Talk:2024 United States presidential election

Flipped counties

There's that claim that she didn't flip any, referenced to Sky News Australia, which isn't a reliable source... only other site that seems to say this, 'econotimes' (besides a reddit thread linking to this site, and this article even coming above the SNA site), seems to have no description of itself anywhere besides its own site... so, is this an actual claim? As, surely it would be said on other sites too, if it was... 80.41.121.154 (talk) 02:28, 18 April 2025 (UTC)

Not sure if this suffices your question, but yes, Kamala Harris is the first nominee since Herbert Hoover to not flip a single county during an election year. https://tinfoilmatt.substack.com/p/the-impossible-three-color-map 2600:4041:4285:D700:58C5:F474:5174:B16B (talk) 05:56, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Split proposal -> Results and aftermath of the 2024 United States presidential election

I've complained about the article being WP:TOOBIG a while back, and I still see that the article is hovering around ~13k words. What do y'all think of splitting the Results section and every section below it off into a separate article? Possible page names include Results and aftermath of the 2024 United States presidential election. Feel free to suggest other page names or other ideas. Some1 (talk) 21:27, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this, but my preference would be to shorten the article some more rather than splitting it. Too-Rye-Ay (talk) 21:47, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

That's a good approach too, but unfortunately, I think very few editors would want to take on that task (which is completely understandable). Some1 (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I thought about doing this awhile ago, and even created this draft. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

I lean against splitting. I think the results section is one of the most important parts of the article. And previous election articles include the section. Prcc27 (talk) 01:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

What about the keeping the Results section here, but splitting the Analysis of results and every section after it off into a separate article? Some1 (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

We should keep some results, but the detailed tables, exit polls, and detailed analysis can and should be spun out into their own article and a briefer WP:SUMSTYLE section should be kept here. DecafPotato (talk) 01:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am more open to that and more willing to support that. But I would also want to keep the exit poll section as is as well. The rest of the sections can be consolidated into a few paragraphs on here, and then split into a new article for further information. Prcc27 (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not too concerned with the details or the specifics of how the article is split, but just that a split occurs so that this article isn't so ridiculously long. I won't be the one to create this new article, so whatever you folks decide for the new article, I'm fine with. Some1 (talk) 03:21, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I support splitting the Aftermath and related sections into their own article (as that is information surrounding the election rather than information about the election itself), but think that the election Results should stay in the article. Vrrajkum (talk) 06:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

13k is still within recommended size guidelines per WP:SIZERULE, but if splitting is favored I would split off the Aftermath and analysis sections. I think simply calling the page "Analysis of the 2024 United States presidential election" would be a simpler title. "Aftermath" seems to be contrived and suggests some sort of natural disaster occured. BootsED (talk) 13:05, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agree with a split. I don't think the 'aftermath' section is particularly large necessitating a split like the results and analysis section. Thus I would like to see a "Results and analysis of the 2024 election" article encompassing these topics, of course with an overview staying in this article. I would note I haven't found an election article with "analysis" in the title; the closest I found was Causes of the vote in favour of Brexit. Also to other editors, "results" articles are somewhat common for other country's articles such as Germany in 2025, although these typically don't include analysis/aftermath of the election. Yeoutie (talk) 16:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I support the split, but this article should remain for the results and be in line with other "yyyy United States presidential election" articles. 19:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC) 47.185.4.111 (talk) 19:23, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I mean, yeah, it would be weird if this election had its own results page. None of the other U.S. presidential elections have results pages. People can shorten the article by removing unnecessary information if it is too long. Retailandrestaurantfan2025 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

I am against the split, i do not think this has been done with every year and it is clearner of one page in my view. James4pk (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that is similar to what I said before. It would be better not to have its own results page, just like all the other U.S. presidential elections before, which did not have a separate results page. Also, like someone said earlier, the article is not too long. Retailandrestaurantfan2025 (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

From a month ago, from a different editor: Talk:2024 United_States presidential election#Article too big. And a different editor Special:Diff/1267006299. Some1 (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, i agree, it should be consistent to all other Presidential elections. James4pk (talk) 14:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

E 103.152.101.236 (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

I think some elements of the election process need to split. Cbls1911 (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

I lightly disagree with the split. This is the perfect example of a topic that justifies the added reading material, and none of the individual sections feel like they're too long. Also, it would be inconsistent with the other presidential election articles (however, we can just make results pages for those too). Even still, results seems like the most important part of the article, and the last thing that should be split off.

That being said, it is still a really long article, and I would completely understand splitting it if we did. Terraviridian (talk) 00:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

I oppose. This election did not have a particularly unique aftermath. A winner was projected, the loser gave a concession, a transition ensued, a new administration took office. The winning party made all the usual spin about having secured a mandate, while the losing party debated their direction (as always seems to happen) . All of this is coverable without a spun-off aftermath article.

There wasn’t particularly sizable (or at least notable) protests during the transition. There were not lawsuits challenging the results. There was not a Jan 6 attack. Things proceeded as is normal between an election and an inauguration, apart from some peculiar choices of the transition team that are within the scope of the transition’s article. Biden issued some unusual preemptive pardons before leaving, but again this is coverable within existing articles. One of the only other peculiarities outside of the U.S. politics articles was that Trump’s threats of a trade war seemingly contributed to the pressure for Trudeau to relent to resigning in Canada making way for a new Liberal Party leader. SecretName101 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

Strongly oppose 2600:1700:1D60:1A50:9829:7295:9803:5EAA (talk) 00:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Harris increasing the number of border patrol agents

I don't think that belongs in the lead. It was not widely discussed in coverage of the campaigns and she did not bring it up very much. Basically it was not a significant feature of her campaign (unlike the other things mentioned in the lead: abortion, LGBT rights, support of Ukraine for Harris; deportation, anti-transgender politics, isolationism, and tariffs for Trump). If someone can contradict me with an array of sources that describe this as a major aspect of her campaign, I would be open to including this (in the lead). 11USA11 (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I am not a frequent Wikipedia editor so I will defer to those who are, but I wanted to investigate this question. I am not the right person to determine whether or not to include it in the lead, instead I will just lay out what I have found.

I would say that Harris' position on immigration was at least somewhat prominently placed in the campaign and media, behind the main three (democracy/anti-Trump, economy (housing, "opportunity economy"), restore abortion rights). For example, this article and this article are the top news articles when searching for Harris' platform and both include sections on immigration, mainly the bipartisan border bill. Searching for Harris' pledges also gives this article, which states that she may diverge from Biden's border policies, also referencing the border bill and increasing the number of border patrol agents. It was also referenced in her ads, for whatever that's worth. She devoted a couple of paragraphs of her convention speech to her plans for strengthening the border. The only other topics of what she would to as president that she covered was the "opportunity economy", abortion, and the US's role in the world. I don't know if her own speech is relevant for this determination, but it was consequently a prioritized issue for the campaign.

It's somewhat difficult to prove what was the most central parts since many such articles take the form of comparing both candidates on the most important issues, so Harris' immigration policy, including the number of border control agents, would naturally be included in the article anyway.

There's also a distinction between the border bill and increasing the number of border patrol agents in general. I don't know Wikipedia's guidelines by heart so I don't know if it's a good idea, but it would be more representative of the campaign to reference the bill itself or its contents as a whole rather than a single (albeit important) part of it.

But I think it is fair to say that Harris' plans for the border were significantly more covered than, for example, her position on LGBT rights (which generally just was assumed as a contrast to Trump's focus or inferred from more general statements about inclusion and diversity), and no less than her housing plan or the price gouging ban. If you were to list the top 5-10 things she campaigned on, I think strengthening the border would be one of them (say, the opportunity economy, the price gouging ban, restoring Roe, supporting US allies, and the border bill). 212.201.68.9 (talk) 19:53, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

"2024 United States presidental election" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect 2024 United States presidental election has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 9 § 2024 United States presidental election until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 May 2025

There is a typo in the first paragraph of the "Debates" section in the sentence "The Harris camp suggested that another debate could be held in October after the September 10 debate with Trump." The word 'camp' should be changed to 'campaign.' 67.187.138.139 (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

 Done. I don't think it was a typo, "Harris camp" is also sometimes used, but much less often than "Harris campaign", so I changed it for you. Lova Falk (talk) 05:21, 12 May 2025 (UTC)