Talk:Missouri bellwether

This article was nominated for deletion on August 18, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Missouri Low‑importance

	Missouri portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.MissouriWikipedia:WikiProject MissouriTemplate:WikiProject MissouriMissouri articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

References

As usual Peyna is stalking me, Everything in this article is referred to in the reference at the bottom of the article (as well as the newspaper articles). Please actually read the references and articles before you get too crazy throwing your templates on the article. Americasroof 00:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I feel the verify tag is warranted. I'm not stalking you, I'm trying to ensure the integrity of the encyclopedia. Peyna 00:46, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peyna's vendetta continues with call for deletion. Americasroof 00:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS When somebody places the afd tag they should have the courtesy to give a reason. Americasroof 00:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I gave multiple reasons on the AfD page. Feel free to join the discussion. Peyna 00:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevada voted for Clinton, so change once to twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.104.129.176 (talk) 12:54, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missouri bellwether

The result of this AfD discussion was keep. (aeropagitica) (talk) 05:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missouri

Good work but a tad tough with to many footnotes. My rule-of-thumb is normally only one (1) per paragraph statement.

I agree with the presentation as I do live in Missouri. The distinction of Red/Blue must have came from a magical WICCA source.

Nice observation to the Talent (pro-2nd Amend) vs. McCaskill (pro-Gun Control) history.

ArmedCitizen 16:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To many wiki-links or external reference links? Agne 16:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible causes

This section contains little citation. I am particularly skeptical of the relevance of the US mean centre of population. Does anyone have a source for this, or the other reasons suggested in the above section, being considered significant by any experts? Robin S (talk) 22:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am skeptical as well about the mean center of population having any impact on Missouri's bellwether status. How would it matter? It is probably just a coincidence. Phizzy (talk) 13:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, we lost this one. Time to lose our top status =( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.2.29.71 (talk) 06:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly article

I'm sorry, this article is silly. Just because a bunch of media "experts" decided that, on certain issues, Missouri may be a bellwether does not warrant an article. In any case, this so-called bellwether status has been falling away for years - you only have to look at Wikipedia's own demographic charts to see it. The state is much whiter than the U.S. as a whole because it contains fewer Asians and far fewer Hispanics than the rest of the country. It also has fewer Catholics and Jews [1], [2]. Politically, you can try to explain away the reddening of Missouri all you want, but the state has been trending Republican for years, and the 2008 presidential election is only a demonstration of it [3]. Hell, support for a smoking ban in the state is only at 20 percent [4]. It's only referred to as a bellwether so pundits can bloviate about it rather than talking about the nation as a whole - they're always looking for an indicative state, county or issue to support their own beliefs. Newsboy85 (talk) 22:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article is hardly silly. People have written entire dissertations on this topic, so it is much more than a bunch of media pundits, it is legitimate political research in the social scientific field.150.243.209.177 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Missouri is very predictive and this article very relevant. Let's not forget that if 1,500 votes in 1956 and 3,000 votes in 2008 flipped to the other candidate, Missouri would have been a perfect reflection of every American election for the last century. --Kallahan (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The first comment in this section sounds suspiciously like the person who made the afd nomination in March 2006 (and the edit histories are very similar). The sentence ...because a bunch of media "experts" decided... immediately confirms that it on its face met the WP:NOTE criteria of independent third party sources. Missouri's loss of bellwether status was in the headlines across the country. It doesn't matter if Missouri trends Republican or even loses it bellwether status. It was a phenomenon for more than 100 years! As a side note though I am disappointed that the article has been hijacked by editors who want to make Missouri the bellwether for everything. The article as originally written only focused on the Presidential factor. Americasroof (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just keep in mind...

... that it's all ephemeral and very much subject to change. As late as 1976, Illinois and Connecticut were considered bellwether states (in addition to New Mexico)... and then all three went to Ford while the most of the U.S. favored Carter (it was New Mexico's first miss ever and Connecticut's first miss in about a century). As the demographics change, so does the bellwether status. Of course, should there be sources showing how this has changed over the generations, that would make a rather interesting article for Wikipedia. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 23:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hindsight Makes not a Bellwether

Shouldn't it be pointed out that Missouri was the dead last state to actually produce its voting results (in this and probably other elections), making it useless or at least not a 'bellwether' by its literal definition in forecasting the ultimate result of any very close election? - Peter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.237.222.129 (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Bellwether" versus "weathervane"

I'm not sure the quote contrasting a "bellwether" with a "weathervane" deserves inclusion, since it seems to be based on a misunderstanding of what a bellwether is. A bellwether is a castrated (wethered) sheep which wears a bell around its neck, the purpose of which is provide an indicator of where the flock as a whole has gone to in its grazing--the shepherd finds the flock by following the sound of the bell. The other sheep do not follow the bellwether; the bellwether just moves with the flock. In other words, as political metaphor, the term means EXACTLY THE SAME THING as "weathervane." Spark240 (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. rock8591 10:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Missouri bellwether. 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) 15:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]