Jump to content

Talk:2014 Michigan gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

McFarland

[edit]

he is listed under both Democrat and Republican, but neither mention that he is the same guy who revived the US Taxpayers Party nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.119.143.248 (talk) 15:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Duggan

[edit]

Last March, Mike Duggan announced he was not running for Michigan governor. But now that he withdrew from the race for Detroit mayor, there is talk that Duggan might change his mind as shown in this news story at [1]. Can someone be listed in both the 'potential' and 'declined' lists? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this new citation at [2], I think it should just be in 'declined'. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Credible backchannel scuttlebutt that Duggan is on the short list (along with Stupak and Whitmer) for the running mate slot. We'll see what develops. Kevinrexheine (talk) Kevinrexheine (talk) 16:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"backchannel scuttlebutt"??? What on earth are you on about? I presume you're referring to unsourced gossip, in which case, no, it's not "credible". Tiller54 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, "backchannel scuttlebutt" is a bit more credible than that, and references a scenario where no source will talk on the record (the term being nautical in origin). F.Y.I., a quick Google search of my name ("Kevin Rex Heine") will show me being a bit more plugged in than the average John Q. Public regarding Michigan politics. In any event, Duggan did survive the Detroit mayoral primary last month, and is currently the front-runner in the general election campaign (a bit of a surprise, given that he was a write-in in the primary). This actually dropped his stock as a potential running mate for Mark Schauer.Kevinrexheine (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it really isn't. It's unsourced, therefore completely lacking in credibility. It carries the same weight as someone just making stuff up. RE the mayoral election, the article (Detroit mayoral election, 2013) could use updating with some information on the controversy over the recount/dispute if you have the time. Tiller54 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No promises, but I'll see if I can't set aside some time this week to address it.Kevinrexheine (talk) 11:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Tiller54 (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Primary: Potential challengers to Governor Snyder

[edit]

A quick note: Polls of republican delegates isn't a poll of activists; it's a poll of high-probability republican primary voters. That statewide news outlets would pick up on that poll would seem, to me, to indicate the potential of a challenge. I'm curious as to why we're okay with listing a potential Democrat primary challenger to Mark Schauer that cites nothing more than a single poll, but object to listing potential Republican primary challengers where several news articles referencing a single poll are cited.

Kevinrexheine (talk) 22:44, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A poll is not a reliable source for declaring someone a "potential candidate", no matter how many news articles report on it. Unless you can find a source for one of those people where they say "I'm thinking about running for Governor", please stop adding them back in. If that's the only source for Bob King, then he should be removed too. Tiller54 (talk) 23:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed them all, Democratic and Republican. Please don't go and add any of them back in unless you can find a source where it specifically states that they're thinking of running for Governor. Thank you. Tiller54 (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I assume that a specific source stating that they're not interested also works. Kevinrexheine (talk) 23:22, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The filing deadline for this race is Tuesday, May 6th, 2014. At what point after that do we remove the "potential" category in either of the primary races, and relabel the "declared" category as "filed"? Kevinrexheine (talk) 12:15, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After the filing deadline's passed, "potential" candidates are removed. "Declared" stays as is. Tiller54 (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason I'd thought that the category would be relabeled as "Filed."Kevinrexheine (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, although "withdrawn" does get changed to "withdrew" once the election's over. Tiller54 (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like what was stated above, 'potential' candidates have to express interest in running for governor. The new edits for Todd Courser with a citation that mentions him states that he is not interested in running so his name was moved from 'potential' to 'declined.' Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:27, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends upon which paragraph of the cited article you focus on, but I acknowledge your point.Kevinrexheine (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Primary: Potential challengers to Lieutenant Governor Calley

[edit]

Since there is a declared challenger to Lt. Gov. Calley's renomination at the August 2014 MIGOP State Convention, to the extent that a straw poll was conducted at last weekend's Mackinac Republican Leadership Conference (and there is at least one other potential challenger on the record now), would it be wise to break the Republican Primary category into Gubernatorial and Lieutenant Gubernatorial sub-categories? Kevinrexheine (talk) 13:32, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Major Party Candidates

[edit]

I propose a compromise, Tiller54. Each non-major party candidate gets a separate sub-category under a general header. There are several ballot-qualified third parties in Michigan:

So, is providing each applicable category under a general header acceptable?Kevinrexheine (talk) 21:18, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the manual of style for links, they should not be included in headings. Also, the heading "Declared Non-Major Party Candidates" is far too cumbersome. Each party gets its own section, there's no need to lump them all in together. Then, declared, withdrawn, potential and declined candidates can be listed underneath. Like this. Or this. Tiller54 (talk) 16:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Key piece of info for minor parties with ballot access is the date of their nominating convention if it has been announced. Libertarians apparently just held - http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20140517/NEWS02/305170018/Libertarians-hold-party-convention-Howell?nclick_check=1 Greens on June 7-8 http://www.migreenparty.org/nominating-convention.html US TaxPayers may be on June 28th (not sure) - http://ustpm.org/eventcalendar/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2014/06/28/451/-/MjFmMjEyMDA1YzZiNTMxN2NjZmE0OWQ0MjNiYmI4ZDE=.html That's all I've found so far ... hopefully someone else can format it in appropriately 71.94.42.70 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Snyder is still vulnerable

[edit]

The last edit in which the statement that Rick Snyder is vulnerable was removed was reverted because the consensus regarding the race is that it is still a "tossup". Also, the polls still show Snyder well below the 50% mark in regards to support. The last poll listed in the article shows his likely Democratic opponent gaining ground with the difference at 4% and the margin of error being plus or minus 3%. Steelbeard1 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see the editor in question, User talk:2602:304:B0FD:19C0:90AA:941F:B0AF:76CF, does not wish to participate in the discussion. Instead, he starts an edit war and calls me rude. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Steelbeard1: and @2602:304:B0FD:19C0:90AA:941F:B0AF:76CF:. LISTEN.I will block the next person who makes a revert in this dispute. AND, I'm smart enough to block anyone else who jumps in starting with the timsestamp of this post. Dlohcierekim 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in the edit history that the other editor in the dispute attempted to add POV to the article which was quickly reverted by another editor as shown at [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RfC on the vulnerability of Snyder

[edit]
There has been edit warring and some frayed tempers over the vulnerability of Snyder cited by the Huffington Post poll. Huffington Post is a reliable source, if a bit POV in it's views. I have introduced a compromise view. Is there a similar cite than can counter the HP assertion. If so, it can be used to support an opinion referencing that source. That is possible choice. As I see it, the editors of this page can reject the HP poll vulnerability line; they can accept it; they can accept my version; they can accept the HP view and counter it from another source. RfC's generally run a week. I recuse my self from determining whatever consensus emerges. Until a consensus arises, no one is to edit the matter in question. Two of the principals in this dispute have 3RR warned each other. They have both violated 3RR. I'll be happy to block anyone who cannot abide by the restriction on further edit warring. Now please, discuss the merits and demerits of the edit in question. Thanks Dlohcierekim 02:35, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I like Orser67's better. Dlohcierekim 05:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personally, I think posting polls is pointless unless you are very close to election day, the poll contradicts race ratings, and/or the polls consistently show one side ahead of the other. An advantage of +4 in a poll isn't really newsworthy for either side; +4 is usually within the MoE. Certainly, leading by 4 points in a poll doesn't show that someone isn't vulnerable. Here's how I would do it: "The consensus among The Cook Political Report,[3] Governing,[4] The Rothenberg Political Report,[5] Sabato's Crystal Ball[6] and Daily Kos Elections[7] is that the contest is a "tossup," indicating a close race in which neither Snyder nor his likely challenger, Democrat Mark Schauer, have an advantage." Orser67 (talk) 04:06, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Every month we change the article to reflect who is leading now? Dlohcierekim 05:29, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current edit by Dlohcierekim looks fine to me. It is obvious as you look at the more recent polls that neither leading candidate is even close to the 50% threshold of support and there is still a large percentage who is undecided. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:52, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I probably should have been clear on reverting the revert by WQUlrich. What he did was revert everything in the edit, undoing much more than he had an objection with. Also, what he objected to was a tag that isn't seen in the article itself, but only on the edit page. Kevinrexheine (talk) 02:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disapproved editorial changes

[edit]

Given that this is a moderated article for the time being, do we delete disapproved edits, or just leave them in the article history? Kevinrexheine (talk) 00:16, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You should just leave them; they are overwritten by succeeding edits. --MrScorch6200 (t c) 02:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2014

[edit]

24 hours after the election, results should be included and all future tense changed to past. 68.61.180.122 (talk) 10:01, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. - NG39 (Used to be NickGibson3900)Talk 07:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:21, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Michigan gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Michigan_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1211538614"