Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Michigan

No biased or push polling allowed

I just removed a 'poll' from the blatantly biased Restoration PAC which has been running anti-Gary Peters ads. [1] Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

That's not how we do things. When the poll is a partisan one or an internal, we simply mark it as such. That's how we've always done these pages. Please revert the edit. Thanks. --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Not when they run ads like this one. [2]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be formally something debated before you make such a decision? --Criticalthinker (talk) 09:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Not when the bias is as blatant as I showed in the two above links. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

By your standards, then Public Policy Polling poll should also be removed. They poll for groups running ads for Democrats in this Senate race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OutWordPowerTN (talk • contribs) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Do you have linked sources to back up your claim like I did, OutWordPowerTN? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

This is NOT how wikipedia election articles work, ALL polls must be shown regardless of partisan bias which will be noted, please do not remove polls. I will now restore all polls previously removed.VietPride10 (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Read your talk page. If you want to include Restoration PAC polls, I INSIST that there be a disclaimer clearly shown that indicates Restoration PAC's hyperpartisan political activities regarding the senate race including examples of their political ads either in support of John James or against Gary Peters. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree that polls from hyper partisan PACs be taken down. It’s misleading to put them alongside unbiased polling. Smith0124 (talk) 19:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm confused by this use in the article of "hyperpartisan." That seems like an incredibly loaded and subjective term, and I say this as someone whose politics are the polar opposite of that PAC's. I don't mind marking them with a "D" or an "R" or even "partisan." But what in the world is "hyperpartisan," and how do you make the distinction between that term and simply "partisan?" I suggest we do what other articles do and keep it as simple "D" and "R" if the polls are coming from clearly partisan sources (and also label them as "internal" when sponsored by the respective political campaigns of the candidates). --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

As was stated above, 'hyperpartisan' as explained in the above links, are when the sponsor of the polls engages in active political campaigning, either for the candidate they support or against a candidate they want defeated. This is a new citation I just added in the article. [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm asking if this is consistent with how these articles are done on wikipedia? It seems you've just invented a new term for this specific article. I seriously doubt that something like Restoration PAC is the only group polling a race in which it is actively participating, and I also doubt that this "hyperpartisan" term is used on other pages. Again, it is an extremely subjective/wholly unobjective term, especially when the much more objective "partisan" could simply be used. --Criticalthinker (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I cannot think of another organization that engages in partisan politics other than Restoration PAC. None of the other polls or sponsors with either (D) or (R) next to them are engaged in partisan politics. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hyperpartisan claims regarding polls or sponsors must be backed by citations which indicate that the organization actively engages in partisan politics by running ads in support of or against a candidate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry - I was just editing the page when I saw this discussion. The standard across Wikipedia is to include these polls where the balance of probabilities does not suggest they are falsifying results. In my opinion, we should continue to mark these polls as partisan (and where they include multiple candidates from the same party, mark them as investigating a hypothetical), but otherwise not editorialise by selectively removing polls (if we removed on the basis of being reliable, we could arguably extend the principle to e.g. banning Zogby because their methodology was crap). Keep listing sponsors with the polls (if an organisation has explicitly endorsed a candidate, mention this too using efn-ua tagging), but if it isn't banned by 538 or otherwise suspected to be falsifying results rather than just favourably weighting them, I'd strongly advise that we leave them all up. -- PutItOnAMap (PutItOnAMap|talk) 15:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

@PutItOnAMap: If its ok for you to remove polls from The Progressive Campaign, which it is, then it is also ok to remove polls from Restoration PAC and Firehouse. Smith0124 (talk) 03:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not removing their polls because they are push polls or from partisan sources. I'm removing them because they are apparently falsified. Wikipedia policy has always been this way - at least, to my knowledge. -- PutItOnAMap (PutItOnAMap|talk) 04:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I think those reasons are very similar. Smith0124 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a pretty massive difference between statistical bias and on-the-fly fakery. With the former, you can track trends and if the bias remains consistent across polls, then they will show the relative strengths of candidates well enough. With the latter, results aren't just weighted according to poor pollster intuitions; they're misinformation, and that's the reason why they don't belong here. The rest should all be ok -- after all, pollsters that aren't hyperpartisan can also have partisan leans as a result of e.g. over/underestimating turnout in specific demographic groups. -- PutItOnAMap (PutItOnAMap|talk) 06:43, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

False edits

I just reverted again a false edit stating that governor Gretchen Whitmer declined to run for Gary Peters' senate seat. This is clearly false. Without a citation supporting edits, they will be deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

August 4 primary

Even though the party candidates for the August 4 primary are unopposed, they cannot be called nominees until AFTER the primary. Due to infobox constraints, they can be considered default nominees for infobox purposes. Remember that in Michigan, there can be write-in candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

At this writing, the results are still unofficial. There is still one county left to be included at this writing according to the official Michigan Secretary of State results at [4]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Restoration PAC sponsored polls

This is a reminder that Restoration PAC is indeed hyperpartisan because it engages in partisan politics by running ads either for a Republican candidate or against a Democratic candidate. That is why the hyperpartisan claim has a citation attached which is either a news story or a Restoration PAC ad on YouTube. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Election results

At this writing, the election results are still unofficial. Please refrain from posting election results on the table until the results at [5] are declared official. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2020 (UTC)