Talk:2018 United States Senate election in Michigan

Polling

Why is it that we don't include poll by Delphi Analytica, with Kid Rock and Debbie Stabenow? It's the only hard data we've got on this race and it's made headlines.--Neddy1234 (talk) 13:17, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Can we go ahead and get consensus on putting up the Delphi Analytic poll? RedBear2040 (talk) 20:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

It isn't hard data, its a poll. Why is it needed? Our job is to report facts that have been published in reliable secondary sources. A poll isn't a fact. There has been no evidence shown that it has been reported on in reliable secondary sources. There have been more than one poll added to this article in the past few days, none sourced by secondary sources. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. I am reluctant to endorse the inclusion of any polls, but adamant on not including any that are not widely reported on. And even then, only interested in including the journalistic analysis of the poll, not the poll itself. Again, this is an encyclopedia. John from Idegon (talk) 21:06, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Including polls is pretty standard in all election articles. You can go through many of the other Senate 2018 election articles and see that they include polls. But if you want the poll to be mentioned on news sites, then here you go: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Of course it will be mostly right-leaning sites that will cover this, but it was even covered on billboard.com: [8]. I will concede that it's a relatively unknown polling firm, however.Terrorist96 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

I would not term any one of those a reliable source. YMMV. If these polls are significant, how come the freep, or mlive or any of the TV stations, or any of the national news organizations like AP, UPI, USAToday, CNN, Foxnews, etc have not covered them? I highly doubt Billboard would be considered a good source for politics.John from Idegon (talk) 22:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Reliable doesn't mean unbiased. A source can be biased but also reliable at the same time. But those bigger news names likely didn't cover it because of its admitted obscurity. I don't know. I don't object to including the polling data because it's better to have more information than less, IMO.Terrorist96 (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

The site on which the poll was published was registered literally two weeks ago and there's no evidence that such a firm actually exists. Mélencron (talk) 00:06, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

But per WP:NPOV, isn't it improper to list info from sources known to be right-leaning without sources from the other side to balance coverage? John from Idegon (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not talking about political leanings. I'm saying that it's almost certainly not a real poll, regardless of who's reporting on it. Mélencron (talk) 00:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, Mélencron. I was actually replying to Terrorist96. Had to step away for a moment and you replied in the meantime. I don't disagree with you. Something funny is going on here. John from Idegon (talk) 00:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

It's just a poll. We're not talking about a controversial topic where we should give both sides of the argument equal weight. There's no argument or neutrality issue. Whether or not it's a real polling company is a valid question though. They have a phone number listed on their contact page if anyone wants to contact them lol.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

And now it's being added back, this time sourced to a Google drive. There is no consensus to include this and even if there was, you can't source something to a Google drive. John from Idegon (talk) 20:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is resolved or not, but I'm convinced the Delphi Analytica poll isn't legitimate. I saw it almost as soon as it came out. Several left-leaning pundits questioned it's legitimacy, so I went back to a Breitbart article and clicked the link they cited, and went to the site. 20 minutes later, I clicked the link again and it said the site had been taken down. HotAir also noted that the poll had certain characteristics that put its legitimacy in question, including the astronomically high number of undecideds for a matchup between two figures with almost universal name recognition (the Trafalgar Group poll had only 5% undecided).162.222.9.246 (talk) 04:11, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Looks like the recently added one is different (Trafalgar Group vs. Delphi Analytica)Terrorist96 (talk) 21:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, Trafalgar is fine. I don't see the issue with it being uploaded on Google Drive. Mélencron (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

The Delphi Analytica poll has been determined to be fake.[9] Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

LA Times recently published an article, citing two polls, Trafalgar Group and Target-Insyght. VietPride10 (talk) 01:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand why people keep deleting the poll from Trafalgar group. It seems legit and was even posted on RealClearPolitics, which has a pretty good running tally of polls. Anyone wanna fill me in on this?Neddy1234 (talk) 13:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Original research

User:Legionaire Editor has twice added large edits containing original research. I have twice reverted the edits. Below is an explanation why.

• The editor wrote: "Located in the upper Midwest, Michigan is seen as a birthplace of the Republican Party, along with Wisconsin." This is not supported by the source cited here.
• Then, "and the state's political heritage was Republican immediately upon the founding of that party. In fact, it was so solidly red that Franklin Roosevelt was the first Democrat to prevail there after Franklin Pierce carried it in 1852, amid the collapse of the Whig Party. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition redefined the state's political landscape, and it became more of a battleground, voting for Democrats during the Sixties and then returning to the GOP fold until 1992, when Bill Clinton won it by a landslide". This is barely supported by the sources cited here and here.
• Then, "With Clinton's victory, the state began leaning strongly Democratic at the federal level, although Republicans still enjoyed success at the state level". The editor supported this edit with a Wikipedia page here.
• Then, "However, in 2010, with the passage of the Affordable Care Act, the state was enveloped in backlash against the Democrats, and the state has been ruled by a GOP trifecta ever since". This edit is not supported by either of the two sources cited here and here.
• Then, "However, despite the GOP's dominance at the state level, Democrats are still quite competitive at the federal level, and Barack Obama carried the state by a large margin in 2012". The source here states only "B. Obama...54.3% (2,561,911)...M. Romney...GOP...44.8%".
• Then, "The 2014 midterm elections saw Democratic Rep. Gary Peters claim an open Senate seat against Republican Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land by a wide margin". The sources cited here does not mention his being a midterm election, and does not mention the election results or a "wide margin".
• Then, "but then, in 2016, the state was carried by now-President Donald Trump (R)." This was supported by this source.
• Then, "Trump's victory has buoyed Republican hopes of defeating Democratic Senator Debbie Stabenow, despite the utter failure of their past efforts". The source cited here mentions Stabenow, but not in this context, and says nothing about the "utter failure" of past efforsts.
• Then, "Several high profile candidates have taken a look at the race, including musicians Robert Ritchie (alias Kid Rock) and Ted Nugent. Although Stabenow's landslide victories against Republicans Pete Hoekstra and Mike Bouchard quelled GOP hopes of taking her seat in the past, Republicans think they have a shot, and with a great map in 2018." Ritchie, Nugent, Hoekstra and Bouchard are not mentioned in the source cited here.
• Then, "they aim to take it". The source cited here mentions Hoekstra, but little else. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Magnolia677, I reverted him once, too. He posted at my talk (top of page, unsigned) saying basically he was going to put it back whether I liked it or not. Obviously we have a new editor here, but that does not relieve him from the responsibility of understanding how things work. IMO, this article is a mess and I think PC protection and an Arbcom American Politics waning are appropriate here. John from Idegon (talk) 04:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

John from Idegon, I see I made some mistakes. I apologize. If I may though, can I ask a couple questions? First, instead of permanently removing my edit, could you have just messaged me (or written on my talk page) to tell me a certain section needed more support, and temporarily removed it until I fixed it? Also, in case writing background on election articles is wrong, I also wrote some summaries on these articles, so please revert them if you feel they violate any guidelines. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Maine,_2018#Background. Sorry if I was a bit of a jerk earlier. I was just a bit frustrated that I was being reverted on general charges (nothing specific that I could fix). Legionaire Editor (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2017 (UTC)https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Legionaire_Editor&action=edit&redlink=1

Google Consumer Surveys

A poll with 0% is not a credible poll. If you're pushing for everyone to choose and/or dropping those who refuse to answer or are undecided, you can not compare that to regular polling. Google Consumer Surveys very likely needs to be removed. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

After reading this piece about "fake polls" at [10], I decided to delete the Google Surveys poll. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Google Consumer Surveys does actually conduct legitimate election polling (as it did during the 2016 presidential election), and was used by other legitimate political firms (see Red Oak Strategic), but it's also used by many amateurs on their own who are involved in betting markets and others curious about potential races, mainly because it's expensive and easy to use. No guarantee of proper weighting procedures in the latter case, however. Mélencron (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Filing deadline

The deadline for filing to run is April 24, 2018. After the Michigan Secretary of State office's list of candidates is released, all potential candidates not on the official list will be deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:02, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• Shouldn't be deleted, as there are notable reasons to keep candidates who we speculated about but never ended up running (as I suspect will happen with Kid Rock). I think the better option would be to change the subheading to something reflecting that reality. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:16, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

There is another category for those who announced they are running but did not make the official list which is 'Failed to qualify'.Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

3rd Party candiates are allowed to be listed regardless of political status

There is no rule specified by Wikipedia that says otherwise as long as the said candidates are running.

• Wikipedia works on consensus. Consensus among editors is how many of these decisions are made, not rules. There is at this time no consensus that the infobox should be changed to include all candidates running, and Wikipedia precedent has always been to leave out minor party candidates from the infobox. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

As a Michigander I believe all candidates should be given the fair space and information as any other listed party. Just because they are a "minor" party does not mean that their views could not reflect the majority of the State. This is supposed to list all the valid facts not just the ones the "editors" deem necessary.Duijinn 00:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dillan.neelis (talk • contribs)

John James

The previous article John James (Michigan politician) was redirected to United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 following this deletion discussion, and, quite predictably, so was John James (U.S. Senate candidate). While James, the winner of the Republican Senate primary, probably does not warrant a stand-alone article at the moment per WP:NPOL, this does not preclude adding relevant information to this article and/or United States Senate elections, 2018. It would be nice to get some more paragraphs of prose in this rather skeletal article. The following sources have relevant biographical info for article development. Note that coverage expands beyond local news, with coverage in The New York Times, Fox News, and the The Federalist. I declare no connection whatsoever to Mr. James, nor to Michigan politics. --Animalparty! (talk) 23:16, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fleming, Leonard M. (July 22, 2018). "James doesn't stress race in Senate bid, but could become black GOP pioneer". The Detroit News.
• "One-on-one with Republican senatorial candidate John James". WXYZ. July 23, 2018.
• Peters, Jeremy W. (August 3, 2018). "John James, Black and Republican, Thinks He Can Crack the 'Blue Wall' in Michigan". The New York TImes.
• Spangler, Todd (August 7, 2018). "James wins Republican nod to face U.S. Sen. Debbie Stabenow". Detroit Free Press.
• Cavitt, Mark (August 7, 2018). "Republican John James will face U.S. Senator Debbie Stabenow in general election". The Oakland Press.
• Singman, Brooke (August 8, 2018). "Trump calls John James 'future star' of GOP after Michigan Senate primary win". Fox News.
• Cleveland, Margot (August 8, 2018). "Michigan's Underdog Senate Primary Winner John James Offers A Bright Future For Voters And Republicans". The Federalist.

Marcia Squier

Picture Requested!!!

Green nominee Marcia Squier has recieved 5% in polling from Mlive and Free Press Detroit. She is also planned to be included in a televised debate with James and Stabenow in Lansing. This warrants her spot in the Infobox. If any user can upload her image to the Wikimedia Commons, that would be greatly appreciated. -Kraanky — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.170.60 (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Not true. Mélencron (talk) 03:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Even in the case that it were, it would seem that at the very least the kind of working standard, here, is that for those running on partisan line, you have to be represented by a major party, which is something that actually has legal meaning in Michigan. Only the Dems, Republicans and Libertarians have majory party status at the moment. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

That is a false statement, [Here is a link to Michigan Law: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(eqbzfll0lwdy0ukpns3w2oea))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=mcl-168-93] according to Michgan law you do not need to be in a major party. I will be working on adding Marcia Squier's information onto this page as soon as I am able.Dillan.neelis (talk) 00:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

-In addtion to Dillan's comment, Marcia was also invited to a televised debate alongside Stabenow and James, which qualifies for a spot anyway. -Anonymous — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.170.60 (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Supporting citations

It is VERY VERY important to make sure the edits match the supporting citations. I prevented an edit war by making sure the citation supports the edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)