Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 30

This is an archive of past discussions about 2020 United States presidential election. 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 25

←

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Joe Biden Image in infobox change

I believe that we should change the photo of Joe Biden in the image box. in the 2020 election he is challenging an incumbent president so I do not believe his presidential portrait is appropriate within this context. In addition, it would help with regards to the 2024 Presidential election page, as I understand there are serious talks amoung the editors about changing Trump's photo in the infobox. Much like here is challenging an incumbent and his presidential portrait is not appropriate. I believe this photo could be a good alternative: PizzaSliced (talk) 06:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

He's not looking at the camera in this image. 331dot (talk) 09:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Is this typically considered a deciding factor? For example, Hilary Clinton's image in the infobox on the 2016 Presidetial Election page has her not looking at the camera aswell. PizzaSliced (talk) 09:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Pardon me for my extremely poor phrasing- he's squinting in this image. HRC is not. 331dot (talk) 10:27, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I 100% agree with this, 2020 should be a photo of Candidate Biden vs President Trump and likewise 2024 should be President Biden vs Candidate Trump. There was a good one from wikicommons (on the left).

68.189.2.14 :::::(talk) 17:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Is that the only concern regarding this change? I believe that in the lead-up to this election, we should seriously consider changing this photo due to the essentially confirmed 2024 presidential election rematch. Especially considering the fact that although a rematch occurred in the 1956 election, Adlai Stevenson II was never an incumbent president, this is quite unprecedented in recent history. As outlined, I believe this change should be implemented, regardless of the specific picture of Biden chosen. 2001:8F8:1163:1DCA:19D1:AF7F:587E:5FE7 (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree. There are plenty of potential choices in regards to a new picture of Biden in the info-box

PizzaSliced (talk) 07:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I think this is the last time this topic was discussed btw. The Savage Norwegian 21:24, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree - We should not use presidential portraits for the election they were put into office, its anachronistic. HadesTTW (he/him • talk) 18:52, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds like we're all on the same page that the presidential portrait is not the right pic. I agree, it's a little strange to use a picture taken months after the election, not before. The Savage Norwegian 21:00, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Back in December of 2020, they were using File:Joe Biden 2013.jpg. how do we feel about that? The Savage Norwegian 21:18, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion we should use the new official portrait taken just a few weeks after the election. Using a picture taken in 2013, for an election in 2020 is quite absurd and confusing for a reader, while photos taken during the campaign rallies have far lower quality and usually he doesn't look to the camera. We have always used the new official portrait (see Trump in 2016, Obama in 2012 and 2008, Bush in 2004 and 2000 and so on) so I sincerly don't understand why we have to change this practice now. Moreover, there had been a closed discussion in 2021, during which it was agreed to use the new official portrait of the elected-president, I sincerly believe we should continue on this way. -- Nick.mon (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I see! Thank you for finding that thread, because I certainly hadn't. I definitely don't want to trample over consensus. My instinct is if a picture that meets our criteria of very high-quality, facing the camera, and before the election exists, we should use it, preference being for as close to the election as we can. I can certainly see how 2013 doesn't meet that, I had just assumed that it was on the page in late 2020 for a reason. I should have dug deeper, sorry! The Savage Norwegian 14:13, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh don’t worry at all! We can still re-open the discussion if there’s a consensus. Even if, in my opinion, using the official portrait of the president-elect was a good compromise. -- Nick.mon (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think we should use the presidential portraits, better to have a photo that is more presidential, and that’s what we do on other articles. Prcc27 (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 July 2024

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Disregard. 74.105.92.99 (talk) 00:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Is turnout calculated by number of votes divided by with registered voters or 18-year-olds and above with citizenship?

Is turnout calculated by number of votes divided by registered voters or 18-year-olds and above with citizenship? Alexysun (talk) 00:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

The U.S. Census Bureau calculated a voter turnout of 66.8% in 2020, as the people reporting having voted divided by the estimated U.S. population at or over age 18 who were U.S. citizens. The denominator excluded U.S. residents ineligible to vote due to not being U.S. citizens, but included those ineligible due to a criminal conviction and excluded U.S. citizens residing in other countries who were eligible to vote. This turnout was an increase of 5.4pp compared to the turnout of 61.4% in the 2016 election, calculated by the same institution with the same basis. 74.105.92.99 (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Coup d'etat?

In the lead it says,

Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous other Republicans engaged in an aggressive and unprecedented attempt to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote-counting process in swing states, in what was described by many as an attempted coup d'état.

Wouldn't it be a self coup since Trump was in power at the time? Maurnxiao (talk) 19:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

This does seem to be the more accurate term. I've found several good sources calling it a self-coup (Brookings, the journal Gov't and Opposition, Politico, etc). I support this change. Gowser (talk) 16:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Turns out that self-coup is a form of coup d'etat. I think it's worth adding the more precise term, feel free to revert. Gowser (talk) 16:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Maurnxiao (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Close states" section is illegible on Dark Mode

Using Wikipedia's new dark mode, the "Close states" section of the article has legibility problems. The dark red lines are odd but readable, while the dark blue lines are completely unreadable. Similarly, the "County statistics" section following it has problems with the dark blue percentages. If this could be improved, us dark mode Wikipedians would be very thankful! Thunderforge (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Change Joe Biden portrait back to Joe_Biden_2013.jpg

I feel like we should change Joe Biden's portrait on this article back to the portrait used before he was president. This would make it consistent with the previous US presidential election pages on Wikipedia. Eehuiio (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Change Joe Biden portrait back to Joe_Biden_2013.jpg

I feel like we should change Joe Biden's portrait on this article back to the portrait used before he was president. This would make it consistent with the previous US presidential election pages on Wikipedia. Eehuiio (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2024

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

the article states incorrectly that “This was the first time since 1980, and the first for Republicans since 1892 that a party was voted out after a single four-year term.”

This is incorrect as H.W. Bush a republican lost his re-election bid (after 4 years in office) in 1992.

Thisin the results section just after the [311] reference link 64.43.157.5 (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Not done HW Bush followed two terms of Reagan, three GOP terms in a row. Party is the key word there. Trump served one term between two Democrats. 331dot (talk) 22:59, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Rigged election

A lot of people in US are claiming that this presedential election was rigged. Please include that in this page 5.101.24.140 (talk) 17:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Please see 2020 United States presidential election § False claims of fraud. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

"A lot of people in US are claiming that this presedential election was rigged" They are Trumpist lunatics, not reliable sources. Dimadick (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

FIX the table - Results by state - without the scrollbars

It's almost impossible to refer to the table extensively due to the ridiculously narrow scrollbars with the margins.....

one has to pretty much cut and paste it to refer to it, because it's miserable to use on the page 2604:3D08:9B77:AB00:8DCF:7D26:88C7:5EA5 (talk) 06:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead sentence wording discussion

I have proposed that the lead sentences of the articles about US presidential elections be reworded. The discussion is here. Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2024

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change Turnout from 66.6% to 92.4%.

There was 168.3 registered voters in 2020 and this article shows 155.5 people voted. That means 92.4% of voters voted. Registered voter’s reference: https://www.statista.com/statistics/273743/number-of-registered-voters-in-the-united-states/ 98.176.156.153 (talk) 23:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Not done: per the citation, the denominator is all voting-age citizens. Hyphenation Expert (talk) 01:37, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

question? about the infobox:

States carried:

25 + DC + NE-02

25 + ME-02

Why are ME-02 and NE-02 included as States carried ?

69.181.17.113 (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Because they each count as an electoral vote. --Super Goku V (talk) 10:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2024

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The US Elections Project citations are a mess. There are three copies of the citation on the page:

<ref>{{Cite web|title=US Elections Project – 2020g|url=https://www.electproject.org/2020g|access-date=November 14, 2022|website=www.electproject.org|archive-date=April 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430220622/http://www.electproject.org/2020g|url-status=live}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web|title=US Elections Project – 2016g|url=https://www.electproject.org/2020g|access-date=November 14, 2022|website=www.electproject.org|archive-date=April 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430220622/http://www.electproject.org/2020g|url-status=live}}</ref>
<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.electproject.org/2020g|title=2020 November general election turnout rates|work=United States Election Project|date=October 7, 2020|access-date=November 8, 2020|archive-date=November 7, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201107042631/http://www.electproject.org/2020g|url-status=live}}</ref>

The first one is mostly correct. The second one was supposed to cite turnout from 2016, but the URL is wrong. The third one is fine, but it duplicates the first one.

I suggest replacing the first one with

<ref name="Elections Project 2020g">{{Cite web|title=2020 November General Election Turnout Rates|work=United States Election Project|url=https://www.electproject.org/2020g|access-date=November 14, 2022|website=www.electproject.org|archive-date=April 30, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210430220622/http://www.electproject.org/2020g|url-status=live</ref>

the second one with

<ref>{{Cite web|title=2016 November General Election Turnout Rates|work=United States Election Project|url=https://www.electproject.org/2016g|website=www.electproject.org|url-status=live</ref>

and the third one with

<ref name="Elections Project 2020g"/>

. 185.47.220.165 (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Done, thanks. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 22:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot the closing braces (}}) for the templates, so they do not render correctly. I didn't notice my mistake because I couldn't preview the change. Could you (or someone else) please add them in? Thanks 185.47.220.165 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Done Thanks for the citation cleanup - I've made the changes, without any attempt going wrong.. FifthFive (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2024

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia" to "Numbers indicate electoral votes cast by each state and the District of Columbia." Skywithanunderscore (talk) 05:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Not done: Uh... they're the same? Found the difference (a period),

Done. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 07:47, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

CNN sourcing

Since when is CNN a reputable and valid source to speak about a political candidate that they have repeatedly shown clear bias against? 47.62.150.58 (talk) 09:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Since always. WP:RSP. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

cnn very non credible very biased. You should look in to the facts!! Epoch times is fact based non biased, and one of the best investigative news organizations there is.. if your looking for the Non Biased Truth! 2605:59C8:10CF:7310:E180:9837:B54D:B75C (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:EPOCHTIMES is a propaganda arm of Falun Gong that publishes conspiracy theory as fact. We have deprecated them as a source because they are so often inaccurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully. If your Epoch Times info is true that does not make the clear bias by CNN as stated above any less true. How can we call CNN a reliable source with the overwhelming and provable propaganda from them? I find it disturbing that they would be considered reputable and even more disturbing that those who are responsible for accuracy on what is supposedly an honest and fact based source of information would agree that they are reputable. This needs to change. This is highly inaccurate and biased. CNN has been rated with a left-leaning bias by organizations like Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media, and AllSides. CNN's reporting during Trump's presidency, especially around the 2020 election, was criticized for its negative portrayal. A 2017 Harvard study found that 93% of CNN's coverage of Trump's first 100 days was negative. Eyewanthetruth (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

You would have to prove they are propaganda, which you would do at WP:RSN, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. Eyewanthetruth (talk) 21:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Allegations of election fraud, 2020/2022

Arizona AG Mark Brnovich briefs evidence compiled by Senator, Karen Fann, which clearly demonstrated election interference by AZSOS Kate Hobbs in the 2020 Presidential election, as well as the 2022 midterm elections. https://www.azag.gov/complaints/election 2600:8800:A801:DD00:6139:C0CA:5833:8069 (talk) 14:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

That's now Kris Mayes' website. Are you referring to this

?

Attorney General investigation rejects nearly all allegations of dead voters in 2020 | ABC15 – Muboshgu (talk) 15:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 February 2025

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to put donald trump 2020 image instead of 2016 2603:9001:A000:F1C:55BD:A012:C470:A73B (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Not done: The image in the article is the 2017 official portrait and is the most recent official portrait at the time of the election. Yeshivish613 (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2025

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I want to exit to make images and history correct President Fan257 (talk) 01:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Oops i accidently put x instead of d President Fan257 (talk) 01:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I have a account President Fan257 (talk) 01:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2025

This edit request to 2020 United States presidential election has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

To make history correct 12.216.99.3 (talk) 13:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please specify the requested changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide reliable sources if appropriate. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 13:19, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Merge Trump-Sanders voter article

I believe we should merge the 2020 section of Sanders–Trump voters into this article.

It seems to be singling out Sanders->Trump defectors because mainstream democrats particularly dislike Trump, but it’s not important enough to warrant its own article and should be merged with the general about the elections.

Points:

There’s nothing fundamentally unique about disenfranchised voters switching to opposing candidates.

The number of votes isn’t remarkable. Even the much maligned Ralph Nader got almost three percent of the general election votes, as opposed to the 6-12 percent _of sanders supporters_ that defected.

People switch their votes. People get mad. People make both rational and irrational decisions when deciding who to vote for. That’s just how elections work. Andythechef (talk) 02:33, 16 March 2025 (UTC)