. If we wish to give any attention to the Trump camp's use of California to minimize Clinton winning the popular vote, combined with the unfounded Trump claim that this margin is attributable to voter fraud (which he then goes on to blame on Mexicans, because Trump), then we need to take a broader approach. Snopes.com has a good overview, and they trace the origins of the "take California out of the total" rhetoric. This is rough, but here is a draft of what we might include in this article:
Conservative and Republican leaning media have argued that Clinton's popular vote lead is due only to her large lead in California. Snopes.com said this began with "a conservative clickbait web site", The Federalist, on December 12, 2016, and was quickly picked up at Investors Business Daily [1] and Townhall, [2] spreading the argument "If you take California out of the total, Donald Trump won the popular vote by 1.4 million." Snopes said that this line of logic could be applied arbitrarily: removing New York and Massachusetts would have the same result as removing California, or to say that Trump's win "came entirely from Texas", since without it Trump would not have one. Snopes said picking and choosing one state or another to remove from the vote count "wouldn't undo the basic mathematical principle that a vote difference in one state can't sway the election results to or from a candidate who doesn't also have significant support from multiple other states." [3] Californians and others have taken offense at the appearance of conservative dismissal of the state on various occasions, as when Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ignited controversy and coined a catchphrase when he said in 2015, "California does not count" with regard to the public acceptance of same-sex marriage. [4] [5] [6]
References
- ^ http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/its-official-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
- ^ https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/12/17/without-california-trump-would-won-14-million-more-votes-than-clinton-n2261014
- ^ http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-win-came-entirely-from-california/
- ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/07/01/california-doesnt-count-as-part-of-west-column/29523957/
- ^ http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-scalia-doesn-t-heart-california-or-get-us-20150626-story.html
- ^ http://documents.latimes.com/supreme-court-rules-gay-marriage/#document/p74/a224855
-- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 18:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, we must be guided by sources. This stuff about discounting California for various reasons is out there, it gets a lot of attention, and it's treated as a valid topic of discussion. Which suggests maybe we shold try to cover it, if not in this article, then in one of the related ones, Presidential Advisory Commission on Election Integrity, Voter suppression in the United States, Illegal immigration to the United States, perhaps. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 20:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
I know mentioning it might hurt some feelings of editors that want to impose their POV....This is not useful. Objective3000 ( talk) 21:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, I agree that we must assume good faith and not snipe at others over their supposed motives. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 21:37, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
See also [15] [16] [17] [18]. Comment from WikiProject Elections requested. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:43, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Propose adding the following paragraph: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
On September 7, 2017, New Hampshire state House speaker Shawn Jasper announced that data showed that 6,540 people voted using out-of-state licenses. Of those, only 15% had received state licenses by August 2017. Of the remaining 5,526, only 3.3% had registered a motor vehicle in New Hampshire. In addition to the close vote for president, Democratic Senator Maggie Hassan defeated incumbent Republican Kelly Ayotte by 1,017 votes. In Feburary 2017, President Trump had told a gathering of senators at the White House that fraudulent out-of-state voting had cost him and Ayotte the election in New Hampshire. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.130.15.14 ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
References
It is entirely plausible that there are more than 6,000 out of state students residing in NH who voted with an out of state license, most of whom subsequently never registered a car (because they don't have a car, because they're students, obs) or failed to comply with the NH requirement to get a NH license within 60 days, because students are lazy. And probably haven't bothered to learn the finer points of New Hampshire driver's license bureaucracy (since they don't have car anyway), or if they do know, they don't care. For those unfamiliar with how this works in the USA, nobody goes and hangs out at the DMV unless they have no choice. It's considered one of the worst ways to waste hours of your time and do battle with stubborn bureaucrats. No college student would do this (even if they had the time) unless they really had to. No state is going to waste police resources trying to track down out of state residents who didn't update their license, so the rule is obviously not enforced. Quote: "It is likely that some unknown number of these individuals moved out of New Hampshire, it is possible that few may have never driven in New Hampshire or have ceased driving, however it is expected that an unknown number of the remainder continue to live and drive in New Hampshire," wrote Safety Commissioner John Barthelmes and Secretary of State Bill Gardner. [19]
The paranoid Trump/Pence/Scarbourgh interpretation that 6,000 illegal voters descended on New Hampshire is not impossible, but there are far simpler explanations that fit the facts and Jasper has failed to convince anyone outside the Washington Times that any voter fraud actually took place. What this amounts to is the same voter fraud allegations that Trump has been making all along and no law enforcement or Secretaries of State/Elections offices have found these allegations credible. -- Dennis Bratland ( talk) 22:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
We don't have to do OR. The Washington post has already debunked this. Given that, I think that even mentioning it on 4 different pages is UNDUE. It doesn't belong on this page, for instance. Homunq ( ࿓) 00:00, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
The columns in the election results by state table should be reordered to put Donald Trump first since he won. Previous elections put the winner first, even in the 2000 election when Bush lost the popular vote but won the electoral college. 70.94.36.72 ( talk) 21:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
According to the article, "On January 6, 2017, the United States government's intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government interfered in the 2016 United States elections."
This is not correct. Only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies signed off on the intel report (CIA, FBI, NSA, DNI) alleging Russia interfered (in some way), not all of them as implied in the article. The New York Times and the AP have both released corrections.
Sources:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/29/pageoneplus/corrections-june-29-2017.html?_r=0
https://apnews.com/6f05b3a81e134568902e015e666726f6 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.94.210.173 ( talk • contribs) 14:40, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Yesterday I added "Trump won 30 states to Clinton's 20 states and the District of Columbia. The number of people who voted in the Trump states was over 75 million, whereas the number in Clinton states and DC was around 50.5 million."
This was deleted by User:Dennis Bratland who commented that it was unsourced and irrelevant. I claim that we don't need a source for a fact that can be verified simply by counting or adding. I redid the edit, saying that it is relevant because it shows that the electoral college gave a result in which most voters (in fact 60% of them) live in states that were won by Trump. Dennis then reverted again, with the comment, "this is absoultuely origional research and POV pushing. You must use in-text attribution and a citation to a recognized expert."
Needless to say, I don't agree. I'm not pushing a point of view. I did not vote for Trump. (I did vote.) It's silly to call a simple counting of states "original research". Adding up 21 numbers and 30 other numbers is also not original research. I think my edit presents two interesting facts, and I don't see why we should deprive people (like me) who came to this article to know these numbers. I didn't find what I wanted, so I did the addtion and the counting, and added it.
Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 08:42, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
It's been over a year, so there's little attention to the 2016 election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.49.49 ( talk) 01:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
The image showing the swing between 2012 and 2016 should be changed, the image shows Utah moving towards the Democrats with a blue arrow, the arrow should be changed to a grey arrow, as the state moved towards McMullin not Clinton.
Bomberswarm2 ( talk) 05:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's the quote from the page I'm referring to:
"In a surprise victory, the Republican ticket of businessman Donald Trump and Indiana Governor Mike Pence defeated the Democratic ticket of former First Lady, U.S. Senator of New York and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. Senator from Virginia Tim Kaine"
I was just thinking that the in the top section, perhaps it should be more specific of Trump's past occupations. It lists 3 occupations for Clinton (FLOTUS, Senator, Secretary of State), which are all notable, but only one for Trump (Businessman). I feel like referring to Trump as businessman is like referring to Clinton simply as a politician: both candidates' descriptions could be condensed that way, but it seems a bit vague. I'd suggest replacing businessman with real estate developer and either reality television producer or reality television star, since these are the two jobs considered notable enough to put in the infobox on the Donald Trump page. Perhaps "businessman" was chosen because he's had a variety of different business endeavors and the two suggestions I brought up could both be considered business, but his stint on The Apprentice and in real estate seem to me to stand out as more notable than the rest.
-- pluma ♫ ♯ 03:47, 16 October 2017 (UTC)!!!
Some facts that are perhaps, or perhaps not, worth including
SecretName101 ( talk) 16:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a better picture for each candidiate? 174.26.14.64 ( talk) 21:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Would it be more appropriate to use in the Infobox a picture of Donald Trump before he became president of the United States?
Theprussian ( talk) 18:09, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
The picture of Donald Trump that is on the page now depicts him frowning and in an unfavorable light. The picture of him and Secretary Clinton are not equal. One portrays him in a negative light frowning while the other portrays Clinton smiling. Wikipedia should not even have the appearance of being biased, and it is guaranteed that I am not the only one that feels this way. Also, every other US recent presidential election has the official presidential photograph of the winner, so why is the precedent being changed so that some liberal editors can portray a bad photograph of Trump? Either depict a frowning photograph of Clinton next to the frowning photograph of Trump or portray both as smiling instead of only using a negative photograph of President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pillsberrydoo7 ( talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Can you please replace the photos of Trump and Pence from before becoming President and Vice President with the Official Portraits of them as President and Vice President? Please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:401:C503:63C6:4C94:A91F:77AE:D0E3 ( talk) 13:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree, the old Donald Trump portrait looks garbage compared to all others — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.121.90 ( talk) 16:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
I think we outta change the current portrait of Trump, as he's frowning while Clinton is smiling which is bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rik Spoutnik ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. The FEC published a " Federal Election 2012" report in July 2013 with the "official" turnout rate: Using the official tally of votes counted for highest office, divided by the total number of voting-age population in the United States. Back in March 2017, the FEC published the " Official 2016 Presidential General Election Results" with the tally of votes counted for highest office, 136,669,237, (which is used as numerator in the calculation to determine turnout rate) but didn't tabulate the turnout. In May 2017, the US Census Bureau published their estimate of what was used as the denominator in calculating the 2012 turnout: " U.S. Census Bureau Voting Age Population (Current Population Survey for November 2016)": 245,502,000.
My question is, if we already know the numerator & denominator for the turnout, why can't we publish 136,669,237÷245,502,000= 55.669297? (in other words, a turnout rate of 55.7%?) Thanks. Happysomeone ( talk) 21:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
DUH! The middle is the best people O_o. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.26.14.64 ( talk) 07:21, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Do we really need to have a lengthy discussion over this? Everyone complained about Trump's photo during the primaries. Now that there is an official photo, use it. The unofficial "official" photo was used with no problems until it got taken down, so why do we need to debate this? Common sense people! Sheesh! TL565 ( talk) 19:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)