Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums|class=c|importance=Low}}
{{American English}}
{{WikiProject United States|class=c|importance=low
{{Article history
|USGov=Yes|USGov-importance=NA
|currentstatus=FGAN
|USPE=yes|USPE-importance=Mid}}
|action1=AFD |action1date = 2 March 2006 |action1result = Deleted |action1link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2012
|action2=AFD |action2date = 14 January 2009 |action2result = No consensus |action2link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016
|action3=AFD |action3date = 3 February 2009 |action3result = Deleted |action3link = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2016 (2nd nomination)
|action4=GAN |action4date = 15 September 2020 |action4result= Not listed |action4link = /GA1 |action4oldid=972375046
{{collapse top|Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates}}
{{consensus|'''Order of candidates in the infobox:''' It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article '''United States presidential election, 2016''' that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox : order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election.
<center>'''Link to previous discussion: ]'''</center>}}
{{consensus|'''Infobox inclusion (pre-election):''' It has been agreed by consensus discussion in 2012 that presidential general election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox prior to the election: Candidates will be included in the infobox who can mathematically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access (appearing on the ballot) and/or write-in status (with pledged electors).
<center>'''Links to previous discussions:'''
{{plainlist|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]</center>}}}}
{{consensus|'''The following images have been discussed:'''{{multiple images
| image1= Hillary Clinton by Gage Skidmore 2.jpg | caption1='''Hillary Clinton ''(])'''''<br/>{{Done|Consensus}}
| image2= Donald Trump August 19, 2015 3 by 2.jpg | caption2='''Donald Trump ''(])'''''<br/>{{Done|Consensus}}
| image3= Gary Johnson June 2016.jpg | caption3='''Gary Johnson ''(])'''''<br/>{{Done|Consensus}}
|target=Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive index
|target=Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive index
|mask=Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive <#>
|mask=Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
}}
}}
== Russia Collusion Investigation statement is not NPV ==
== Another look at Juaquin James Malphurs (Waka Flocka Flame) ==
In the last paragraph (#6) of the first section: "but it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government." is not NPV and Politico is right leaning. The term "collusion" is nebulous and it was established that the Trump campaign in addition to the infamous "Wikileaks, if you have the emails" comment prompting the hack, that campaign shared internal polling and direct contacts with Russian state actors in addition to having members prosecuted (Flynn, accepting a pardon, accepts guilt). This is unprecedented in American history. To make a weak-tea statement about this is totally typical for this site, but if you want to actually follow your own rules, you will attempt to make a statement about the contacts with foreign state actors, the fact Mueller declined to make a prosecution recommendation leaving it to Barr and subsequently indicated pretty clearly he felt misrepresented by Barr's characterization, the unprecendented actions of Barr to mischaracterize the conclusions and his tantamount to purjury before Congress about it. Won't hold my breath. Wouldn't want to upset MAGA with reality now would we. All of this can be worded such that only the facts of what occured is presented, without giving commentary or leaning towards a conclusion. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Is there some point at which we can agree that a person may have ''said'' they were running for president, but they aren't really doing so? I'm thinking primarily of ] in regard to this, but I suspect ] falls into this category too. Neither one has filed a Statement of Candidacy with the FEC yet. --] ] 16:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
:Could we have the rule that they have to file with the FEC within 14 days of the announcement that they're running? It still gives them some time but it would eliminate candidates that are not really running. Of course, once they file (if they file), we would readd them at that time. Does that sound good? ] (]) 17:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
::No. That is completely arbitrary. The 14 days is based on nothing. Moreover, FEC filing is legally necessary only if a candidate plans to raise a specific amount of money. An announcement is all that is necessary as per past consensus. This requirement may be met by an FEC filing but that is not the only way.--] (]) 19:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I agree in part with PrairieKid and William. Federal law defines a "candidate" for president as someone seeking nomination or election as president who receives campaign contributions or makes campaign expenditures of $5,000 (or authorizes someone else to do so). A person must file with the FEC within 15 days after becoming a "candidate". (I remember that in 1996, ] avoided raising or spending $5,000 so he wouldn't have to file with the FEC. However, he actually got on the ballot in 21 or so states as the nominee of various state Green Parties and managed to get 0.7% of the national vote.) I guess the next question in my mind is: How do we know that someone who has announced a presidential campaign, but hasn't filed with the FEC, is really running for president or was just joking about their campaign? --] ] 04:47, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I think we can say that Malphurs isn't "really running for president"—he can't. — ] (]) 02:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::He endorsed Clinton here: http://national.suntimes.com/national-politics/7/72/994306/waka-flocka-flame-hillary-clinton ] (]) 14:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::He gone. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 18:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::::The Constitution prevents Waka Flocka Flame from serving as President until he's 35, but does it actually bar someone from running if they're not eligible? Of course if someone ineligible were to win that would cause a problem, but the person could still theoretically be a "candidate" even if ineligible. Unless the FEC stops the candidacy in its tracks. – ] (]) 18:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
== If equal standing in the navbox, why not equal standing in the article? ==
I had thought that Misplaced Pages's current coverage of the 2016 election (or at least as it was presented in the navbox) would set a new precedent for the inclusion of third parties, and thus I wanted to it in the least ''intrusive'' manner possible.
*The Green and Libertarian parties, no matter how little of a chance they have, at least get the opportunity to obtain the minimum 270 electoral votes.
*I didn't add every other Green or Libertarian candidate that was on , as they didn't have Misplaced Pages pages (save for the excluded Kent Mesplay redirect).
*I didn't embellish the Green and Libertarian parties' sections when I moved them, nor did I try to tone down the sections on the Democratic or Republican parties.
Do they thus not warrant some type of level inclusion? Are we going to completely reject the idea that exceptions to ] can happen? Doesn't it make such articles unnecessarily ]? ] (]) 23:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
:You had the right idea. We did something similar on the 2012 election page in the last election period. I've mostly restored your edits. One difference from your version is that third party candidates aren't given a gallery section. At the present time, only candidates included in 5 or more major polls get to be "gallerized". Based on precedent, I assume we will also place the nominees of parties with ballot access to the minimum 270 electoral votes in a gallery section as well (''nominees'', that is, not just candidates). Otherwise, I believe you had it right.--] (]) 18:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
== Should Trump be listed as potential independent candidate? ==
It seems to me that Donald Trump should be listed as a potential independent candidate in addition to being a republican candidate. Sources: , . He's clearly expressing interest in a possible "third-party run" if the republicans don't nominate him. He doesn't specify any particular third party, so I guess he'd be categorized as an independent until he specifies one (if that ever actually happens). Thoughts on this?--] (]) 22:34, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
:That's a tough question. I think we should agree that once a candidate has declared for one party, they can't really be considered for another unless they've made some serious inroads towards launching a run. That said, people like ] start out running for one and then end up in another occasionally so I will concede it is plausible Trump will do that. One other important thing to note is that several of the current candidates are considered by the media "potential" other candidates. Several sources say Rand Paul could run as a Libertarian or that Bernie Sanders could be an Independent--we can't consider them "potential" candidates or even "publicly expressed interest" simply because of an article or two, even if the candidate says something about it. Like I said, I see both sides here. Maybe now is a good time to remember that ]! ] (]) 23:29, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
::Given the fact that Trump himself has said it's a possibility, and the , I think there should be recognition of his potential independent run. How about if we list him in the independent candidates section as a potential "publicly expressed interest" candidate with a notation stating that while he is presently a declared Republican candidate, he has publicly expressed in an independent/third-party run in the event he fails to win the republican nomination?--] (]) 17:24, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I'm with Rollins on this. We have a notation for Waka Flaka Flame because of "special" circumstances (being ineligible), so I think it would be appropriate to do the same thing for Trump.--] (]) 21:58, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
:::I also agree with Rollins83's suggestion. Trump is clearly a potential independent candidate. Significant media coverage and speculation has been generated by his acknowledgment of the possibility of running independent (or 3rd party) if the R's don't nominate him. So I say put him on the independent list with the above-suggested notation.--] (]) 18:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
::::I agree with all the above in support of including Trump on the Independent "potential" list. Seeing that we have a consensus on this, I will go ahead and place him on this list with the notation that was suggested by rollins83.--] (]) 16:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2015 ==
{{edit semi-protected|United States presidential election, 2016|answered=y}}
<!-- Begin request -->
The Party of Socialism and Liberation has announced their presidential ticket.
Presidential nominee: Gloria La Riva
Vice-presidential nominee: Eugene Puryear
The Green Party has gotten on the ballot in Arkansas, while the Constitution Party has gotten on in Arkansas and most likely Alaska.
Also, the Prohibition Party is nominating in a few days, and there is only one ticket that has filed, so we can assume them as the nominee.
Presidential nominee: James Hedges
Vice-presidential nominee: Greg Seltzer
(Seltzer had previously challenged Hedges, but dropped out to become Hedges' VP)
Also, I think that instead of including candidates with just a Misplaced Pages page, it needs to include either:
Candidates on the ballot in at least one state OR
Candidates who have raised $200,000- The Green Papers considers anyone that raises $200,000 to be a "principal candidate".
Thanks to Ballot Access News for the stories.
Thanks to The Green Papers for the Prohibition Party info.
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 01:34, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:Please provide the link for the Party of Socialism and Liberalism declaring LaRiva and Puryear as their ticket. I have been unable to find it. The only thing I can find is the 2008 election- which was the same ticket.] (]) 01:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
::I have located the referenced story on Ballot Access News http://ballot-access.org/2015/07/24/party-for-socialism-and-liberation-announces-2016-presidential-ticket/. But I cannot confirm the statement about the Prohibition Party. I ask that the IP address please provide a link supporting the statement about the Prohibition Party ticket.--] (]) 07:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:] '''Note:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> This article is no longer Semi-Protected, so you can now edit the article yourself, but please ensure that any additions are properly sourced, to ] and you maintain a ] - ] (]) 15:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
== Esteban Oliverez ==
According to Esteban Oliverez is also a Republican candidate. ] (]) 20:10, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
:Not eligible for inclusion as he doesn't have a Misplaced Pages page. If he gains a page, then he will certainly be eligible.] (]) 20:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
== Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2015 ==
{{edit semi-protected|United States presidential election, 2016|answered=yes}}
<!-- Begin request -->
Kenn Gividen has stepped down as presidential nominee of the American freedom party. Bob Whitaker, who was the vice-presidential candidate, is now the AFP presidential nominee. Please change the article to reflect this. Here is the source:http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/kenn-gividen-steps-down-as-american-freedom-party-presidential-nominee-bob-whitaker-to-take-his-place-at-the-top-of-the-ticket/
<!-- End request -->
] (]) 18:57, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
{{Done}} I removed the AFP section altogether. The current nominee doesn't have his own article on Misplaced Pages, which is a requirement for inclusion (per consensus).--] (]) 15:49, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
== Third party candidates ==
I'm wondering why Marc Allan Feldman isn't listed under the Libertarian Party candidates. He has declared his candidacy and his official website is here: http://www.votesnotforsale.com/.
] (]) 16:58, 27 July 2015 (UTC)RyanPrz
:No Misplaced Pages page. If he gets a page he will be listed. Until then- he is not eligible to be listed. ] (]) 18:37, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
== Jim Gilmore's announcement ==
It is currently scheduled for Thursday. "Asked on "The Steve Malzberg Show" whether he is throwing his hat into the ring, Gilmore — president of Free Congress Foundation, a conservative think tank — said Tuesday: "We'll let you know on Thursday. At that point there's going to be an announcement that you'll probably be interested in, but the goal here is to do the right thing for the United States."" http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Jim-Gilmore-interested-presidential-race/2015/07/28/id/659352/
Suggest changing his portion under impending to reflect the 30 July date and not the old first week in August part. <small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Conventions ==
The Constitution Party will be having its 2016 Convention from April 13-16 in Salt Lake City, UT (http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/07/constitution-party-selects-city-and-dates-for-presidential-convention/). ] (]) 11:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
:I might be mistaken about this, but I think we only include the conventions of parties that have a mathematical possibility of getting the minimum electoral votes needed to win the election based on ballot access. At the present time, I don't think the CP has ballot access in enough states to meet the criteria.--] (]) 17:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
==Deleting presidential candidacy from lead paragraph==
FYI, there's currently about whether it's appropriate to delete from the ] lead paragraph that he is a presidential candidate.] (]) 05:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
== Fiorina Image ==
Why are we using an image of Fiorina that is a different shape and pose from all the others? Wouldn't ] be better to use?--] (]) 19:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
::Nope, the pertinent discussion is . Cheers.] (]) 20:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::What relevance does that have to this page?--] (]) 20:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
::::It explains why the cross-eyed picture that you've suggested is not optimal, and also discusses the various alternatives.] (]) 21:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::It does not look cross-eyed to me. But even if she is, why should this be hidden? From what I read, it just sounds like it's not your preferred image. However, in fact, it is far superior for this page than the current poorly shaped image with a microphone. --] (]) 21:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::Per , "Editors should avoid using images that readers would not have expected to see when navigating to the page.... should also be the type of image that is used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." An image that catches a subject in an unflattering pose is generally unexpected. Why do you prefer this image to all the others discussed at the article talk page? I'm not the only editor who considers this image to be cross-eyed.] (]) 21:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::You're really pushing it. That guideline is to prevent using images ]. The image I proposed is neutral. It's not cross-eyed, she's looking to the side. If you're going to be that nit-picky then why aren't you saying that the current image being used is cross-eyed? She's looking to the side in it too! Plus, the image is far too small when used in the gallery here for the reader to even see her looking to the side.--] (]) 22:02, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::::I don't object to an image that is looking to the side a bit. What I object to is the appearance of one eye looking in a different direction from the other eye's direction. Anyway, we could save a lot of time and energy if we just use here the lead images from the individual BLPs.] (]) 22:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::That's not a very long-sighted policy. Images on election pages should be contemporaneous with the election. Why aren't you objecting to Trump's image which seems to have the same issue you cite?--] (]) 22:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::Looks to me like the Trump image at this article is the same as the top image at the Trump BLP. And the image doesn't look cross-eyed to me. Both of his eyes seem to be looking at the same thing.] (]) 22:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::You're making me think this is a COI issue here.--] (]) 23:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::What do you mean? I have no connection to Fiorina or Trump (or any other campaign). You can look at the Fiorina talk page to see that others objected to the image you're suggesting.] (]) 23:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I'm sure many of her supporters frequent that talk page. You sure were quick to come in and try to prevent the better image from being inserted. Do you have a directive from the campaign to prevent insertion of the photo because Fiornia feels like she doesn't look good in it? That's the vibe you're giving off right now.--] (]) 23:54, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::I think I already said "I have no connection to Fiorina". If you think it's the kind of photo that she wouldn't like, perhaps that's a clue that it is not the kind of photo that is suitable for Misplaced Pages. Anyway, I won't comment further here, and others can chime in if they want.] (]) 01:19, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::That's complete nonsense. We don't have to cater to the vanity of subjects.--] (]) 04:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::Why do you think she would prefer the current image instead of the one you propose?] (]) 05:03, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::Because of your reaction to an obviously better image.--] (]) 05:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::Makes no sense to me.] (]) 05:15, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::So we agree. The better image should be inserted. --] (]) 05:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::::::::We agree that the better image should be used, but disagree about which image that is.] (]) 15:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::::::::::How can you defend an image that has a microphone protruding into the candidate's face?--] (]) 16:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
{{od}} Oy. The tiny microphone is what made the decision difficult at the Fiorina talk page, and it's why we need to be on the lookout for better images. Christie's pic includes a microphone but it doesn't get in the way of his face. The main point is that ''many'' images were considered at the Fiorina talk page, most of them without microphones in her face, and you are now endorsing the ''worst'' one.] (]) 17:41, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
:What is wrong with ]? --] (]) 17:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
::That's much better than the cross-eyed one. In fact, I uploaded and cropped it. However, another editor at the Fiorina talk page opined that it still looks "creepy". Life will be much more peaceful, and discussions will be less repetitive, if we just use here the top images in the candidate BLPs, while keeping an an eye out for better photos as they become available. We don't have to proceed that way, it just seems advisable. Cheers.] (]) 19:08, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
== Green Party convention ==
The Green Party has announced its 2016 national convention will be held in Houston in August of 2016:http://ballot-access.org/2015/08/02/green-party-will-probably-hold-presidential-convention-in-houston/.
Can someone please add this to the conventions section. I'd do it myself, but am not sure how to do the map formatting. Thanks.--] (]) 12:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I added the GP to the list, but I don't know how to do the map formatting either. Hopefully someone who does will take care of that shortly.--] (]) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
== Using Logos ==
Logos should not be used merely for decorative purposes. There is no reason to list them on this page or any other election page. I propose the logos be removed.--] (]) 17:38, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:So no logos on the campaign articles either? The logos represent each candidate, just as much as their portrait does. The reader goes out and sees Hillary's logo, Bush's logo, Kasich's logo, etc. and they affiliate it with the candidate. The Obama logo in 2008 is a perfect example. These logos don't meet the threshold of originality to qualify for copyright protection, and thus, they need not be limited solely to a single page (i.e. BMW logo). By including the logos, we allow the reader to connect the campaign with the candidate, and it allows for a uniformity among articles; plus, they illustrate the article just like any other article's images, otherwise, this and the other pages become dull lists. You really don't have any substantive rationale for their exclusion. '''] ]''' 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::This has nothing to do with campaign articles where they are used for identification and so qualify as fair use. They are being used on this page purely for decorative purposes.--] (]) 22:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
:::So are images used in any article. You buy a print encyclopedia, some have no images. We don't need to have any images at all. Rather, we place images for the purpose of educating the reader, of connecting the realm of the physical world with the factual described in an article. There is no need for a portrait gallery, since they're only decorative, right? The campaign logos are of encyclopedic value, because the image and branding of a campaign are as relevant and important to strategy and the course of a campaign as the things they say. Using this logic, an article discussing the ] shouldn't feature an FDR-Truman poster, which is only 'decorative', using your logic. '''] ]''' 22:11, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. These images are not free use. They are ].--] (]) 22:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
These campaign logos do not meet the threshold of originality, they are non-copyrightable items. (as below) '''] ]''' 23:57, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
{{PD-textlogo}}
:::::Anyone can post any tag on any page. That doesn't make it true.--] (]) 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::I am going to have to side with Spartan on this; I see no reason for the removal of the logos in question, that any decoration ''(provided it is within the spirit of the article and done within reason)'' is a bonus that draws interest to the article as a whole, and that the format as originally presented actually reinvigorated my interest in working here on Misplaced Pages. I'll admit it needs a few tweaks given the Republican section as presented was running off the page, but ultimately I find it an improvement over the old style that I myself used to use. --] (]) 18:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Let me be clear. Use of most of the logos on here is in violation of fair use. Period. They cannot be on this page or any other page not about the individual campaigns.--] (]) 18:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::The matter has been brought to the attention of the administrators on Commons. It will be resolved shortly.--] (]) 18:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::Alright. Reading the link on fair use you had provided I personally didn't see any conflicts arising as they remained associated with the individual campaigns, but inquiring as to the opinion of the Administration is the best course here. --] (]) 18:50, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
*Regardless of whether these are fair use or free content images, this "]" should be removed on grounds of both ] and ]. Without an adjacent matching text link, this type of user interface renders poorly for those users with disabilities who have to use ] or ] to access Misplaced Pages, not to mention those who may not have a mouse on their computer or have to primarily rely on . The similar "click logo for more" layouts on ] and ] should also be reverted for the same reasons. ] states that it "prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users... on the basis of... disability". Adding such an interface does put a barrier on them trying to access this material. ] (]) 06:07, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
==When did they get the circular photos with the nifty hovering info thingies?==
I never saw them before, cool! ] (]) 19:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
:By editing a rectangular photo into a circular template with transparent borders, they organize quite easily, and the hovercards have been around for awhile, but are seldom used. '''] ]''' 19:16, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
::They are seldom used because more often than not, they tend to violate ] and ], especially when trying to instruct users with ] and ]s to "hover here" despite the fact they may not have a mouse. Or a user with a disability trying to use a ], thus making "hover here" practically meaningless. And "hover here" is especially meaningless on , because the caption that becomes visible when you hover over the image is instead automatically printed below the image. Thus, it should be reverted. ] (]) 06:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::It's a useful feature for an article such as this one. It conserves white space and gives the page a cleaner layout. As long as it doesn't defeat the functionality of a screen reader, I don't see any accessibility problem. The single line of text ("Hover over images...") ain't hurtin' nobody. ] (]) 06:40, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::What about my first point about users with ] and ]s who may not have the ability to "hover here"? What about them? Are you going to address that? They are not "nobody" you know. ] (]) 06:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::See also ]: "Do not use techniques that require interaction to provide information, such as tooltips or any other "hover" text." How is that also not relevant? This is what we are instructing all users to do: using hover text essentially. ] (]) 06:54, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::So what about them? If we display to them a single, short line of text that informs them of a feature they cannot use... so what? How does it make sense to deprive 99.9999% of the readership, when the feature in question does no harm to the 0.0001%? That's retarded.
::::::CLICKHERE and NOSYMBOLS do not apply, because it is not necessary to click or hover to obtain information. It's all there in the text of the article, every bit of it, complete with Wikilinks. ] (]) 07:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::::Yes, a user does have to hover over the image to get the name of the person in the photo. The text in the rest of article does not provide the information as to which face in each image matches which candidate. Thus, CLICKHERE and NOSYMBOLS should apply in this case. ] (]) 07:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}
You seem to be assuming that the captions somehow just (POOF!) disappear if the user isn't viewing Misplaced Pages on a standard computer with a mouse attached. I don't think that's a reasonable assumption. You yourself have already shown us an example of what happens in a case like that--the page renders as it does in the print version, with the captions below the photo. At that point we are left with the sole issue of the text "Hover over each photo to view label detail", which is a non-issue if ever there was one. ] (]) 07:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:I am not a fan of the circles and "hover-over" feature. First of all, the circle images are ugly and uneven. Rectangular images look better and decrease the ugly white space between the circles. Second, mobile users make up a very large percentage of readers. This hover-over "feature" is a huge disservice to them. I would like to revert the page to its state before the uglification and before it was rendered inaccessible.--] (]) 18:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::Ugly is not an objective opinion. I have received various degrees of praise in email/thanks for these, so some people in fact like them. The fact is, the hover card gallery would not be an extant option in wikicode were it not intended to be used. Now, because the above table does provide detailed information on campaign, title, office, etc., perhaps mention of just their name is prudent, to cover the photo less. Also, looking at these on a mobile platform, you can touch the image and it will appear as a pop-up over the page and show the image. You can look at it and hit the 'x' in the top right corner to go back to the article behind the pop-up. It works quite well. '''] ]''' 19:06, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::I very much doubt you received phrase. In fact, based on my years of dealing with sockpuppetry on wikipedia, I'm pretty certain the person who started this thread is you.--] (]) 19:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::UPDATE: I've changed the captions of the Democrats to include only their last name, linked to bio. On a mobile platform, the hover space only cuts off a small slice of the image, thus making the face visible. A good improvement. Also, I have no sockpuppets, sir. Please don't personally attack me. '''] ]''' 19:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::It's not a personal attack. I'm just highlighting a very common way that unscrupulous editors try to make it seem their changes have more support than they actually do. When someone comes on here from nowhere and their first edit is to compliment a change to an article that just happened, that is very suspicious.--] (]) 19:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Right, and it has nothing to do with your going around reverting edits I've made with no reason? Or reporting my files for copyright violations ''both'' with lack of evidence, and without being so courteous as to notify me of this? '''] ]''' 19:20, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I am not aware of any requirement on Commons to notify a user. However, you were notified on this page.--] (]) 19:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:The "hover over" does violate ], so I removed it. Does it violate ]? I'm uncertain. – ] (]) 19:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::If I add alt fields to the images, I see no other violations. ] '''] ]''' 19:34, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
:::Personally, I like it. I am able to view it on my phone just fine by tapping it once, and I can double tap to click on the image. I honestly think it's an improvement, and should stay per ]. However it's just my opinion. ] ] | ] 19:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
::::To me, they clearly go against the tenets of ], ], and general principles of encyclopedic formatting. Overly gimmicky. --] (]) 21:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::If you think this looks bad, take a look at ], complete with logos, state outlines and other frivolous crap.--] (]) 21:19, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
==Economic and foreign policies of the candidates of ]==
I found to source which are useful to improve the candidates policies: and .--<font face="monospace">](]-])</font> 14:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
== Bernie Sanders ==
Could we add Sanders to Publicly expressed interest or Potential as a third party/independent candidate?] (]) 20:02, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
: Not done. Sanders himself ruled out a third party run. --] (]) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
== Zoltan Istvan ==
The article lists Istvan as "founder of a proposed Transhumanist Party", which is a contradiction in terms. If the party has only been proposed - i.e. not actually founded yet - then by definition it can't possibly have a "founder". I think this "title" should be removed unless he actually goes ahead and founds the party. ] (]) 13:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
== A Call for Consensus ==
=='''RfC''':Change Trump photo to one that was from 2015-2016, not after the election==
] has been experimenting with this page for the past couple of weeks, adding logos, circle images, and a complex template where a simple list would suffice. He also chooses to use some official photos, but not others. He claims these changes have consensus. However, I dispute this claim. I would like to see if there is consensus for his changes. Specifically:
{{Archive top|status=No consensus to replace|result=
*Should there be circle images rather than the rectangular images used throughout wikipedia? vs.
This appears to have been a healthy discussion. Proponents of the image replacement advanced that ] is from before Trump took office, and thus better represents his physical appearance on 20 Janauary 2017. Opponents of the image replacement noted concerns about the quality of the image, as well as consistency with other election articles. Referring to ], the MOS only requires that "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative ..."; ] adds that these images "should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Both images meet these criteria, though the official portrait does better reflect "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works".
*Should the complex template be used where a simple list would suffice? ()
:Without any clear policy instruction, selection thus defers to ], one tenet of which is that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." As an extrapolation of this tenet, consensus is ascertained not only based on the discussion here (wherein !votes are relatively similar in number), but also by community standards other words. Referring to the articles on the 2020, 2008, 2002, 1994, 1988, and 1980 presidential elections as of this time stamp, only one article (the ]) does not use the official portrait of the individual elected. There is thus an existing practice for the infoboxes for United States presidential elections to use official portraits, which implies a consensus. Based on this review, there does not appear to be a consensus to replace the image in the infobox.
*Should official images be used or images contemporaneous with the election?
:That being said, also proposed during this discussion was the first official portrait of Trump; no consensus has been reached on the feasibility of using this image. — ] (]) 20:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)}}
--] (]) 17:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I propose changing the Trump photo to this (File:Donald Trump 2016 cropped.jpg) from Wikicommons. The photo used at the moment is from 2017, which is after the election took place. Clinton's photo is from 2016. This would make it consistent. ''']<small> (])</small>''' 23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
::I have not been experimenting willy-nilly. I have made thought-out edits over a period of time, taking suggestion and improvement from editors and reached consensus on inclusion of various elements, what should and should not be included. Additionally, I have received thanks for these edits. You need consensus to remove my improvements. You don't remove and then ask to keep. It is established preference to include official portraits where they may be applicable and available. In cases where an official portrait is old, a new one of equal quality is included, i.e. Hillary Clinton. Simply because your photos are new, do not make them superior. Your Chafee, Sanders, and Webb are all inferior photos, and those subjects have not aged/changed their appearance significantly. The portraits used in the Republican section, in lieu of official ones (whose age is recent), are also inferior.
:'''Agree''' - I second this proposal. (Although I do think this version (attached) looks better.) ] changed JB's photo in the 2020 election to a photo from before the election, which I personally believe is better for chronological(?) purposes. I do think a broader discussion is needed for all U.S. presidential elections. ] (]) 00:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::*The table makes an efficient and effective organization of name, highest office/profession, campaign, and relevant links. The table is clean and simple. The list, in many ways, is less clean. Additionally, the table need not be shrunk as candidates drop out. By using a strikethrough for name, and using a grey color to fade the text, and replacing "campaign" with "dropped out: MMDDYY", the reader can see how the field has changed, while still including the basic information relevant to the overall campaign.
:'''Agree''': The photo should be from before the election, not after. It doesn't make sense to have the image be from after the election ] (]) 21:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
:'''Agree''' - the current photo is from nearly a year after the election. --] (]) (]) 13:31, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
::'''Agree''' - Consistency is key, Also, it Fits well with His 2016 Republican Primaries Image. ] (]) 20:03, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
:::'''Disagree:''' I also think consistency is key. And it is common place throughout all the other presidential election articles to use the presidential portrait if the candidate goes on to win the presidency. ] (]) 04:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
::::after checking, I can confirm that is not the case, there are multiple U.S Presidential Election Articles that do not use the presidential portrait. (If you want me to, I can get a list.) ] (]) 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sorry. I meant all the recent presidential elections (all the ones in my lifetime). Changing Trump’s photo would put this article out of step with the other articles of this century. Many users on the 2024 presidential election article have expressed a desire to use presidential portraits as the photo, so long as the portrait isn’t too outdated (i.e. 7 year difference). ] (]) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::No, not really. Neither the 2000 nor the 2008 election articles use the official Presidential portraits for george w. Bush or barack obama, but the 2004 and 2012 do, cuz by that time, they were presidents ] (]) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:::::::That's just false? Both those elections use official White House photographs taken after their elections. ] (]) 04:40, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah, I checked it again rn and it seems i was warong. I seem to have misinterpreted them. My bad ] (]) 12:30, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::::Even if that were true, being wrong is not something we should be looking to be consistent about. --] (]) (]) 12:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
:'''Agree''' - I think every election infobox should use a good photograph of the candidate that was taken before- or at least very close to the time of the election, and its anachronistic to use a photograph from 2017 to represent an election in 2016. ] (he/him • ]) 18:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
::it appears consensus has been reached ] (]) 05:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:::Ya, seems like it ] (]) 18:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
:Disagree, as all other presidents we should use his official portrait if he wins the election and it is closer to the election date. This discussion is discussed here https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Donald_Trump/Archive_38#Trump_Photo_2_Rfc if we are going change it needs be done through a RFC. ] (]) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:'''Agree''' for the reasons above. The proposed pic is more representative of him during the election cycle, and matches the age of the Hillary one. — ] (]) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:Why is it that his second official portrait is being used anyway? His first came out on inauguration day, following this election. https://petapixel.com/2017/01/21/president-trumps-official-portrait/ ] (]) 22:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
:I say that it doesn't matter at all. I see we keep the old one. The quality is bad on it (zoom in on it) and the background is unreal and it is weird to have. amicrophone in the picture. I say we chage ] (]) 00:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
::Also the Biden phtoto was taken after his election. I think this is stupid, it's not like he changed looks in the middle of the time of election day and photograph day ] (]) 00:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Disagree''' that image is of poorer quality (face pose, microphone, too zoomed-in) than the official photograph, and it's silly to pretend that a photo taken just one year later somehow doesn't get the job done. And if we're desperate to replace the image, why that one? There were exhaustive discussions prior to the election about which image to choose, and I don't believe that was the one that was landed on. Can we just leave these images alone? ] (]) 04:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Agree''' It seems like all previous election pages were like this, so it only makes sense that we use the image. ] (]) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''Disagree''' I Think it is far more professional to use the much higher quality portrait for whoever wins the election. This goes for every single president's page. And like Leikstjorinn said, They look basically exactly the same in 2017 vs 2016, so I don't think any real change is necessary. Almost every presidential election page has official portraits for first term winners, and I feel like changing almost every president's picture over a 1 year difference is not really necessary. I also think that using the official portrait helps to visually differentiate the winner vs the loser, and I feel like switching that out with random campaign photos makes the pages feel more dull. ] (]) 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
:'''I agree''': There is evidence that other previous US presidential election pages used photos before the official photos were available, so it makes sense to use a photo image taken before the 2016 US presidential election. In particular, the quality of the photo above is high, so using a photo is also persuasive. Since this content is in the form of an RfC, the title has been supplemented to RfC. I would like to ask for the opinions of users who are interested in this presidential election topic :::Hello. I'm sending a courtesy ping to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in this WP topic. {{ping|Super Goku V}} {{ping|GhulamIslam}} {{ping|Vrrajkum}} {{ping|Maximus}} {{ping|Geffery2210}} {{ping|jfhutson}} {{ping|InterDoesWiki}} {{ping|LawNerd123}} {{ping|Herostratus}} {{ping| Nojus R}} {{ping|Yeoutie}} {{ping|Calibrador}} {{ping|TDKR Chicago 101}} {{ping|GreatCaesarsGhost}} {{ping|Sthubertliege}} {{ping|Memevietnam98}} {{ping|WorldMappings}} {{ping|Qutlook}} {{ping|GoodDay}} {{ping|Dhantegge}} ] (]) 11:38, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
:*Replace with his '''''', which coincided with his January 2017 inauguration. This is consistent with using Obama's January 2009 portrait for the 2008 election and his December 2012 portrait for that election. ] (]) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
::* '''Comments''': I think it would be more appropriate to use the photo suggested above rather than the first official portrait. In ]'s case, I think it's because his first official photo looks better and fits him better than the previous photos. However, Donald Trump's first official photo has an awkward facial expression and doesn't look very friendly as an official photo. However, the photo suggested above is a suitable photo because it looks friendly enough to use and looks good. It would be better if he had a smiling expression, but e ] (]) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
::::I don't agree with using a Gage Skidmore candid, and not a particularly good one—blurry background and mic obscuring Trump's tie—when we have an official portrait released just 2 months after this election. See Prcc27's comments above about the consistency of using presidential portraits in election articles.
::::As for his 'friendliness', it's an official portrait approved by the Trump team, so that's obviously the look he wanted to convey. He actually has a slight smile—you can see the corners of his mouth are raised—he looks a lot friendlier than in his mug shot. ] (]) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Oppose''' changing photo. ], ] and ] use photos of Biden, Obama and Bush taken after they were elected, so I see no reason why this should be different. As a side note, why is discussion still open? It began in April and it's now September! ~~ ] (]) 13:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
*:The reason this discussion is stil open is it looked to end in Early August in a concensus to change the picture. But it gained traction afterwards, and became a Full RFC in September. ] (]) 15:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
*:Because this isn't an RfC under the procedure laid out at ]. It looks like Step 3 of ] was missed, so no one was notified. --] (]) 09:00, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
*'''Comments''': Thank for your feedback for '''history''' of this talk and become the Full RFC that makes sense. ] (]) 02:09, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
*::'''Agree''' Like 80% of people on here, I agree, photos/portraits should be taken approximately at the time the election occurred, and not many years after. Virtually every president ages considerably after just 4 years time, little lone, 8 years.
*:] (]) 11:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
*:This cannot be considered an RfC because it did not follow the requirements of an RfC. Still, maybe this can be closed with some consensus as a regular discussion. --] (]) 10:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
*::I can understand your feedback. You suggested that additional RFC requirements should address this issue but we can still come to an consensus. Hello {{ping|Super Goku V}} I appreciate your previous comment about the RFC. It's useful ] ] (]) 07:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*:::? No, I think? I am not suggesting any 'additional RFC requirements' as it is too late to turn this into a proper RfC. I am saying that as the proposal failed to follow the steps of an RfC as noted at WP:RFC. that it fails as one. However, there might still be merit in this being formally closed as a consensus might have been reached above over the last half year that could be applied. --] (]) 09:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
*::::What helped me was that you provided a link where the ] were clearly documented, which made the RfC process a bit more understandable. ] (]) 11:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
'''Comments'''
::*The circular photographs fit well into the text, they are of good resolution, they are clean, they are modern, much like the direction many internet sites take. A clean, modern, effective approach is something the average reader likely appreciats. The labels, including last-name-only, are good for desktop and mobile readers alike; labels appear when hovered over, as desktop users do, and the last-name-only label appears fixed on a mobile device, and thus, takes only a sliver of space. Both parties' logos are free-use, either below threshold of originality (DNC), or not copyrighted in a historical deadzone (RNC). These highlight the identity of the party.
Hello, Courtesy pings to those who participated in previous discussions or expressed interest in this discussion <s>RfC</s> or Talk.
::My greatest motivation here was efficiency, cleanliness, and aesthetic quality. Removing tables and using small, thumbnail images makes this article very bland. In fact, it is a long list, and while headings exist, is relatively unorganized. These improvements for major parties break up the monotonous list which the article would otherwise be, placing information in a logical, unbiased, clean, and efficient organization. These are my reasons, my motives, and I hope you support them - they need not be absolute, tweaks can be made, but basic structure is sound. '''] ]''' 18:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|CNC33}} {{ping|Longestview}} {{ping|EarthDude}} {{ping|Khajidha}} {{ping|InterDoesWiki}} {{ping|Prcc27}} {{ping|Nojus R}} {{ping|HadesTTW}} {{ping|Purpetic}} {{ping|:Shadow4dark}} {{ping|Amakuru}} lam}} {{ping|Leikstjórinn}} {{ping|Eehuiio}} {{ping|Nousername46000}} {{ping|Super Goku V}} {{ping|Jessintime}} {{ping|68.189.2.14}} * Total Users with 17 usernames and the user with one IP Address.
:::Actually, the changes make editing and viewing the page more difficult. The table splits the candidate name, campaign page, office, and references and makes it more difficult to edit and follow. As for the circle images, the circles are not used anywhere else on Misplaced Pages and do not look neat on the page (on my browser I don't know how it looks to you). On a mobile device, the caption covers up half the image. If circles are to be used then every time someone wants to add a new photo it has to be made into a circle. That adds an unnecessary step that makes editing this page more difficult. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an experiment in design.--] (]) 18:57, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
:{{ping|William S. Saturn}} shouldn't this be formatted as a ]? That way it would attract a wider audience and generate a more formal consensus. ~ '']''<sup>(]|])</sup><small>]</small> 18:58, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
::I'd like to first try to get consensus from the regular editors of this page.--] (]) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Now, I would like to receive other users opinions on the proposal to ], which has been ongoing for nearly 6 months, by summarizing the agreement. I would like to ping the relevant users.
:I've taken the liberty of restoring a sane version of the article. Both "Candidates featured in major polls" sections are god-awful, the circles are gimmicky and completely disconnected from the table entries for the pictured candidate. ] (]) 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
1) Previously, when pinging other talk pages, there were cases where the ping was not delivered due to typos or the user-names of the participating users were missing.
::God-awful is not a rationale to undo changes which have persisted for awhile, and which discussion has established basis for improvements. ] applies. Why not reach consensus. '''] ]''' 23:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
2) This time, I checked the names of each user more carefully.
:::A week is not a while.--] (]) 23:47, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
However, if there are typos or missing users, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
::::It was sufficient time for discussion to rebuild the table, change captions, meet Misplaced Pages rules, change sizing, to refine and alter my original BOLD edit. Thus, ] doesn't apply. '''] ]''' 23:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
3) A user with knowledge of ] advised that this RfC does not meet the necessary conditions and therefore cannot be an full RfC.] However, I would like to ask for your opinions on the proposal to officially close it by summarizing and synthesizing the opinions of users over the past 6 months and recording the agreements.
It is said that users who did not participate in this RfC can summarize and close the RfC.
I understand that all users who participated in the RfC can also give their opinions in the RfC closing summary. ] (]) 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:This isn’t a real RfC. ] (]) 16:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:Goodtiming8871. I don't believe you need my opinion on this again when I gave it to you yesterday above this sub-section. If it helps somehow, then I will redo my opinions briefly: You have a mistake in your courtesy pings; This is not a RfC, but a discussion; Despite that, you might be able to still have this closed if a consensus appears to have formed. --] (]) 20:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
:: Hello, Thank you for your feedback, I updated my comment above for clarification. I would like to have a consensus for a discussion. Since this is not an RFc, can someone summarize and synthesize the comments?] (]) 06:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
:::I think you have misunderstood my comment, so let me expand and continue. I mentioned earlier that you might still be able to have this closed if a consensus appears to have formed. Based on your comments, it seems that you believe a consensus formed. Thus, I will specifically mention ]. As stated at WP:CR: {{tpq|Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines).}} Follow the steps listed next to the third billiard ball and wait either for a formal close or for a response at WP:CR. --] (]) 07:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
::::I see now that there's Misplaced Pages closure requests. It was unclear because some previous talk were closed without asking via Misplaced Pages closure request. ] (]) 05:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::Talk page discussions get closed for a multitude of reasons with some of them being a close following a discussion to determine consensus. --] (]) 06:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
::::::I understand that there could be several background. I requested it to the Misplaced Pages closure requests. Link: ] ] (]) 03:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
{{Archive bottom}}
== Victorious candidate did not lose home state in 1968 ==
I ,honestly, am not sure I like either of these. The list tends to be harder to read and appears to be more of a jumble of words sometimes, and the circles aren't connected to the person they represent so someone looking at it for the first time isn't always going to be able to tell which candidate is which. To me, the list of candidates should do the following:
1968 Nixon won California ] (]) 17:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
-Show what the candidate is known for (IE Ted Cruz has been the Senator from Texas since 2013)
:{{MoreInfo}} What does that have to do with this article? ] (]) 19:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
-Show where the candidate is from (IE Carly Fiorina is from Virginia)
::{{Reply|Peaceray}} I assume it is this line in the article: {{tpq|By losing New York, Trump became the fourth and most recent victorious candidate to lose his home state, which also occurred in 1844, 1916, and 1968.}} Some people consider California to be his home state, but the ] article lists New York primarily due to the Congressional Record and other sources from the time.
::@2A02: {{not done}} applies here for the above. --] (]) 10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
== Sanders-Trump voters ==
-Provide a link to the candidate's campaign page
"Trump's surprise victories were perceived to have been assisted by the influence of Sanders–Trump voters who refused to back her after Bernie Sanders dropped out"
-Provide a picture of the candidate
Why is this notable? The number is in line with similar proportions from other elections, if anything it might be slightly lower than usual.
These are the simplest things we could do. And they've already been done (with a few additions) on the individual party pages. You can sort the candidates, see certain information about them, and are provided links to their campaign pages. That is the perfect compromise I think. In all honesty, the circle VS square picture debate isn't that major. I, personally, think the pictures are better as circles and not squares. It focuses more on the specified person and less on the background.
The linked page cites estimates of 6-12% of Sanders supporters voting for Trump. In 2008, about 15% of Democrats who supported Clinton the primary switched to vote for McCain in the general election.
This is just my two cents on this issue. I think this would be a good compromise- but what do you guys think? ] (]) 00:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
There is also a wiki page for ] which made up 11-15% of Trump's vote share, but that page is not even linked to on this one, even though there are far more Obama-Trump voters than Sanders-Trump voters. ] (]) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
== 538 predictions instead of RCP in "Predictions" table? ==
Personally, if I may include my two cents, I liked the table of the circle version but disliked the photos of the circle version. I felt like the circle version information was well put together and easier to read than the block of text that is currently used. However, the circle photos were confusing and disjointed from the rest of the information. Perhaps a compromise is in order? Use the table from the circle version but the rectangular photos? --] (]) 01:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::{{ping|Stabila711}} See RfC below please! '''] ]''' 01:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Ah my bad, that's what I get for not reading the whole page first. Thanks. --] (]) 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::Note there is an option of which you described, option C '''] ]''' 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
RCP's average includes all available polls without weighing based on historical accuracy. This means outlier pollsters like Rasmussen weight the same as more historically reliable sources (sometimes weighed even heavier because tracking polls release weekly, even daily). Using RCP's predictions also understates just how shocking Trump's over-performance was. RCP's final predictions were more bullish on Trump than everyone else in the mainstream because they included the few pollsters who gave DJT more than a puncher's chance. ] (]) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
== ''Request for Comment'' Remodeling of major party candidate areas ==
== Possible addition of Margin Swing from the 2012 Election ==
{{rfc|pol|rfcid=2D7D8BB}}
'''A new format for the organization and display of major party candidates has been introduced. (You may click the links below to view each proposed.) ''Which do you prefer?''''' 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I wanted to propose the idea of incorporating a margin swing analysis, similar to the one shown in the table of results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election on Misplaced Pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Results).
{| class="wikitable floatleft"
In my view, margin swings offer valuable insights into how states allocate their electoral votes over time. As you're likely aware, swing states play a crucial role in every election cycle, and tracking these swings helps highlight how states shift politically, both in and out of "swing state" territory.
|-
| '''A''' - ]|| '''B''' - ]|| '''C''' - ]
|-
|-
|}
{{-}}
===RFC Survey===
*'''V:Option A'''
Moreover, given the significant shifts in states that weren't traditionally considered swing states before the election, visualizing these margin swings would provide a clearer understanding of how the final vote count evolved. ] (]) 20:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
::*The table makes an efficient and effective organization of name, highest office/profession, campaign, and relevant links. The table is clean and simple. The list, in many ways, is less clean. Additionally, the table need not be shrunk as candidates drop out. By using a strikethrough for name, and using a grey color to fade the text, and replacing "campaign" with "dropped out: MMDDYY", the reader can see how the field has changed, while still including the basic information relevant to the overall campaign.
== October surprise Comey ==
::*The circular photographs fit well into the text, they are of good resolution, they are clean, they are modern, much like the direction many internet sites take. A clean, modern, effective approach is something the average reader likely appreciats. The labels, including last-name-only, are good for desktop and mobile readers alike; labels appear when hovered over, as desktop users do, and the last-name-only label appears fixed on a mobile device, and thus, takes only a sliver of space. Both parties' logos are free-use, either below threshold of originality (DNC), or not copyrighted in a historical deadzone (RNC). These highlight the identity of the party.
Why the comey letter which halved her lead immediately and was the first on voters minds not mentioned? ] (]) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
:::My greatest motivation here was efficiency, cleanliness, and aesthetic quality. Removing tables and using small, thumbnail images makes this article very bland. In fact, it is a long list, and while headings exist, is relatively unorganized. These improvements for major parties break up the monotonous list which the article would otherwise be, placing information in a logical, unbiased, clean, and efficient organization. These are my reasons, my motives, and I hope you support them - they need not be absolute, tweaks can be made, but basic structure is sound. '''] ]''' 00:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
== " because of seven faithless electors" ==
* '''Proposed combination of the two'''
: I like the table in the proposed section and the image format on the original. Is there a way to combine both. Such as add the images from the original and add them to the table from the proposed. Such as look at the Simple English Misplaced Pages; I like how the images are there, but the background info about each candidate should be in table format. Plus a suggestion; can we change Rand Paul, "The American dream is dead" Donald "You won't see another black president for generations" Trump, Chris Christie and John Kasich images to the ones from Simple English? As I said I like both and if we combine both it'd be great. --] (]) 00:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::Simple English uses the same organization as the original. The only difference is that it lists the full name and profession of the candidates. I favor that as well.--] (]) 00:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:::As do I. Can I add those images in the table created by Saturn and see how it goes?--] (]) 00:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::::I will not comment on this RfC because of ]. ] (]) 00:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::Yes the Christie and Paul images Simple English uses are good, but I do not favor the image of "The American dream is dead" Donald "You won't see another black president for generations" Trump they use because it is from 2011. The images should be contemporaneous with this election.--] (]) 00:21, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Age of a photo is not as important as its quality and representative nature. Jeb Bush's appearance has changed since 2011, whereas Ted Cruz is very near. That is the important factor. If an official portrait looks like the person today, then no change should be done. Official portraits are of highest quality. '''] ]''' 00:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
This statement is evidence that people who post articles on Wiki (and possibly Wiki itself) is not true journalism nor simple facts. "Faithless" is an opinion of the writer. A true journalist does not display his/her biases. They present the facts as they are. Obvious bias does not belong in a page or article comprised of what should be simple facts. It should be removed. ] (]) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
''Addition: I have just added the combined option '''] ]''' 00:47, 13 August 2015 (UTC)''
:It's the actual term. See our article on it: ]. You see how those words "faithless electors" is in blue? That's called a ]. Please educate yourself on the matter before going off half-cocked. (That's an actual term too.) – ] (]) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
* '''Comment''' That I may comment, the way the Saturn has edited this page following Tarc's revision of my proposed has made it such that a table is even more logical, with all this free info floting under small thumbnails. '''] ]''' 00:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::No.AllIdidwasaddcaptionsto the gallery. Thereisnoneedforatable.--] (]) 00:52, 13August2015 (UTC)
:] is the commonly used term for an elector who casts a vote for candidate other than the one they are pledged to. See ]. ] (]) 21:54, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
:::Captions exist within the bounds of a thumbnail. Those are external text areas, which, I might add, are redundant to the above list. Tell me, why not have a table? They organize information. '''] ]''' 00:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::::Because we don't need you to do any more style experiments on this page. A list and gallery is how it is best organized for easier editing and flow.--] (]) 00:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:::::The table separates everything and makes it hard to edit.--] (]) 01:02, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::Tables organize. Your 'captions' feature the exact information, minus campaign link, as the line-item list. Thus, they are redundant. A table organized information per candidate. You can see name (or name+pic), office, campaign link, and references in one location. The name is made a darker background to emphasize seperation between sections. Having everything loose and unbound isn't organized. A table is '''not''' a style experiment. And as for style changes, what is wrong? Misplaced Pages is completely different from 2004. '''] ]''' 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::::::::As I already explained to you, the table separates the references and other information from the actual candidates. That is what the list is for. The gallery is merely there to supplement the list. A table makes it difficult to make changes to update the page as needed. Why are you sacrificing usability for gimmicky style experimentation? This is an encyclopedia not your personal sandbox.--] (]) 01:24, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
{{od}}Your rationale is an indictment of every table. We should eliminate every table, every infobox from pages. Those are gimmicky. A table is not a gimmick. Tables collate and organize information. Lists become cluttered, especially with ''17'' candidates being listed. Your 'gallery' still features redundant information which your list includes. Mere opposition to change is not a substantive rationale against a table, or anything else. '''] ]''' 01:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:As I mentioned previously, I personally prefer the combined option. I do feel like the table is the best way to display the information for the candidates, especially since there are so many of them. The table format allows a person to quickly pick out the candidate they want and look at the information associated with them. The list format does not do that. Also, including the picture with the information (instead of down below) is a better option as it was disjointed before. For ease of use, I say the combined option is the best. As for the rectangular vs. circular photos, either or is fine in my opinion. --] (]) 01:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
::I vote for Option C and the combined approach. Had a whole rational written out but it got eaten by an edit conflict and I don't have the time to try and recreate it from memory. Suffice to say, I find the tables far more desirable than the original system of a list and gallery, and I have actively worked to combine the two in the past with mixed results. Option C takes that idea to its conclusion. At the same time, beyond the initial setup given you can't have more than six or seven candidates per row before it runs off the page ''(a problem that extends to galleries as well)'', I don't see any additional difficulties in editing when compared to what was present before. --] (]) 01:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
:I don't really know how to comment here or where exactly to give my input but whoever redesigned it needs to be given an award or something because the way it was before (Option A) is one of the best designs I have ever seen on any Misplaced Pages article. Very clean and very easy to navigate. The current revision looks dull and cluttered. ] (]) 01:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard.
Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense.
If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
2016 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States Presidents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of United States Presidents on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United States PresidentsWikipedia:WikiProject United States PresidentsTemplate:WikiProject United States PresidentsUnited States Presidents
This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates
Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox : order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election.
Infobox inclusion (pre-election): It has been agreed by consensus discussion in 2012 that presidential general election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox prior to the election: Candidates will be included in the infobox who can mathematically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access (appearing on the ballot) and/or write-in status (with pledged electors).
Russia Collusion Investigation statement is not NPV
In the last paragraph (#6) of the first section: "but it "did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with the Russian government." is not NPV and Politico is right leaning. The term "collusion" is nebulous and it was established that the Trump campaign in addition to the infamous "Wikileaks, if you have the emails" comment prompting the hack, that campaign shared internal polling and direct contacts with Russian state actors in addition to having members prosecuted (Flynn, accepting a pardon, accepts guilt). This is unprecedented in American history. To make a weak-tea statement about this is totally typical for this site, but if you want to actually follow your own rules, you will attempt to make a statement about the contacts with foreign state actors, the fact Mueller declined to make a prosecution recommendation leaving it to Barr and subsequently indicated pretty clearly he felt misrepresented by Barr's characterization, the unprecendented actions of Barr to mischaracterize the conclusions and his tantamount to purjury before Congress about it. Won't hold my breath. Wouldn't want to upset MAGA with reality now would we. All of this can be worded such that only the facts of what occured is presented, without giving commentary or leaning towards a conclusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.186.180.170 (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
RfC:Change Trump photo to one that was from 2015-2016, not after the election
NO CONSENSUS TO REPLACE
This appears to have been a healthy discussion. Proponents of the image replacement advanced that File:Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_10_(cropped).jpg is from before Trump took office, and thus better represents his physical appearance on 20 Janauary 2017. Opponents of the image replacement noted concerns about the quality of the image, as well as consistency with other election articles. Referring to MOS:LEADORDER, the MOS only requires that "the image used should be relevant and technically well-produced. It is also common for the lead image to be representative ..."; MOS:IMAGELEAD adds that these images "should not only illustrate the topic specifically, but also be the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works, and therefore what our readers will expect to see." Both images meet these criteria, though the official portrait does better reflect "the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works".
Without any clear policy instruction, selection thus defers to consensus, one tenet of which is that "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." As an extrapolation of this tenet, consensus is ascertained not only based on the discussion here (wherein !votes are relatively similar in number), but also by community standards other words. Referring to the articles on the 2020, 2008, 2002, 1994, 1988, and 1980 presidential elections as of this time stamp, only one article (the 1988 United States presidential election) does not use the official portrait of the individual elected. There is thus an existing practice for the infoboxes for United States presidential elections to use official portraits, which implies a consensus. Based on this review, there does not appear to be a consensus to replace the image in the infobox.
That being said, also proposed during this discussion was the first official portrait of Trump; no consensus has been reached on the feasibility of using this image. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:37, 9 October 2024 (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 propose changing the Trump photo to this (File:Donald Trump 2016 cropped.jpg) from Wikicommons. The photo used at the moment is from 2017, which is after the election took place. Clinton's photo is from 2016. This would make it consistent. CNC33 (. . .talk)23:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree - I second this proposal. (Although I do think this version (attached) looks better.) A recent edit changed JB's photo in the 2020 election to a photo from before the election, which I personally believe is better for chronological(?) purposes. I do think a broader discussion is needed for all U.S. presidential elections. Longestview (talk) 00:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree: The photo should be from before the election, not after. It doesn't make sense to have the image be from after the election EarthDude (talk) 21:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Disagree: I also think consistency is key. And it is common place throughout all the other presidential election articles to use the presidential portrait if the candidate goes on to win the presidency. Prcc27 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
after checking, I can confirm that is not the case, there are multiple U.S Presidential Election Articles that do not use the presidential portrait. (If you want me to, I can get a list.) InterDoesWiki (talk) 18:52, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Sorry. I meant all the recent presidential elections (all the ones in my lifetime). Changing Trump’s photo would put this article out of step with the other articles of this century. Many users on the 2024 presidential election article have expressed a desire to use presidential portraits as the photo, so long as the portrait isn’t too outdated (i.e. 7 year difference). Prcc27 (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
No, not really. Neither the 2000 nor the 2008 election articles use the official Presidential portraits for george w. Bush or barack obama, but the 2004 and 2012 do, cuz by that time, they were presidents EarthDude (talk) 18:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree - I think every election infobox should use a good photograph of the candidate that was taken before- or at least very close to the time of the election, and its anachronistic to use a photograph from 2017 to represent an election in 2016. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:51, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree for the reasons above. The proposed pic is more representative of him during the election cycle, and matches the age of the Hillary one. — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I say that it doesn't matter at all. I see we keep the old one. The quality is bad on it (zoom in on it) and the background is unreal and it is weird to have. amicrophone in the picture. I say we chage Leikstjórinn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Also the Biden phtoto was taken after his election. I think this is stupid, it's not like he changed looks in the middle of the time of election day and photograph day Leikstjórinn (talk) 00:21, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Disagree that image is of poorer quality (face pose, microphone, too zoomed-in) than the official photograph, and it's silly to pretend that a photo taken just one year later somehow doesn't get the job done. And if we're desperate to replace the image, why that one? There were exhaustive discussions prior to the election about which image to choose, and I don't believe that was the one that was landed on. Can we just leave these images alone? Nojus R (talk) 04:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree It seems like all previous election pages were like this, so it only makes sense that we use the image. Eehuiio (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Disagree I Think it is far more professional to use the much higher quality portrait for whoever wins the election. This goes for every single president's page. And like Leikstjorinn said, They look basically exactly the same in 2017 vs 2016, so I don't think any real change is necessary. Almost every presidential election page has official portraits for first term winners, and I feel like changing almost every president's picture over a 1 year difference is not really necessary. I also think that using the official portrait helps to visually differentiate the winner vs the loser, and I feel like switching that out with random campaign photos makes the pages feel more dull. Nousername46000 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Replace with his first official portrait, which coincided with his January 2017 inauguration. This is consistent with using Obama's January 2009 portrait for the 2008 election and his December 2012 portrait for that election. GhulamIslam (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
Comments: I think it would be more appropriate to use the photo suggested above rather than the first official portrait. In Obama's case, I think it's because his first official photo looks better and fits him better than the previous photos. However, Donald Trump's first official photo has an awkward facial expression and doesn't look very friendly as an official photo. However, the photo suggested above is a suitable photo because it looks friendly enough to use and looks good. It would be better if he had a smiling expression, but e Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with using a Gage Skidmore candid, and not a particularly good one—blurry background and mic obscuring Trump's tie—when we have an official portrait released just 2 months after this election. See Prcc27's comments above about the consistency of using presidential portraits in election articles.
As for his 'friendliness', it's an official portrait approved by the Trump team, so that's obviously the look he wanted to convey. He actually has a slight smile—you can see the corners of his mouth are raised—he looks a lot friendlier than in his mug shot. GhulamIslam (talk) 17:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The reason this discussion is stil open is it looked to end in Early August in a concensus to change the picture. But it gained traction afterwards, and became a Full RFC in September. InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Agree Like 80% of people on here, I agree, photos/portraits should be taken approximately at the time the election occurred, and not many years after. Virtually every president ages considerably after just 4 years time, little lone, 8 years.
This cannot be considered an RfC because it did not follow the requirements of an RfC. Still, maybe this can be closed with some consensus as a regular discussion. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
? No, I think? I am not suggesting any 'additional RFC requirements' as it is too late to turn this into a proper RfC. I am saying that as the proposal failed to follow the steps of an RfC as noted at WP:RFC. that it fails as one. However, there might still be merit in this being formally closed as a consensus might have been reached above over the last half year that could be applied. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Now, I would like to receive other users opinions on the proposal to officially close this discussion RfC, which has been ongoing for nearly 6 months, by summarizing the agreement. I would like to ping the relevant users.
1) Previously, when pinging other talk pages, there were cases where the ping was not delivered due to typos or the user-names of the participating users were missing.
2) This time, I checked the names of each user more carefully.
However, if there are typos or missing users, I would appreciate it if you could let me know.
3) A user with knowledge of advised that this RfC does not meet the necessary conditions and therefore cannot be an full RfC.] However, I would like to ask for your opinions on the proposal to officially close it by summarizing and synthesizing the opinions of users over the past 6 months and recording the agreements.
It is said that users who did not participate in this RfC can summarize and close the RfC.
I understand that all users who participated in the RfC can also give their opinions in the RfC closing summary. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Goodtiming8871. I don't believe you need my opinion on this again when I gave it to you yesterday above this sub-section. If it helps somehow, then I will redo my opinions briefly: You have a mistake in your courtesy pings; This is not a RfC, but a discussion; Despite that, you might be able to still have this closed if a consensus appears to have formed. --Super Goku V (talk) 20:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Thank you for your feedback, I updated my comment above for clarification. I would like to have a consensus for a discussion. Since this is not an RFc, can someone summarize and synthesize the comments?Goodtiming8871 (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you have misunderstood my comment, so let me expand and continue. I mentioned earlier that you might still be able to have this closed if a consensus appears to have formed. Based on your comments, it seems that you believe a consensus formed. Thus, I will specifically mention Misplaced Pages:Closure requests. As stated at WP:CR: Use the closure requests noticeboard to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, summarize, and formally close a Misplaced Pages discussion. Do so when consensus appears unclear, it is a contentious issue, or where there are wiki-wide implications (e.g. any change to our policies or guidelines). Follow the steps listed next to the third billiard ball and wait either for a formal close or for a response at WP:CR. --Super Goku V (talk) 07:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I see now that there's Misplaced Pages closure requests. It was unclear because some previous talk were closed without asking via Misplaced Pages closure request. Goodtiming8871 (talk) 05:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Talk page discussions get closed for a multitude of reasons with some of them being a close following a discussion to determine consensus. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:54, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.
Victorious candidate did not lose home state in 1968
@Peaceray: I assume it is this line in the article: By losing New York, Trump became the fourth and most recent victorious candidate to lose his home state, which also occurred in 1844, 1916, and 1968. Some people consider California to be his home state, but the 1968 United States presidential election article lists New York primarily due to the Congressional Record and other sources from the time.
"Trump's surprise victories were perceived to have been assisted by the influence of Sanders–Trump voters who refused to back her after Bernie Sanders dropped out"
Why is this notable? The number is in line with similar proportions from other elections, if anything it might be slightly lower than usual.
The linked page cites estimates of 6-12% of Sanders supporters voting for Trump. In 2008, about 15% of Democrats who supported Clinton the primary switched to vote for McCain in the general election.
There is also a wiki page for Obama-Trump voters which made up 11-15% of Trump's vote share, but that page is not even linked to on this one, even though there are far more Obama-Trump voters than Sanders-Trump voters. joft (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
538 predictions instead of RCP in "Predictions" table?
RCP's average includes all available polls without weighing based on historical accuracy. This means outlier pollsters like Rasmussen weight the same as more historically reliable sources (sometimes weighed even heavier because tracking polls release weekly, even daily). Using RCP's predictions also understates just how shocking Trump's over-performance was. RCP's final predictions were more bullish on Trump than everyone else in the mainstream because they included the few pollsters who gave DJT more than a puncher's chance. Ryanjackson10 (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Possible addition of Margin Swing from the 2012 Election
Hello, I wanted to propose the idea of incorporating a margin swing analysis, similar to the one shown in the table of results from the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election on Misplaced Pages (https://en.wikipedia.org/2020_United_States_presidential_election#Results).
In my view, margin swings offer valuable insights into how states allocate their electoral votes over time. As you're likely aware, swing states play a crucial role in every election cycle, and tracking these swings helps highlight how states shift politically, both in and out of "swing state" territory.
Moreover, given the significant shifts in states that weren't traditionally considered swing states before the election, visualizing these margin swings would provide a clearer understanding of how the final vote count evolved. Higgs32584 (talk) 20:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
This statement is evidence that people who post articles on Wiki (and possibly Wiki itself) is not true journalism nor simple facts. "Faithless" is an opinion of the writer. A true journalist does not display his/her biases. They present the facts as they are. Obvious bias does not belong in a page or article comprised of what should be simple facts. It should be removed. 2603:9001:8F00:982:8C40:4671:A7EF:205D (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
It's the actual term. See our article on it: Faithless elector. You see how those words "faithless electors" is in blue? That's called a wikilink. Please educate yourself on the matter before going off half-cocked. (That's an actual term too.) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
.svg)
Consensus
.jpg)
Additional information needed What does that have to do with this article? Peaceray (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Not done applies here for the above. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)