迷你词

第 45 位总统在 2020 年的选举中创造了历史，无论好坏。

【宣称】

唐纳德·特朗普是第一位当选的美国总统，在失去民众选票的同时被弹劾，然后又未能连任现任总统。

【结论】

真

【原文】

In the aftermath of Democratic candidate Joe Biden’s projected victory in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, social media users, primarily those gratified by the defeat of incumbent President Donald Trump, shared a Venn diagram that indicated he was the first president in U.S. history to be impeached and lose the popular vote and lose his reelection bid.

To illustrate the popularity of the graphic, in the days after major news organizations projected Biden as the winner on Nov. 7, 2020, the following screenshot shows instances of it on Facebook:

The graphic purported to show three intersecting cohorts of American presidents: those who failed to be reelected as incumbents; those who won while losing the popular vote; and those who were “impeached or resigned.” According to the diagram, Trump is the only president to have fit all three of those descriptions. The Venn diagram was shared by several prominent journalists and activists:

Fifteen American presidents sought reelection as the incumbent, but failed. Based primarily on records held by the American Presidency Project at the University of California-Santa Barbara, they were:

• John Adams. Won in 1796; defeated by Thomas Jefferson in 1800.
• John Quincy Adams. Won in 1824; defeated by Andrew Jackson in 1828.
• Martin van Buren. Won in 1836; defeated by William Henry Harrison in 1840.
• Millard Fillmore. Succeeded Zachary Taylor after Taylor’s death in 1850; defeated by Winfield Scott at the Whig party convention in 1852; therefore did not run in the 1852 general election. 
• Franklin Pierce. Won in 1852; defeated by James Buchanan at the 1856 Democratic National Convention; therefore did not run in the 1856 general election. 
• Andrew Johnson. Succeeded Abraham Lincoln after Lincoln’s death in 1865; defeated by Horatio Seymour at the 1868 Democratic National Convention; therefore did not run in the 1868 general election.
• Chester A. Arthur. Succeeded James Garfield after Garfield’s death in 1881; defeated by James Blaine at the 1884 Republican National Convention. Arthur is included here because he received votes at the party convention but, in part due to his ill health, his 1884 campaign was largely tokenistic, and he readily conceded defeat to Blaine. 
• Grover Cleveland. Won in 1884; defeated by Benjamin Harrison in 1888.
• Benjamin Harrison. Won in 1888; defeated by Grover Cleveland in 1892.
• William Howard Taft. Won in 1908; defeated by Woodrow Wilson in 1912.
• Herbert Hoover. Won in 1928; defeated by Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932.
• Gerald Ford. Succeeded Richard Nixon after Nixon’s resignation in 1974; defeated by Jimmy Carter in 1976. 
• Jimmy Carter. Won in 1976; defeated by Ronald Reagan in 1980.
• George H.W. Bush. Won in 1988; defeated by Bill Clinton in 1992.
• Donald Trump. Won in 2016; defeated by Joe Biden in 2020.

Lost popular vote

Most presidential candidates who lose the election also lose the popular vote. What the Venn diagram referred to was candidates who were elected despite losing the popular vote — of which there have been five:

• John Quincy Adams. In 1824, he received 113,122 votes, fewer than the 151,271 received by Andrew Jackson. However, because four presidential candidates received more than 14% of the national vote share each, and more than 35 electoral college votes each, no single candidate garnered the 131 electoral college votes required to be elected (at that time, the electoral college had 261 members). As a result, under the terms of the 12th Amendment, the U.S. House of Representatives decided the outcome of the election, and voted for Adams in February 1825. 
• Rutherford B. Hayes. The 1876 presidential election was one of the most fiercely disputed and consequential in American history. Hayes, the Republican governor of Ohio, received 4,033,497 votes, while the Democratic candidate New York Gov. Samuel Tilden received 4,288,191 votes. Tilden had 184 electoral college votes, but needed 185 in order to win. Hayes had 165, but the results of the election were bitterly disputed in four states whose electoral college votes amounted to 20 — Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Oregon. Ultimately, the two parties reached a controversial agreement called the Compromise of 1877, whereby Hayes was awarded those 20 disputed electoral votes, and thereby the presidency, in return for the federal government’s removing troops from Southern states, bringing an end to the Reconstruction and facilitating Democrats’ enactment of laws and practices that targeted and discriminated against Black people in the Southern states, for years to come.
• Benjamin Harrison. In 1888, he received 5,449,825 votes nationwide, fewer than the 5,539,118 that incumbent President Grover Cleveland received. However, Harrison won 233 electoral college votes to Cleveland’s 168. 
• George W. Bush. In 2000, he received 50,455,156 votes, narrowly losing the popular vote to Democratic candidate and outgoing Vice President Al Gore, who received 50,992,335 votes. Television networks mistakenly called the crucial state of Florida in Gore’s favor, early on election night, later retracting those calls, before again calling the state, this time in Bush’s favor — a call that would also prove to be somewhat premature as Florida went to a recount. In the early hours of the morning, Gore called Bush to concede, but later called the Texas governor again, to retract his concession. On Dec. 12, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court controversially voted to halt an ongoing recount in Florida, citing constitutional concerns over different standards and methods for recounting ballots in different counties. As a result of the court’s decision, Bush was certified as the winner in Florida, by just 537 votes out of almost 6 million cast statewide — a margin of 0.01 %. Winning Florida gave Bush 25 electoral college votes, pushing him to 271 in total, with 270 required to win the presidency.
• Donald Trump. As outlined above, in 2016 Trump received 62,984,828 votes to Clinton’s 65,853,514, but garnered 306 electoral college votes to Clinton’s 232.

Impeachment

Three sitting presidents have been impeached by the U.S. House of Representatives. None has been convicted by the U.S. Senate and removed from office. As we have previously examined in greater detail, the two impeached presidents before Trump were Andrew Johnson, in 1868, and Bill Clinton, in 1998.

• Andrew Johnson. In February 1868, the House of Representatives voted along party lines to impeach Johnson on 11 articles of impeachment. On May 16, senators fell just one short of the two-thirds threshold required to convict him on the eleventh article (bringing disrespect to Congress). Another vote, on May 26, again failed by one vote to convict Johnson on two further articles of impeachment, and the process subsequently collapsed.
• Bill Clinton. In December 1998, in the aftermath of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted 228-206 to impeach Clinton on a charge of perjury (with five Democrats crossing the aisle to impeach the president and five Republicans voting against); and voted 221-212 in favor of a charge of obstruction of justice. (The House dismissed two further charges of perjury and abuse of power). In February 1999, the U.S. Senate voted 55-45 to convict Clinton on the perjury charge, and was split 50-50 on the obstruction of justice charge — on both occasions significantly short of the two-thirds majority required to convict him.
• Donald Trump. As we have already outlined, in December 2019, the Democrat-controlled House voted to impeach Trump on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, stemming from claims that he had improperly sought the assistance of a foreign power (Ukraine) in advancing unfounded allegations of wrongdoing by then-presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden. In February 2020, the Republican-controlled Senate voted to acquit the president.

Conclusion

The following table provides a summary of our findings and underlines the accuracy of the core claim in the November 2020 “Venn diagram” meme — that Trump was the first president in American history to be elected while losing the popular vote, and then subsequently impeached before failing in his bid to be reelected as the incumbent.

在 2020 年总统竞选期间，互联网上的虚假信息的传播速度快于事实。

【宣称】

一名名叫威廉·布拉德利的 118 岁死者的选票在密歇根州计算。

【结论】

大部分是假

【原文】

 
In the days following the Nov. 3, 2020, U.S. general election, widely distributed social media posts claimed that dead (or possibly dead) voters had received and returned absentee ballots in a number of states, implying that election fraud may have occurred at the voter level.

One such allegation was the claim that a vote was recorded after having been cast by a Michigan man named William Bradley … who had died in 1984 at the age of 82.

In an interview with PolitiFact, the younger Bradley told the fact-checking site that he had received an absentee ballot for both himself and his deceased father, but he threw the latter out. Daniel Baxter, a consultant for the Detroit Department of Elections, sent the publication a statement explaining that the son’s ballot had been mistakenly logged as that of his dead father:

No ballot for the 118-year-old Mr. Bradley was ever requested, received or counted. A man with a nearly identical name requested a ballot and voted properly in both the primary and general elections. When his ballot was initially logged, however, it was incorrectly attributed to the William Bradley born 118 years ago through a clerical error.

This phenomenon occurs because identical names can sometimes be incorrectly recorded on voting rolls, both at the point of registration and throughout the ballot-recording process.

The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) was passed in 2002 in an effort to reform the nation’s voting process, including centralizing statewide voter lists. According to the Open Election Data Initiative, a nonpartisan government initiative to streamline election data, a voter list is a “detailed record of every person who is registered and eligible to vote,” but these voter lists are not always accurate.

Snopes spoke with John Fortier, a political scientist with expertise in mail-in voting at the MIT Election Data and Science Lab, who said that statewide voter lists are not perfect, though they are improving. During the 2000 general election, just seven states had statewide computerized voter databases.

“Truthfully, in many places, the voter registration lists were a local concern — one county might have their list on paper or in files, and this is because we started voting a long time before computers,” said Fortier.

Following the passage of HAVA, states centralized county voter registration lists into a computerized database, and although regular checks are conducted for individuals who have moved out of state or have died, it remains possible that a person who died two decades before the system integration began could have been missed. Although Fortier said that the Bradley incident is “surprising” and “troubling,” it does not indicate that widespread voter or election fraud is taking place throughout the system.

“We don’t have evidence that this is a widespread problem with lots of people falling into this category, but that doesn’t mean we need to condone it,” said Fortier. “Do we see lots of cases where we know dead people are voting? No. Could we improve? Yes.”

But even in the event of such a clerical error, the Michigan Secretary of State wrote in a statement shared online, safeguards are in place to ensure that such illegitimate ballots are rejected:

Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention.

While room for improvement may remain, occasional clerical errors do not mean that the system is a failure. For example, Michigan has a number of mechanisms in place to ensure election security, including its improved qualified voter file system. This custom-built system is used by election officials to “efficiently and effectively maintain the state’s registered voter list” with multifactor authentication and continuous monitoring. The system automatically registers all citizens who apply for driver’s licenses or identification cards to help keep voter rolls up to date.

迅速纠正的孤立事件被用来暗示 2020 年正在发生广泛的选民欺诈行为。

【宣称】

各种指控选民欺诈的传言都集中在电子投票公司 Dominion 投票系统上。

【结论】

【原文】

On Nov. 7, 2020, the Associated Press, the New York Times, Fox News, and several other major news outlets called the 2020 presidential election and projected that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris had defeated U.S. President Donald Trump and Vice President Mike Pence. As news of President-elect Biden’s victory spread on social media, so did unsupported claims alleging voter fraud. Many of these claims were centered around Dominion Voting Systems, a company that sells voting machines and software in the United States and Canada. We will examine a few of these claims below.

Did a software glitch cause thousands of Republican votes to be marked for Democrats in Michigan? A human error resulted in a temporary miscalculation in Antrim County, Michigan, but this issue was quickly remedied.

One of the most prevalent voter fraud claims to emerge in the days following the election was the accusation that a computer glitch in a software program from Dominion Voting Systems had mistakenly counted thousands of votes for President Trump as votes for President Biden. This claim was based on a half-truth: a tabulation error did occur in Antrim County, but the problem was a result of a human error, and the mistake was quickly caught and corrected.

Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson disputed claims of deliberate election fraud in a statement:

In response to the false claims made by Republican National Committee chairwoman Ronna McDaniel, the Michigan Department of State issues the following statements of fact:

• Michigan’s elections were conducted fairly, effectively and transparently and are an accurate reflection of the will of Michigan voters.
• The erroneous reporting of unofficial results from Antrim county was a result of accidental error on the part of the Antrim County Clerk. The equipment and software did not malfunction and all ballots were properly tabulated. However, the clerk accidentally did not update the software used to collect voting machine data and report unofficial results.
  • Like many counties in Michigan, Antrim County uses the Dominion Voting Systems election management system and voting machines (ballot tabulators.) The county receives programming support from Election Source. Tabulators are programmed to scan hand marked, paper ballots. When machines are finished scanning the ballots, the paper ballots are retained and a totals tape showing the number of votes for each candidate in each race is printed from the machine.
  • In order to report unofficial results, county clerks use election management system software to combine the electronic totals from tabulators and submit a report of unofficial results. Because the clerk did not update software, even though the tabulators counted all the ballots correctly, those accurate results were not combined properly when the clerk reported unofficial results.
  • The correct results always were and continue to be reflected on the tabulator totals tape and on the ballots themselves. Even if the error in the reported unofficial results had not been quickly noticed, it would have been identified during the county canvass. Boards of County Canvassers, which are composed of 2 Democrats and 2 Republicans, review the printed totals tape from each tabulator during the canvass to verify the reported vote totals are correct.
  • The software did not cause a misallocation of votes; it was a result of user human error. Even when human error occurs, it is caught during county canvasses.
  • It is also completely false that the county had to or will have to hand count all their ballots. The ballots were properly counted by the tabulators. The county had to review the printed tabulator results from each precinct, not each individual ballot.
  • As with other unofficial results reporting errors, this was an honest mistake and did not affect any actual vote totals. Election clerks work extremely hard and do their work with integrity. They are human beings, and sometimes make mistakes. However, there are many checks and balances that ensure mistakes can be caught and corrected.

这个视频已经架起了超过 700 万的观看次数。

【宣称】

视频显示，有线电视新闻网的选举委员会意外显示了 Pornhub.com 网站的横幅。

【结论】

假

【原文】

On Nov. 5, 2020, a video started circulating on social media that supposedly showed CNN’s John King reporting on the 2020 presidential election while a banner for the website Pornhub was accidentally displayed on the network’s digital display:

We’ve all been there with the betting app up on the screen…or something else…#PuntClub #Punters #Elections2020 😜 pic.twitter.com/zFadCGtuOO

— Punt Club (@puntclub) November 6, 2020

King, too, has addressed this rumor. When a Twitter user asked the CNN reporter if the clip was real, King responded: “Not. Some clown taking time away from lying about something else apparently because they don’t like math.”

关于海狸衍生的的警告已经过度发出：它的使用现在非常罕见，而且典型的消费者不太可能在食物中遇到铯。

【宣称】

海狸产生的一种分泌物，通常用作食品添加剂。

【结论】

主要是假的

【原文】

Castoreum (or castor, not to be confused with the oil of a castor bean) is a yellowish-brown, unctuous substance with a strong, penetrating odor which beavers secrete from castor sacs located in skin cavities between the pelvis and the base of the tail and spray when scent-marking their territory. (The location of the beaver’s castor sacs means that castoreum also often includes a mixture of anal gland secretions and urine as well.) Due to the beaver’s typical diet of leaves and bark, castoreum doesn’t “stink” as other similar animal secretions do, but rather has a musky, vanilla scent described at the perfume site Fragrantica as a “sharp spreading tar-like note that reminds one of the odor of birch tar or Russian leather” that when diluted in alcohol picks up “more pleasant, musky and fruity nuances.”

Because of its scent properties castoreum has long been employed in the perfume-making industry, and processed forms of castoreum have also been used as food additives, in the latter case primarily as enhancers of vanilla, strawberry and raspberry flavorings found in products such as iced tea, ice cream, gelatin, candy, fruit-flavored drinks, and yogurt.

However, the publicity afforded castoreum in recent years via alarmist food activists and “Did you know?” social media posts is vastly overblown:

Another reason we may want to forgo artificial ‘foods’ … Have you ever wondered where artificial raspberry, vanilla or strawberry flavor comes from? These are the dried perineal glands of the beaver. They contain castoreum — a food additive usually listed as ‘natural flavoring’ in the ingredient list. Castoreum is the exudate from the castor sacs of the mature North American Beaver, it is a yellowish secretion in combination with the beaver’s urine, used during scent marking of territory. In the USA, castoreum as a food additive is considered by the FDA to be generally recognized as safe, often referenced simply as a “natural flavoring” in products’ lists of ingredients.

The use of castoreum in common food products today is exceedingly rare, in large part because collecting the substance is difficult (and therefore expensive):

Getting a beaver to produce castoreum for purposes of food processing is tough. Foodies bent on acquiring some of the sticky stuff have to anesthetize the animal and then “milk” its nether regions.

“You can milk the anal glands so you can extract the fluid,” [Joanne] Crawford [a wildlife ecologist at Southern Illinois University] said. “You can squirt [castoreum] out. It’s pretty gross.”

Due to such unpleasantness for both parties, castoreum consumption is rather small.

According to Fernelli’s Handbook of Flavor Ingredients, total annual national consumption of castoreum, castoreum extract, and castoreum liquid combined is only about 292 pounds, which works out to an average of less than a millionth of a pound per person in the U.S. Compare that figure with the approximately 20 million pounds of vanilla naturally harvested from real vanilla beans every year. Depending upon as scarce a substance as castoreum to flavor the ice cream and candy found on store shelves would create nationwide shortages of those items and drive up their prices beyond the reach of all but the wealthiest consumers.

In 2011, the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG) queried five companies that produce vanilla flavorings about whether they used any castoreum in their products, and all five replied that they did not:

All five unanimously stated that castoreum is not used today in any form of vanilla sold for human food use.

One company, in business for ninety years, informed The VRG that they have never used castoreum in their products. “At one time,” we were told by a senior level employee at this company, “to the best of my knowledge, it was used to make fragrance and still may be.”

A major ingredients supplier told us this about some of their vanilla flavorings: “[Castoreum] is not a common raw material that is used and we don’t use it, so I can safely say that our natural vanilla flavors do not contain any animal juices. All vanilla extracts are free of it, too, wherever you go.”

Castoreum as a food additive is classified by the Food and Drug Administration as “generally recognized as safe” (GRAS), and therefore food manufacturers don’t always have to include castoreum in their ingredients lists and may instead refer to it as “natural flavoring.” However yucky that may seem, according to a 2007 safety assessment published the International Journal of Toxicology, consumption of castoreum poses no health risk to humans:

Acute toxicity studies in animals indicate that castoreum extract is nontoxic by both oral and dermal routes of administration and is not irritating or phototoxic to skin. Skin sensitization has not been observed in human subject tests. A long historical use of castoreum extract as a flavoring and fragrance ingredient has resulted in no reports of human adverse reactions. On the basis of this information, low-level, long-term exposure to castoreum extract does not pose a health risk. The objective of this review is to evaluate the safety-in-use of castoreum extract as a food ingredient.

Castoreum does still have a significant market even today, but almost exclusively for the use of the perfume industry, not the food industry.

当你真正知道选举是如何运作的时候，讨论选举机制更容易。

【宣称】

美国国土安全部策划了针对民主党人的刺痛，加上了一个秘密水印来证明他们参与选举舞弊。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In the uncertain days following the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a fantasy pushed by QAnon personalities and die-hard supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump went viral. In broad brushstrokes, the idea was that Democrats would soon be exposed in a massive voter-fraud sting operation orchestrated by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The basic premise is that Democrats, in an effort to steal the election in favor of their party’s nominee, Joe Biden, printed extra ballots. But, the claim goes, Trump’s DHS anticipated this and added a secret watermark to the ballots, making it easy to identify the fraudulent ballots.

“The DEMS fell right into the trap of this sting operation and President Trump has it all,” a viral bit of Facebook copypasta asserted. “Fraud will be exposed for the world to see.”

As with most conspiracy theories, there are myriad variations on this broad claim, each with its own purported evidence. These variations, both tedious and irrelevant, generally concern the type of watermark used, and the presence or absence of some sort of blockchain-based security. Going into each of these different claims is unnecessary, as all versions of the claim hold that the ruse was possible because the federal government controls the production of ballots. This is, emphatically, not the case.

In fact, this is left up to the states, each of which has its own regulations to follow. Practically speaking, most elections are administered at the county level, where they are run either by a board of electors, an election official or officials, or both. This means there are, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, more than more than 10,000 unique election administration jurisdictions in the U.S., each of which with their own balloting procedures. The large conspiracy alleged here would necessarily involve infiltrating thousands of different election boards or jurisdictions.

The federal government is not responsible for printing or auditing the ballots, either. In most cases, private companies contracted by those local election boards to do the printing. DHS has explicitly stated this in response to these rumors:

While DHS and CISA assist states and localities with securing election infrastructure, DHS and CISA [Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency] do not design, print, or audit ballots. State and local election officials manage ballot design and printing, as well as the auditing of results.

Local election offices have security and detection measures in place that make it highly difficult to commit fraud through counterfeit ballots. While the specific measures vary, in accordance with state and local election laws and practices, ballot security measures can include signature matching, information checks, barcodes, watermarks, and precise paper weights.

As such, DHS does not control “official ballot production,” nor does any central federal authority have that power. Therefore the central premise behind this QAnon fantasy and its claim of secretly watermarked ballots suffers from a profound ignorance of how American presidential elections actually work. For these reasons, the claim is false.

在传统的 Snopes 事实核查中对这一索赔进行评级之前，需要提供更多的证据。

【宣称】

在佐治亚州亚特兰大的一名选民计票工作人员被广泛分享的视频，这是 2020 年美国总统大选后选举舞弊的确凿证据吗？

【结论】

【原文】

Why no rating on this article? This topic is trending among reader queries but has not yet been rated by Snopes for reasons we’ll outline below.

In the aftermath of U.S. Election Day 2020, amid widespread, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and allegations of electoral fraud, figures from the reelection campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump promoted content that was presented as proof of electoral fraud in Fulton County, Georgia.

On Nov. 4, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, sons of the president and prominent campaign surrogates, both promoted a video that, according to its narrator, was definitive proof of “voter fraud.” The original video was tweeted out by Austin Fletcher, a right-wing online activist who uses the moniker “Fleccas”:

The 34-second video clip appears to show a vote-count worker, claimed by Fletcher to be located in “ATL” (Atlanta, Georgia), gesticulating at his desk. It’s not clear whether the voice narrating the video is Fletcher’s, but the narrator says:

I wonder what’s going on here. This dude has a fit about something. And then flips off a ballot, and then crumples it up. If that’s not voter fraud, I don’t know what is.

While the narrator presented it as definitive proof of electoral fraud (“If that’s not voter fraud, I don’t know what is”), other eminently plausible explanations existed for the count worker’s actions and non-verbal gestures. 

Firstly, it cannot be determined based on the video that the piece of paper the count worker crumpled up was a ballot.

Secondly, the narrator’s suggestion is that the count worker expressed anger or frustration in the video, and that this was linked to his personal political views and came in response to the contents of a ballot or ballots (that is, the candidate chosen in certain ballots). That, too, cannot be determined from watching the video. 

For example, if the worker was expressing frustration (and that is not clear from the video), it could well have been related to his execution of a specific task, rather than a politically motivated response. That is, he may have lost a count, for example, or he may have realized he had more ballots to check or count than he originally assumed, or any number of potential, apolitical, and innocuous causes for frustration or dismay. 

If we receive more information, we will update this post.

Have more information on this topic? Send us a tip.

过时的统计数据被用来传播关于选民欺诈的虚假声称，在 2020 年。

【宣称】

图片显示，美国 7 个州的选票数超过登记选民。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In November 2020, as states continued to tally votes cast in the U.S. presidential election, an image graphic supposedly showing how voter turnout had exceeded voter registrations in several states — the most extreme example claimed that Nevada had 125% voter turnout — was circulated on social media, along with accusations alleging some sort of voter fraud.

The data in the column for the number of registered voters was outdated. 

An archived version of WorldPopulationReview.com from Nov. 4 shows that the number of registered voters shown in the above-displayed graphic was truly displayed by this website. However, the data listed on this website at that time was outdated. On Nov. 5, the website had updated many of these numbers and added a disclaimer stating that “a previous version of this page contained data from 2018.”

Here’s the most recent data from these states. The number of registered voters comes from the election websites of the respective states and shows data from just before the start of the election (some states allow same-day registration, which is not reflected in the data below), and the number of votes cast comes from the most recent election data (as of noon CST on Nov. 5, 2020) reported by The New York Times:

Nevada: 1,821,356 registered voters / 1,221,403 votes
Pennsylvania: 9,091,371 registered voters / 6,424,679 votes
Minnesota: 3,588,563 registered voters /  3,257,507 votes
North Carolina: 7,361,219 registered voters / 5,461,810 votes
Wisconsin: 3,684,726 registered voters / 3,297,420 votes
Michigan: 8,127,040 registered voters / 5,515,817 votes
Arizona: 4,281,152 registered voters / 2,910,677 votes
Georgia: 7,233,584 registered voters / 4,919,922 votes

None of these states have seen more votes than registered voters. 

在传统的斯诺佩斯事实核查中对这一索赔进行评级之前，需要提供更多的证据，但官方消息来源对此予以驳斥。

【宣称】

广泛分享的社交媒体关于死亡或难以置信的老选民的帖子是否构成了 2020 年美国总统选举中密歇根州选举舞弊的明确证据？

【结论】

【原文】

Why no rating on this article? This topic is trending among reader queries but has not yet been rated by Snopes for reasons we’ll outline below.

In the aftermath of Election Day amid widespread, unsubstantiated allegations and conspiracy theories of electoral fraud, figures from the reelection campaign of U.S. President Donald Trump promoted content that was presented as proof of electoral fraud in Michigan — namely that individuals who were deceased or implausibly old had voted in the state of Michigan.

The president’s oldest son and campaign surrogate, Donald Trump Jr., promoted a tweet posted by @realannapaulina, who wrote: 

For those who don’t believe in voter fraud.

This is nuts. William Bradley a 118 year old dead person apparently voted via absentee ballot in Wayne County Michigan. Bradley died in 1984. How long has this scam been going on?

Similar videos were published by Austin Fletcher, a right-wing online activist who uses the moniker “Fleccas,” and in the UK, the pro-Brexit campaign Leave.EU promoted the “William Bradley” claim on Twitter.  

Although we haven’t yet been able to definitively determine whether this content is accurate or authentic, we have observed that it has certain traits that are often indicative of misinformation:

• The claim has been refuted by official sources.
• It appears this claim is being shared widely by only one political faction.
• The claim offers only one explanation for apparent incident or phenomenon, when other, less sinister explanations are plausible.
• This claim relates to alleged criminal conduct, but the relevant law enforcement agency (whether federal, state or local) hasn’t yet reported the supposed incident.
• The caption or description associated with the image(s) or video appears designed to inflame the viewer’s emotions.

The presence of those traits does not necessarily mean that the claim or content is bogus, but it does mean you should certainly be wary of sharing it online.

Here is what we do know: 

Claims of widespread electoral fraud are very often politically motivated, and seize upon minor, rare, and isolated discrepancies or mistakes to make exaggerated allegations of “rampant” corruption or malfeasance. As Snopes has documented in the past, claims centering on “dead people voting,” “dead people registered to vote” or “more voters registered than living adults” are especially prone to such misrepresentation, and are typically explained by either clerical and record-keeping errors, or the citation of out-of-date voter registration records. 

In response to our inquiries, a spokesperson for Michigan’s secretary of state effectively refuted claims that the content in question constituted evidence of electoral fraud. In an emailed statement sent to Snopes, the spokesperson explained that, even where discrepancies or clerical errors take place, safeguards are in place that ensure that no invalid ballots are counted:

Ballots of voters who have died are rejected in Michigan, even if the voter cast an absentee ballot and then died before Election Day. On rare occasions, a ballot received for a living voter may be recorded in a way that makes it appear as if the voter is dead. This can be because of voters with similar names, where the ballot is accidentally recorded as voted by John Smith Sr when it was actually voted by John Smith Jr; or because of inaccurately recorded birth dates in the qualified voter file; for example, someone born in 1990 accidentally recorded as born in 1890. In such scenarios, no one ineligible has actually voted, and there is no impact on the outcome of the election. Local clerks can correct the issue when it is brought to their attention.

Have more information on this topic? Send us a tip.

来自 C-SPAN 的填充镜头变成了病毒。

【宣称】

2020 年 11 月 4 日在美国总统大选后拍摄的白宫现场照片显示，一辆移动卡车停在外面。

【结论】

真

【原文】

On Nov. 4, 2020, the day after the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a brief video clip of the White House’s North Portico entrance with a Penske moving truck parked outside went viral:

While we note that: A) moving trucks can serve myriad potential uses; and that B) presidents, even when they lose, typically don’t move out of the White House until the end of their terms in January, the video is authentic.

The footage came from C-SPAN and shows a live shot of the White House on Nov. 4 at around 2:50 p.m. EST. Used as a visual filler between a press conference for U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham and a press conference for U.S. Senate candidate Cory Gardner, the clip spanned two minutes from 2:50 to 2:52 p.m. Here is the video in context:

 
Because the video is authentic, the claim of it being a live shot from outside the White House on Nov. 4, 2020, is true. Snopes remains agnostic, however, as to the truck’s purpose.

2020 年总统选举后的第二天，在社交媒体上分享了详细描述各种潜在选举犯罪的图像。

【宣称】

底特律福克斯 2 号新闻报道的图片列出了与 2020 年美国大选有关的严重选民登记问题。

【结论】

假

【原文】

The 2020 U.S. presidential election pitting incumbent Republican President Donald Trump against Democratic nominee Joe Biden took place on Nov. 3, and was immediately tainted by accusations from the Trump campaign of rampant “voter fraud” on the part of the Democrats. Although no actual evidence of widespread voter fraud was presented, Trump and his supporters waged a propaganda war to discredit the results of the election, which, as of the second day of vote counting (Nov. 4), appeared to be trending toward a Biden victory.

As part of this effort, some Trump supporters shared an image graphic purportedly taken from a Fox 2 Detroit news report entitled “Detroit Voter Roll Lawsuit — Filed by the Public Interest Legal Foundation.” Bullet points on the graphic alleged the discovery of 4,788 duplicate voter registrations, 32,519 more registered voters than eligible voters, 2,503 dead people registered to vote, and “one voter born in 1823.”

The timing of these posts conveyed the impression that Fox 2 Detroit had reported on voter fraud during, or connected to, the 2020 election. One Facebook user shared the image, posting: “Election fraud is real. President Trump is right.” A tweet with several hundred engagements shared the image as well, and read: “Can you believe this?” The image was also shared in private Facebook Groups after Election Day.

The graphic, we found, as well as the report it came from, were real. However, the news segment aired not in November 2020, but in December 2019. The lawsuit referenced in the report was dropped by the plaintiff on July 1, 2020, after “remedial action” was taken by the city of Detroit. The Detroit News reported:

An advocacy group suing the city of Detroit for inaccurate voter rolls is dropping its lawsuit after the city made inroads into fixing the issues raised by the Indiana nonprofit.

The Public Interest Legal Foundation, which filed its original suit in Detroit federal court in December, dropped it Tuesday after discovering Detroit Clerk Janice Winfrey and Elections Director George Azzouz had taken “remedial action.”

“Defendants have taken action on the list of likely deceased registrants provided by the plaintiff,” according to a Monday motion to dismiss the suit. “Further, almost all of the duplicate registrations that Plaintiff brought to defendants’ attention have been corrected.”

Winfrey said Wednesday Detroit’s updated voter rolls were largely a result of regular maintenance, but her office did look into a few specific claims made in the lawsuit, including allegations that one registrant was born in 1823.

“We did do some extra digging because that is ridiculous and we wanted to see what was going on there,” Winfrey said. “The conclusion was that that was a typographical error.”

Regarding the “typographical error” about the lone voter that was purportedly “born in 1823,” Michigan didn’t become a state until 1837.

In a nutshell, we learned that the graphic listed some alleged voter registration issues in 2019, and had nothing to do with the 2020 election. We also learned same image had actually been shared throughout 2020 to drum up fears of voter fraud. 

According to the Detroit News, the issues raised in the 2019 lawsuit were resolved to the satisfaction of the Public Interest Legal Foundation. But Christy Jenson, the executive director of the Michigan Democratic Party, told Fox 2 Detroit: “This lawsuit is about making a clickbait headline to make voters have less confidence in what is happening in their communities, their clerk’s office. And it is really a direct attack on people of color.”

Regarding the claim that absentee ballots for deceased individuals might be misused by family members who receive them in the mail, the Detroit News reported: “The Secretary of State’s office also has maintained the mailings will not lead to voter fraud since signature verification is required on both the ballot application and actual ballot.”

The Public Interest Legal Foundation is a conservative legal group with myriad ties to both the Trump Administration and right-wing media, but a questionable commitment to accuracy. In a previous article, Snopes detailed the results of our exhaustive investigation into methods used by the group to “generate, create, organize and weaponize” misleading narratives.

关于那些谁算票决定选举结果的著名报价的一个版本归因于苏联独裁者约瑟夫·斯大林在他的秘书的回忆录。

【宣称】

约瑟夫·斯大林说了一些版本的 “不是投票的人，而是计票的人。”

【结论】

混合物

【原文】

A perennial viral favorite every election year is a statement attributed to Joseph Stalin, leader of the U.S.S.R. from 1922 through 1953, about voting vs. who wins in elections. There are several variants in circulation, but the most popular when the quote first gained Internet notoriety during the Bush/Gore election recount debacle in 2000 was this: “It’s not the people who vote that count. It’s the people who count the votes.”

Since no published source was cited at the time, it was widely assumed that the quote was apocryphal. The opinion of Slate‘s “Explainer” columnist on 13 December 2000 was representative: “But did Joe really say it? Almost certainly, no. Let’s just say Joseph Stalin is not known to have waxed forth on the nature of voting and was singularly unconcerned with elections.”

In lieu of a suitable source proving that Stalin uttered the quip, a number of similar quotes attributed to sources other than the Soviet dictator were offered up as possible progenitors:

“As long as I count the Votes, what are you going to do about it. say?” — attributed to William M. “Boss” Tweed in Thomas Nast cartoon, 7 October 1871).

“‘I care not who casts the votes of a nation, provided I can count them,’ Napoleon failed to remark.” — New York Times editorial (26 May 1880).

“There’s more to an election than mere votin’, my boy, for as an eminent American once said: ‘I care not who casts the votes of a nation if they’ll let me make the count.‘” — from Uncle Henry, a novel by George Creel, 1922.

“It’s not the voting that’s democracy, it’s the counting, Archie says.” — from Jumpers, a play by Tom Stoppard, 1972.

“Indeed, you won the elections, but I won the count.” — Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza (1896-1956), Guardian (London), 17 June 1977.

These other renderings proved, if nothing else, that the thought wasn’t necessarily original to Joseph Stalin, whether a variant uttered by him could be traced to a published source or not.

In 2006, Wikiquote dug up such a source: The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary by Boris Bazhanov, published in 2002. Translated from the Russian, the version which, according to Bazhanov, was uttered in 1923 by Stalin in reference to a vote in the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, was this:

“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this — who will count the votes, and how.”

The quote is a rough match for the words commonly attributed to Stalin, with the notable difference that the context is quite specific. Stalin wasn’t speaking of elections and voting in general. He was speaking of a particular vote by a particular body.

While it would be a bit of a stretch to assert (given the vagaries of translation, the unreliability of memory, and the existence of earlier examples) that the sentiment “The people who cast the votes decide nothing; the people who count the votes decide everything” originated with Stalin, there is at least some evidence that he once said something like it.

随着社交媒体用户迅速分享选举更新，一些错误的采取变得病毒化。

【宣称】

2020 年民主党总统候选人乔·拜登获得 128 000 票新票的 100％ 计数在密歇根州。

【结论】

假

【原文】

On Nov. 3, 2020, as states across the U.S. started to count ballots in the presidential election, information was flying quickly around social media. While this rapid influx of data helped to keep the voting public informed, it also aided in the spread of misinformation as erroneous tweets quickly spread before they could be corrected. 

Conservative columnist Matt Mackowiak, for instance, posted a tweet claiming that Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden had received 100% of newly counted ballots — approximately 128,000 — in the battleground state of Michigan. Mackowiak later deleted this tweet after it was revealed that the suspicious boost was the result of a typo, but not before the claim was shared by popular conservative writer Matt Walsh, who wrote that “this is reason enough to go to court. No honest person can look at this and say it’s normal and unconcerning.” U.S. President Donald Trump then retweeted that tweet, writing: “WHAT IS THIS ALL ABOUT?”

Here’s a look at Mackowiak’s original tweet, as well as the message he posted explaining why he deleted his original post:

This tweet was taken and share honestly. I have now learned the MI update referenced was a typo in one county.

I have deleted the original tweet.

Mackowiak’s original assertion was based on an error made by the election analysis service Decision Desk HQ. The company said in a statement to Buzzfeed News:

“It was a simple error from a file created by the state that we ingested. DDHQ does not correct / amend / adjust any state provided file. The state noticed the error and produced an updated count. This happens on election nights and we expect other vote tabulators in MI experienced this error and corrected in real-time as we did.”

More specifically, the error seems to stem from a typo regarding the vote count in Shiawassee County. The data should have stated that 15,371 votes had been counted in that county, not “153,710.” The error has since been corrected.

亚利桑那州是明显由乔·拜登在 2020 年赢得的几个州之一，这些州被选举相关的阴谋理论的目标。

【宣称】

亚利桑那州投票的地方给了骗子笔特朗普的支持者, 使用这使他们的选票无效.

【结论】

假

【原文】

In the vote-counting melee that followed on the heels of Election Day 2020 in the U.S., Democratic challenger Joe Biden’s apparent unexpected narrow win in the state of Arizona was among the many results targeted by conspiracy theories.

In that instance, the claim was that the use of Sharpie-brand pens, which had supposedly been offered to (only Republican) voters in some precincts, had invalidated the ballots on which they were used:

ARE MAIL IN BALLOTS BEING MODIFIED AS WE SPEAK IN CORRUPT DEM DISTRICTS? have you heard about Dems distributing sharpie pens to Trump voters and then invalidating their ballots?

— Michael Savage (@ASavageNation) November 4, 2020

According to the Maricopa County Recorder’s website, “voters at home may use ballpoint pen in black or blue ink or a sharpie.” The only warning offered on the site was against the use of “red and red-adjacent ink.”

The website also stated that, “Vote Centers use fine tip sharpies as they have the fastest drying ink, therefore preventing smudges when put through the Vote Center tabulation equipment.”

County officials noted that the ballot design and scanning apparatus mitigated any concerns about possible bleed-through issues stemming from the use of Sharpie-brand markers.

世界正在看到美国总统唐纳德·特朗普是否赢得第二个任期，或乔·拜登是否成为美国第 46 任总统。

【宣称】

2020 年美国总统选举结束，获胜者已经宣布。

【结论】

假

【原文】

Not yet.

We’ll update this page with more info when it is, hopefully before Inauguration Day: Jan. 20, 2021.

Meantime, follow our Election Day fact-checking here.

社交媒体传言错误地将 2018 年登记选民人数与 2020 年投票人数进行比较。

【宣称】

威斯康星州计算了 3,239,920 票，但只有 3129 000 名登记选民。

【结论】

假

【原文】

On Nov. 4, 2020, as several states continued to count votes in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, a rumor went viral on social media holding that Wisconsin had counted more votes (3,239,920) than it had registered voters (3,129,000). On Twitter, one user claimed that this was clear evidence of fraud:

The claim made in this tweet is false.

Wisconsin has not counted more votes than it has registered voters. This tweet is comparing the vote count from 2020 with the number of registered voters from 2018. When we take a look at Wisconsin’s current total of registered voters, we see that there is nothing fraudulent about the state’s count. 

According to the Wisconsin Election Commission, the “State of Wisconsin had 3,684,726 active registered voters on November 1, 2020.” It’s unclear where the “3,239,920” number shown in the above-displayed tweet comes from. As of this writing, The New York Times reports that a total of “3,296,836” votes have been cast in Wisconsin. In either case, the number of votes counted does not exceed the number of registered voters. 

So where did the “3,129,000 registered voters” statistic come from? The 2018 midterms. 

According to data from the United States Census Bureau concerning “Voting and Registration in the Election of November 2018,” Wisconsin had 3,129,000 registered voters in 2018. 

你们可能有点过早地庆祝

【宣称】

一个新闻频道在 2020 年 10 月报道，音乐家坎耶·韦斯特在肯塔基州获得了 4 万票的美国总统。

【结论】

假

【原文】

In October 2020, an image supposedly showing a screenshot from a news broadcast in which it was reported that musician Kanye West had received 40,000 votes in Kentucky for president of the United States was widely circulated on social media. West, himself, shared the image on Twitter:

This image does not show genuine election results. One dead giveaway is that it states it shows “100% of precincts reporting,” but it started circulating in October — weeks before voting was to end on Nov. 3. 

The above-displayed image comes from Lex18.com, an NBC News affiliate based in Lexington, Kentucky, but it doesn’t actually show any election results. This is actually a mock poll that was created as part of a test in preparation for the election. 

Lex 18 attempted to clear up the confusion at the time, writing on Twitter:

West will appear on the ballot in at least 11 states as an independent candidate of the “Birthday Party.” While we can’t tell how many votes he will end up receiving in the presidential election, he has been polling nationally at about 2% — well below the 19% shown in the mock poll above. 

在德克萨斯州的事件的视频在选举日前的最后一个周末病毒。

【宣称】

美国联邦调查局正在调查一起事件，其中特朗普的皮卡支持者于 2020 年 10 月 30 日在德克萨斯州的一条高速公路上包围了一辆 Biden-Harris 战役公共汽车。

【结论】

真

【原文】

In early November 2020, Snopes readers asked for verification of news reports that the FBI was investigating an incident in Texas in which supporters of U.S. President Donald Trump in pickup trucks surrounded a campaign bus for Trump’s presidential opponent, Democratic candidate Joe Biden, while it was traveling on Interstate 35 through Hays County.

The FBI’s San Antonio office confirmed to multiple news media outlets, including Snopes, that it did open an investigation into the incident. Special Agent Michelle Lee told Snopes in an email that the FBI has no further comment or updates, as of this writing.

On Oct. 30, 2020, videos of the incident went viral across social media. They showed pickup trucks flying Trump flags tightly surrounding a Biden campaign bus traveling on the highway.

The Biden campaign said Trump’s followers were trying to run the bus off the road. The incident resulted in a minor collision between a truck driven by a Trump supporter and a white SUV that appeared to accompany the campaign bus. After Biden staffers called 911, local police responded and escorted the bus to its destination, according to the Texas Tribune.

The incident prompted the Biden campaign to cancel an event in Austin, Texas, citing safety concerns and accusing Trump’s supporters of putting “our staff, surrogates, supporters, and others in harm’s way.”

Trump responded by tweeting a video of the incident and writing, “I LOVE TEXAS!”

37 岁的理查德·罗斯的悲惨死亡吸引了世界各地的头条新闻在 2020 年夏天。

【宣称】

俄亥俄州克林顿港的理查德·罗斯在早些时候发誓不买面罩并拒绝使用面具作为 “炒作” 的建议后死于 COVID-19。

【结论】

真

【原文】

In the summer of 2020, we received multiple inquiries from readers about a collage of social media posts that appeared to show the public pronouncements of Ohio man Richard Rose. One image appears to be a screenshot of a Facebook post by Rose, vowing not to wear a face mask in the context of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, while a later image appears to be a screenshot of his obituary, which states that he died on July 4 “due to complications of COVID-19.” 

An Ohio man, Richard Rose, who said masks were "hype" in Facebook posts and who went to a crowded pool party in June, has died of COVID-19 coronavirus, his family and friends say: //t.co/nX35Uj1GLB pic.twitter.com/q1oy3LyTyB

— Heavy.com (@HeavySan) July 10, 2020

The story was reported by national and international news outlets, and the collage of Rose’s Facebook posts was presented by some internet users as a stark warning for those who failed to take seriously the risk of spreading and contracting the virus, and in particular, the effectiveness of wearing face masks. However, some expressed skepticism about the story, claiming that Rose was a crisis actor, and that the circumstances of his death, and his earlier social media posts, amounted to a hoax.

But the posts and obituary were authentic. Richard Donald Rose III, known as Rick, died on July 4 after suffering complications from COVID-19, with which he was diagnosed three days earlier.  Two months earlier, he had indeed vowed not to wear a face mask, dismissing their use as “hype.” Three weeks before his passing, Rose did visit a holiday resort in Ohio, posting a photograph of a crowded swimming pool area there. 

Rose’s obituary, which was published on the Legacy.com website, in the Sandusky Register, the Port Clinton Beacon, and on the website of Crosser and Priesman funeral home, stated the following:

“Richard Donald Rose, III, 37, of Port Clinton passed away Saturday, July 4, 2020 due to complications of Covid-19 at his home. He was born July 25, 1982 in Port Clinton. He graduated from Port Clinton High School. He served his country in the United States Army for nine years serving two tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. He enjoyed social media, online streaming, paranormal and his two cats Dale and Tucker. He was a fan of NASCAR, Dirt Track Racing and Georgia Bulldogs Football. Surviving are his mother and step-father: Tina and Kenny Heschel of Port Clinton; sister: Krystal Campbell of Genoa; brother: K. C. Heschel of Concord, NC; half-sister: Melissa Rose of Port Clinton. He was preceded in death by his grandparents: Carl and Marla Kessler, Cooper and Janice Heschel, Richard Rose, Mildred DeBlase…”

In the months leading up to his death, Rose posted to Facebook several observations regarding COVID-19, but the tone of the posts was not consistent throughout. In general, much of what Rose posted on the site was humorous, and some of his COVID-19-related posts kept the spirit of lightheartedness and mischievousness.

At one point, in early April, he appeared to be at the very least curious about the potential benefits of various kinds of face masks, but on the other hand, a meme he posted on May 18 promoted a baseless claim that policies requiring face masks to be worn were a precursor to mandatory Muslim dress codes. 

Rose was clearly personally aware that COVID-19 was a real phenomenon. In March he noted in a Facebook post that his own cousin had tested positive for the disease, and he requested prayers and “positive vibes” on behalf of that cousin, who was in a medically induced coma at that time. 

On other occasions, the content Rose posted to his Facebook profile suggested he was, in fact, cognizant of the potential for harm from the pandemic. In March, for example, Rose posted a meme that, although humorous, indicated he had existing immune deficiencies that could make him particularly vulnerable — a post that turned out to be tragically prescient. On April 23, he posted another humorous meme that appeared to mock plans to end economic and social lockdowns as being premature.

Some versions of the collage of Rose’s Facebook posts, shared widely after his death, included mention of him visiting the holiday resort of Put-in-Bay on South Bass Island in Ohio. Those screenshots were also authentic. Based on his Facebook posts, Rose appears to have visited the resort on June 6 and June 13. On the latter occasion, he posted a photograph of a crowded swimming pool, ironically adding that “It’s not that packed.”

The variety of tone in Rose’s observations about the pandemic was not properly reflected in many news reports and social media posts, some of which reductively portrayed him as being akin to a COVID-19 denialist. Nonetheless, on April 28, Rose did indisputably vow in a Facebook post that he would not buy a face mask, adding “I’ve made it this far by not buying into that damn hype”:

Rose’s Facebook posts in his final days indicated a rapid decline in his health.

On July 1, he wrote that he had been tested for COVID-19 after feeling “very sick the past few days.”  Later the same day, Rose confirmed he had tested positive for the virus, and had been placed under quarantine for 14 days. Poignantly, he added, “Sucks because I had just started a new job.” The following day, he wrote ominously “This covid shit sucks! I’m so out of breath just sitting here.” Two days later, on July 4, Rose died at the age of 37. 

快餐连锁店之前曾宣布它将从菜单中削减 12 个其他项目。

【宣称】

塔克贝尔已经从菜单中删除了墨西哥比萨饼, 鸡肉丝, 和笔克德加洛.

【结论】

真

【原文】

On July 17, 2020, Taco Bell announced that it would be “clearing space” on the company’s menu “to create a more efficient Taco Bell experience.” At the time, the company removed 12 items from the menu:

• Grilled Steak Soft Taco
• 7-Layer Burrito (can still be created in app ordering)
• Nachos Supreme
• Beefy Fritos Burrito®
• Spicy Tostada
• Triple Layer Nachos
• Spicy Potato Soft Taco
• Cheesy Fiesta Potatoes
• Loaded Grillers (Cheesy Potato, Beefy Nacho)
• Chips & Dips
• Mini Skillet Bowl
• Quesarito (still available for app ordering)

On Sept. 3, 2020, the company additionally announced it would also be phasing out the Mexican Pizza, Pico de Gallo, and Shredded Chicken around Nov. 5:

We know some fans may be sad to see this one go, we are too. One silver lining of saying goodbye to the Mexican Pizza that might help you rest easy is that removing it from our menus helps us work towards our commitment to leave a lighter footprint on our planet. Currently, Mexican Pizza packaging accounts for over 7 million pounds of paperboard material per year in the U.S.

Taco Bell diners reacted with sadness to the news of the Mexican Pizza’s demise as the Nov. 5 date approached:

@tacobell please tell me why you are sold out of the Mexican Pizza at All locations?

— Jeff Petrucci (@Jeffpetrucci) October 30, 2020