Talk:2018 Maine gubernatorial election

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

Ranked-choice voting and polling[edit]

Anyone know how ranked-choice polls should be included? In particular, I'm referring to a Critical Insights poll conducted from April 8 to 25, 2017 among 319 likely Democratic primary voters, which can be found here. Mélencron (talk) 19:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question, and I'm not sure; are there any other election articles that have RCV in a poll? 331dot (talk) 20:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to this, there is now a poll of the primaries: [1] It does attempt to simulate RCV. I will attempt to post at least the first round. Any comments are welcome. 331dot (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've successfully added the subsequent rounds of the GOP side. I welcome changes. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished the Democrats. The poll projected a sixth round, although in reality it would stop at the fifth when Mills obtained a majority, so I did not include it. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maine gubernatorial election, 2018. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Money = endorsement?[edit]

Several people listed as having endorsed Hayes are cited to a Ethics commission financial filing. Is the giving of money considered an endorsement? I always assumed an endorsement constituted a person stating "I support XYZ candidate" or "I am voting for XYZ candidate", but I am not sure what is generally done here. 331dot (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, money does not equal endorsement. People, PACs, and corporations often donate to multiple candidates. I think we should require an affirmative endorsement to list individuals on the page.--TM 19:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But these people donated to only one candidate. Furthermore, why would someone like Ed Rendell donate to Adam Cote and no other gubernatorial candidate? Why would Martha Coakley donate to Janet Mills and no other gubernatorial candidate? The State Treasurers backing Hayes, too. It's because they want those candidates to win. Other things, like the fact that Anne Haskell was Boyle's treasurer, are listed only on campaign finance documents. Ethan Strimling is often at private events with Betsy Sweet, because he supports her. Charlotte Warren is Sweet's campaign manager. I can find no news articles discussing Warren, Strimling or Haskell's roles in the respective campaigns they worked for or supported. But there's the campaign finance reports, which showed that they donated to only one candidate. It is a reasonable inference. Finally, money = speech. When you look at the endorsement lists for the 2016 presidential candidates, the citations are usually articles which list people that donated to the presidential campaign (for example, several Cleveland Browns players donated to Hillary Clinton and no other candidate. Despite making no public statement of support for Clinton, these players are listed as endorsers because the media reported them as endorsers, because they supported her campaign and no other campaign financially). No one is forced to donate to a candidate. If someone goes out of their way to give money to one candidate and not the other dozen candidates, that says something. They know these donations are public. Also user:Namiba: your wanton and careless deletion has resulted in display issues and, more importantly, the incorrect deletion of information cited by things other than the campaign finance reports (for example: Sweet received the endorsement of the Southern Maine DSA, and it was cited to a DSA link. You deleted it for no apparent reason). I am once again going to revert your edit until you can prove that you can delete only the information being discussed on this page and that your deletions do not cause display issues. If you take more care with your edits I'll leave them, because there is merit with your argument, a strict "I endorse XYZ" interpretation. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:01, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You need to prove that the subjects positively endorse the candidate before you can include them in the section. Anything else is a violation of WP:BLP.--TM 22:13, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the donations qualify as positive endorsements. They were good enough in the 2016 presidential election — why not now? Further, how are we otherwise supposed to include Warren and Haskell? Does being paid members of their campaign apparatus not qualify as a positive endorsement? MAINEiac4434 (talk) 22:17, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you may believe that, but it is original research to include it in the article. It is also a major potential violation of WP:BLP. Please familiarize yourself with these policies and wait for a consensus before readding contentious material.--TM 22:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Haskell is actually listed as the campaign treasurer on Boyle's campaign finance documents. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can give a politician money because I think they are a nice person or for some other reason, but still not endorse them or encourage others to vote for them. The giving of money by itself does not constitute an affirmative endorsement. 331dot (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Money (and the threat of not donating again) is often a tool to influence an elected official once they're in office. That is why so many individuals and corporations donate to multiple candidates in an election.--TM 18:00, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the same applies to hosting an event- it is not an affirmative statement of support. I can host an event for anyone without endorsing them or their views. 331dot (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Hayes and Caron in infobox prior to polling[edit]

Namiba and I are at it again. Should we include Hayes and Caron in the infobox without polling? I'm seeing no evidence they're gaining traction at all. I, for one, would love to have some polling to confirm, but Hayes isn't on the air and I rarely see news reports about her, and Caron is advertising but I've never seen an article about him. Caron has 2.8K likes on Facebook, and Hayes has 1.5K, microscopic compared to Janet Mills' 10K and Moody's 13K. I think any addition of Hayes and Caron to the infobox is premature and borderline electioneering for inflating a candidate's position in the race. We should wait until the first polls are released, and if Hayes and/or Caron are above 5%, we should absolutely add them. Until then, though, I think it's inappropriate for the infobox. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the wait for a poll camp, waiting to see if one or both polls 5%. 331dot (talk) 03:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are candidates in the election. The infobox, which every visitor to the article will see, should acknowledge their candidacy. Removing them pre-election is discriminatory and seems like electioneering on behalf of the two large party candidates.--TM 11:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of candidates qualify for ballots, especially in states like Maine with relatively easy ballot access. Not all of them are viable. For example, Kevin Scott qualified for the ballot as an independent in 2010, and was not included in the infobox because he never polled above 5% (and ultimately took only 1% of the vote). Where's the cutoff? Do we include Aaron Chadbourne and his weird write-in dissident Republican campaign? What about the other independents who haven't qualified yet but still have time? Elevating nonviable candidates is not encyclopedic. I was just polled today on this race a few hours ago, so a poll is coming within a few weeks. All I'm asking is to wait until it's proven that they are actually gaining traction. If this poll comes out with either or both of them above 5%, I'll probably include them in the infobox before you do. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would second the notion that the infobox is not intended to list every candidate. As with any article, the infobox is only meant to provide the highlights of the article. Imagine if every candidate was listed in the infobox during the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election, with 135 candidates. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need to air on the side of inclusion when it is reasonable. Hayes, who is supported by Cutler and has public financing, will be competitive in the race. Until proven differently, it is discriminatory and biased not to include all candidates.--TM 01:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mason and Sweet were backed by prominent individuals and also had public financing (significantly more than Hayes, last I checked) and were barely viable in their primaries. Hell, Cutler was only 3 points above being cut-out of the 2014 infobox. Just like we couldn't infer endorsements based on donations, we can't infer viability based on endorsements and money. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until there are polls, there is nothing to say that anyone should be in the infobox. Inferring by party nomination is biased. Either they are all there or none. This is why using polls is so fraught. We are an encyclopedia, not a political party.--TM 12:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's an existing consensus to include parties that have achieved >5% in the previous election within the infobox (and, if applicable, to include only candidates who achieved >5% in an election within the infobox after the election has occurred). This applies to both the Dem and GOP candidates in this case. I also agree with the usage of such a polling cutoff (polling at least 5%) as the infoboxes are not meant to be exhaustive lists of candidates but only list major candidates. In the absence of evidence that such independent candidates are polling well (especially in the case of Caron, who isn't notable enough to have an article, either), I don't think they should be included within the infobox. I think there are reasonable subjective judgments that can be made as to cases where the inclusion of independents in the absence of polling can be made – as on Kansas gubernatorial election, 2018 – but the case for it needs to be obvious and self-evident to a disinterested observer, which I don't believe is the case here, even with Maine's history of support for independent/third-party candidates. I have no objection to their inclusion at a later point if this (i.e., polling) changes, but it's not obvious why they should be included at this point in time. Mélencron (talk) 14:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the first poll up, Hayes and Caron have 4% and 3% respectively. With 16% undecided, it is obvious that both will have notable roles in the campaign itself and are close to 5%. I think we should include both of them in the infobox.--TM 17:12, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 5% rule stands. Nevermore27 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "5% rule" was never established. In fact, there is currently an ongoing RFC on this topic at Talk:Illinois_gubernatorial_election,_2018, which User:Nevermore27 is also involved in. --Eliyak T·C 21:27, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The 5% rule has been established and upheld time and again for 10 years. The discussion on the Illinois article is a farce. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Close to 5 is not 5. Hayes might not even get her money from the state as the Legislature needs to pass a technical fix to the Clean Elections law, and the GOP House caucus and LePage are refusing to. 331dot (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:36, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Maine_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196757993"