Jump to content

Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania

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

Added Zogby Poll

[edit]

I added the latest Zogby poll data and started a table of Chuck v Rick data. Austin

I added Santorum exposed as a counter balance for the unofficial anti - Casey website.

Casey's poll numbers

[edit]

I just finished re-introducing the section on Casey's loss of support when his views on abortion are revealed.

I see no reason why this should be deleted from the article. The source of this information is cited. It comes from an actual poll that was conducted. And if Casey's supporters are more tepid about him once they realize he's pro-life, I'd certainly say that qualifies as a factor that could impact the election.

If someone feels that the polls that produced these results are flawed or somehow inaccurate or unfair, I feel that they should mention it in the article, after the poll results are discussed, not just delete the information from the article entirely.

WayneNight 23:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody actually read the damned Q-poll, they'd see that nowhere did it say that Casey would lose a third of his supporters. It says that a little more than a quarter of his pro-choice supporters would consider not voting or voting for another candidate.
The Zogby polls listed on these pages are all deeply flawed. The respondents self-select, it's not a random sample. And one was paid for by a Pennacchio supporter, who also wrote the questions. It's the equivalent of a push poll. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.186.34.204 (talk • contribs)
First, calm down. There's no reason to swear.
Second, you raise some valid issues. However, this particular poll has been noted by the mainstream media in Pennsylvania. I particularly remember seeing it mentioned in the Philadelphia Inquirer.
Given the fact that it has gained media coverage, I think it's worth noting here. Deleting any mention of it from Wikipedia is not going to make it go away. Instead, wouldn't it would be better to make note of the poll's flaws in the article? That way, people who come here for information on Bob Casey or the 2006 elections will have access to the full story on a poll that they might have seen elsewhere. --WayneNight 20:36, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of those unsigned comments are factual. The Q poll does show 22% would consider not voting/voting for Santorum and it showed I believe 7% were certain they would vote for Santorum also there was another percentage of people who would vote third party or independent. In total Casey was down to 65% of his support.

Also Zogby has released an explination of this proven succesful method that actually has a better random sampling of the electorate than phone polls. This is not self selected you can't sign up to do a poll. This poll was paid for by OpEd News as Zogby always divulges who commisioned the poll. It has not been made public who commisioned the polls that sound like they were written to show Casey has a chance against Santorum. --Austin 06:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. Please, look into these matters before you comment. Zogby Interactive polls are self-selecting in two ways: You need to sign up to be a potential respondent, and you need to respond to the email they send out. This methodology is, frankly, a joke. It's not a true poll of the electorate, it's a survey of political junkies. The other polls you mention were either paid for by media outlets or the pollsters themselves. Again, this information is available, if you would only take the time look for it.

I another question from the Rasmussen poll data. I think I will make a seperate table since there are so many polls out now that show what happens when people learn Casey's stance on abortion rights.--Austin 06:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information duplicated in Rick Santorum and Bob Casey, Jr. articles

[edit]

I'm concerned that controversial aspects of the two candidates are being put into this article as well as the articles on the individuals. That information clearly belongs in the Rick and Bob articles. It's not at all clear that there should be anything but brief mentions in THIS article of what appears elsewhere, if that information is easy to find elsewhere, as it is.

I'd like to get the opinions of others before I start replacing chunks of this article with brief summaries and links back to the Rick and Bob articles. John Broughton 05:01, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Summaries and link-backs are good. Direct copying of large sections of other articles takes up too much space and makes editing more difficult. The "Factors in the election" section should be severely reduced. --Ajdz 05:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you make a good point. I'd like to see much of that information mentioned in this article, as controversy over the candidates is part of the election and could have an impact on the outcome. That's why I created the section.
But, as you said, larger versions of that information can be obtained elsewhere. I have no problem with trimming the “factors” section and directing readers to the appropriate articles. --WayneNight 19:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fundraising information

[edit]

The fundraising data goes back to December; do these numbers mean anything at this point?

--meuu

I suspect (without checking) that financial reports to the FEC are due quarterly. If so, this data is the latest available. John Broughton 15:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That should be the case until much closer to election time. --Ajdz 19:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would be in favor of deleting it all and linking back to the sites.--Austin 06:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

65.74.109.80 18:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC) I added Q12006's... but isn't there a better way to display them? A table perhaps....[reply]

Merge suggestion

[edit]

I am suggesting that Alan Sandals and Chuck Pennacchio be merged into this article as an alternative to their deletion (the articles had been tagged with Template:Prod). A merge and redirect (or at least a redirect) would prevent the edit history (and the discussion page of the Chuck Pennacchio article) from being lost.--GregRM 22:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the proposal. The two are no longer running for this office. Looking at their articles, though, they're pretty thin (particularly Sandals) - I don't think the high school or even college that a candidate attended is worth including in a campaign article, for example, but it's stuff like that that makes up a lot of the text. John Broughton 23:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the regular editors of this article do not think there is anything notable in these articles, I do not have a problem with them simply being changed to redirects to this article. My main motivation was to preserve the history of the articles (this could be particularly helpful if they run again or become more notable in the future).--GregRM 21:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If they become notable again, you can go into the history and just pull up an earlier version to get rid of the redirect. That way the history and content is still saved, right? There also has been an over eagerness of late to create articles for people whose only notability is that they ran for an elected position. I can kind of see it for the leading candidate in a major party, but people that fall to the wayside in primaries really shouldn't get a mention unless there is a notable amount of buzz about them (see Paul Hackett) --Bobblehead 21:56, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...as far as I know, the history is preserved after changing to a redirect, so that earlier revisions can be reverted to.--GregRM 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with merging such articles and thereby losing much of the information. Wikipedia is a reference source. Even if Pennacchio and Sandals never draw public attention again, someone in the future may consult Wikipedia for a fuller picture of the 2006 Senate race. That could include wanting to know more about the candidates who challenged a heavily favored "presumptive" nominee like Casey. What kind of people were they? What were their backgrounds? It's a perfect situation for the application of the axiom that Wikipedia is not paper. JamesMLane t c 05:11, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping the articles is OK with me, but I think others disagree with their notability. Perhaps an informal vote would be best?--GregRM 17:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Running and losing in a primary is not particularly notable and if the articles are kept they risk being submitted for Articles for deletion and then all the information will truly be gone. There is already discussion on the Village Pump to go through the articles created this election season and delete/cleanup the articles that have been created. A quick read of the articles seems to indicate that neither Alan Sandals nor Chuck Pennacchio meet the requirements of WP:BIO, especially since the primary was a landslide victory for Casey. Short of the one line bio existing in this article already I don't see a need to transfer anything else... But if you want to keep the history of the articles, best to shift to a redirect now instead of waiting for an AFD to completely delete the article and history.--Bobblehead 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and put redirects on the two articles. As noted above, the information in the two articles prior to the redirect is still available via the history pages for those two articles. If someone thinks that more information on Pennacchio or Sandals is needed in the campaign article, feel free to add it. John Broughton 18:42, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement section

[edit]

69.215.30.190: Instead of censoring the Endorsement section, try adding endorsements instead. 72.82.215.160 06:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rasmussen Reports

[edit]

The link for the most recent Rasmussen Reports poll doesn't work. Can someone fix it? --myselfalso 21:10, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Romanelli

[edit]

Why has the Carl Romanelli page been redirected to this page? The US Supreme Court is going to be considering whether to accept Romanelli's appeal of his exclusion from the ballot for this race on Feb. 16, 2007. Romanelli's case is a very significant Election Law case. Surely, Romanelli merits the maintenance of his own page on Wikipedia. wiki14840 15:08 30 January 2007

Polling data

[edit]

I'm not particuarly familiar with making tables and was wondering if someone could help with consolidating all the polling not under "Final pre-election polling" into one table. Labels for the rows as well as the columns would help, but I just don't have enough experience to do too much toying around with it. I'll do some more looking in the meantime. Bridger 05:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Swing"

[edit]

Why are we inserting this British term into an article about American politics? The term isn't used here, and is basically unfamiliar. john k 16:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Northumberland County

[edit]

Northumberland County is miscolored on the county map. Actually, it should be red, since Santorum carried it with 13,304 votes to Casey's 13,140 [1]. Heff01 04:59, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:CASEYWIN.jpg

[edit]

Image:CASEYWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2006. 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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2006. 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) 09:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania&oldid=1212494354"