Talk:Nebraska's 3rd congressional district election, 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] This article is not in neutral POV
The portions dealing with candidate Scott Kleeb are not consistent with a neutral POV. I tried removing some of the peacock language but I screwed up the design so I undid my edits. Once I get a better hang of this I will clean that up. Comments that reference Kleeb's "strength" in an election in which he lost by 10 points implies this was written by someone with a conflict of interest. Also, I'm researching previous 3rd District elections and the average margin of victory for republican candidates against a democrat (according to the nebraska secretary of state) was between 2 and 5 points; this completely disproves authors comments about Kleebs performance being "strong". If edits are not made I think this needs to be flagged. Foxdana1000 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- The last time the seat was open (in 2000), Tom Osborne received 82% of the vote. If you have a link for election results prior to 2000, I'd appreciate it, as the Nebraska SOS site only has results from 2000 on. It is safe to say, however, that the 3rd District is the most solidly Republican portion of the state; voter registration disparity and victory margins (the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, for example) in favor of Republican candidates are the widest there. Therefore, a 55-45 vote split is generally considered "harder" for a Democratic candidate to pull off in the 3rd than it is in the 1st or 2nd. – Swid (talk · edits) 21:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
- Referring to a 55-45 vote split as being "harder" for a Democrat is YOUR opinion. And to insert such language into this article violates the accepted standards of a neutral POV. Tom Osborne could be considered a "celebrity" candidate; political science text books will point to this phenomenon as skewing voting patterns. Look into the Virginia Smith and Bill Barrett elections and you will find much smaller vote margins. That is a fact: it's not open to interpretation. I have contacted the nebraska secretary of state and they will be sending me vote results for 1974 election (first year smith was elected) through 2001 (last year Barrett was in office).Foxdana1000 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wow, you're putting a lot of effort into researching this. Thanks! If the SOS office is pulling old election results for this, it'd be great if you could cajole them into putting them up on their Web site while they're at it.
- As to my other opinions, yes, I don't have a ream of data backing up my statement that voter registration disparity has a strong positive statistical correlation with the expected vote split (all other factors being neutral); I'm not a political scientist. However, I'd be very surprised if that wasn't the case. On the other hand, it's also YOUR opinion that election results from 1974 and 1990 are as relevant as results from this past decade. ;-) – Swid (talk · edits) 16:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, that's a heck of a good point...well played. The sos basically stinks. They won't email it, only fax and the the numbers got distorted in the transmission. My only point is that the osborne numbers skew traditional voter trends and to base the success or failure of a campaign as it relates to tom osborne is unfair. once i get this these numbers under control i will send them over to you.Foxdana1000 (talk) 19:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- Referring to a 55-45 vote split as being "harder" for a Democrat is YOUR opinion. And to insert such language into this article violates the accepted standards of a neutral POV. Tom Osborne could be considered a "celebrity" candidate; political science text books will point to this phenomenon as skewing voting patterns. Look into the Virginia Smith and Bill Barrett elections and you will find much smaller vote margins. That is a fact: it's not open to interpretation. I have contacted the nebraska secretary of state and they will be sending me vote results for 1974 election (first year smith was elected) through 2001 (last year Barrett was in office).Foxdana1000 (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Voter Registration numbers
This article also claims the 3rd district to be "heavily republican" but provides no registration numbers to validate it. Registrations numbers need to be cited to ensure a neutral pov.Foxdana1000 (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
- The 2006 registration numbers are here. Unfortunately, they're not broken down by CD, but by county. However, given that there's only one county that's part of, but not entirely in, the 3rd (Cedar County), it's possible to calculate estimated voter registration totals with only a small margin of error. – Swid (talk · edits) 16:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Phone Recordings
Where does it say the phone recordings were "unauthorized." I'm not trying to be critical, just curious.Foxdana1000 (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
