Talk:2018 United States Senate special election in Mississippi

Polling

I found this Google Surveys poll done by the Hinds County Democratic Polling group. Why was it removed? Is it a real poll for the special election or not? It is supposedly a Google Surveys poll. 47.151.1.140 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

If it really is, then they have no reason not to link to the published Google Consumer Surveys result itself rather than this mashed-up Word document. I think it's a bad and obvious fake. Mélencron (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

How do I tell if a poll is fake or not? 47.151.1.140 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I mean... if there are generally red flags like those above? If you Google the name of an organization and it's not mentioned in any news reports or such, at the very least – I get exactly 10 results on Google when searching "Hinds County Democratic Polling Group" in quotes, and all of them are from Twitter. Mélencron (talk) 12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Showing candidate's party affiliation with headshot

I think some editors are misunderstanding the meaning of "nonpartisan" in "nonpartisan jungle primary" - It does not mean that the candidates' party affiliation is not shown (as it is not shown for nonpartisan offices). Nonpartisan in this case refers to voters not being restricted based on the voter's party affiliation.
A Senate position is a partisan office.
On nonpartisan jungle primary ballots, candidates' political party associations are listed. It would be a disservice to not include the relevant information.
An explanation of nonpartisian primaries showing party affiliation
Sample Ballot for nonpartisan primary, showing party affiliation.
Wikipedia page on nonpartisan blanket primaries, candidate party preference and ballot disclaimer --Laella (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

You're mistaken – they're listed as nonpartisan as this is not merely a nonpatisan jungle primary but a nonpartisan election in which party affiliations are not shown on the ballot. Mélencron (talk) 05:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest just deleting the party line from the infobox; writing "nonpartisan" suggests the candidates do not belong to political parties. 331dot (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I have done exactly that. To repeat the edit summary: Neither candidate belongs to the "Nonpartisan" party. Just because party labels were left of the ballot doesn't change the party affiliations of the candidates.

I note that I would prefer to have the actual (real) political parties of the candidates listed in the infobox, since I don't see how the election ballot governs what we decide to put in that infobox. But because I'm not sure that this is the consensus here, I've just removed what appears to me to be erroneous information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mélencron: Regarding your edit summary comment that "... the usage of "nonpartisan" here reflects their appearance on the ballot, as is more common on articles for elections at the municipal level which are officially nonpartisan - there isn't an issue here and I think you like other editors here are misunderstanding this." First, there is an issue here, because editors disagree. Second, saying that other editors misunderstand, and that (by implication) you don't, isn't helpful.

I'll try to restate the issue in the hopes of making clear what I think the argument is about: If the ballot had listed candidate's parties as "nonpartisan", then it would be defensible to list their parties that way in the infobox. But in fact the ballot omitted any reference to party. So putting a party ("nonpartisan") in the infobox is not consistent with the ballot - it's an interpretation. The article clearly says that "Party affiliations were not printed on the ballot." That doesn't transform the race for a U.S. Senate seat into the equivalent of a local mayoral election - the U.S. Senate seat is very partisan, while local elections are deliberately designed to not be partisan.

@331dot: Finally, and most importantly, three editors have indicated (two by edits, one by a comment above) that they want the "Nonpartisan" party labels removed (or replaced by actual parties), while only one editor has indicated that these labels should remain. Per WP:Consensus, then, the labels should not be in the infobox until/unless other editors weigh in on the matter, or - alternatively, should read "Republican" and "Democrat". As I indicated above, I'm willing to compromise - I too would prefer actual parties listed - but it's clear that, at least for the moment, there is only one editor supporting "Nonpartisan" as the party name. So, accordingly, I've edited the article to reflect the (rough) consensus of editors -- John Broughton (♫♫) 18:12, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I think you're still both wrong and entirely missing the point here – the "nonpartisan" party meta templates exist precisely for this purpose – in the case that party affiliations are not listed on the ballot or elections are officially nonpartisan. To use them in the infobox, in the results tables, polling tables, etc. is entirely consistent with how they were intended to be used and how they are used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Nonpartisan positions on the ballot are... not listed with a party affiliation – that's self-evident. Does it mean that it's necessary to just not say "nonpartisan"? No, because it reflects that the race is a nonpartisan race and the candidates are not the nominees of any specific party. You're also missing the point in saying that municipal politics isn't partisan – that's not true! It's just that nonpartisan mayoral elections often de facto reflect intraparty (i.e., Democratic) competition as opposed to interparty contests. The fact that this is a "very partisan" race is beside the point, since however partisan it might be, the candidates are not the nominees of any party and this is an officially nonpartisan race. Mélencron (talk) 20:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Is there a way to indicate in the infobox that the race is nonpartisan while also indicating that the candidates are members of their respective parties?(which is no secret and the nonpartisan aspect is probably unknown to most observers, especially outside of Mississippi) I am also aware that technically the Nebraska Legislature is nonpartisan, but everyone knows who belongs to what party; I'm not sure how they handle this matter. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on the Nebraska legislature does show the political affiliation of each of the members of that legislature. I suppose the infobox in this article could be modified to say "Party affiliation" rather than "Party", but that seems to me to miss the point, even if technically feasible. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Now that it's in a Runoff, we should indeed show their party affiliation. Who ever wins on November 27, will decide wither the Republicans have a 52-48 or 53-47 majority in the next Congress. Note that party affiliation is in the infobox at United States Senate election in Mississippi, 2018 as well. GoodDay (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a (rough) consensus for showing that - at minimum, we have a number of drive-by editors who keep making that change. So I'll support leaving the article as is - with "Republican" and "Democratic" in the infobox, unless/until other editors (not yet involved) comment here, or indicate by editing [much less preferred] that they want to remove the party information. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 23:42, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems potentially consistent with the 2008 article, which handled this by reflecting both the affiliations of the candidates and appearance of the ballot (with party affiliations in the infobox only with the results/polling tables reflecting the nonpartisan ballot). Mélencron (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Mélencron: @331dot: - for more than seven years, from February 2010 through December 2017 - that 2008 special election article showed "Republican" and "Democratic" for the candidates in the "Results" table. It wasn't until an anonymous editor made a change in December 2017 that the "Nonpartisan" appeared. So the consensus - at least for more than seven years - was that showing actual parties was fine. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• The Results boxes are false in that the candidates are not members of the "Nonpartisan Party". These boxes should just list the candidates as party affiliation is not printed on the ballot for these elections- or the party should be listed but there should be a notation that such information is not printed on the ballot. 331dot (talk) 12:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I support changing both "Results" boxes to show "Republican" and "Democratic", with a note somewhere (heading?) that the party names don't appear on the ballot. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 00:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Section on runoff election

I have a question about the section on the runoff election. All I see in the section is stuff about Hyde-Smith's inflammatory racial comments. I am no expert on elections in Mississippi, but I can't help but wonder whether there is any other noteworthy information that belongs in this section. What do others think? Paradise40 (talk) 04:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)