Talk:2010 United States Senate election in South Carolina

Untitled

Does Alvin Greene have a website? How did he win his primary race with no money? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.76.125 (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Newsweek has an informative article on how he pulled it off here; to my knowledge he doesn't have a website yet. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:31, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Tom Clements

Someone added him to the article on the grounds that 'the 'other' category of the polling received 9%, and he is the only candidate, so obviously he is supported by many.' Let's say I own a restaurant, and I decide to poll customers on which food they want to eat instead of passing out menus to better know their interests and which meals to market better. I serve only three meals Pizza, salad, and spaghetti. I have 'Pizza', 'Salad', 'Other', and 'Not Sure' listed on the poll. Now, around 60% of the customers want pizza, 25% want salad, 10% said 'Other' and 5% were unsure. Some regulars would know that I only serve three meals and know they want spaghetti; others would choose other, thinking there would be plenty of other choices; it's a restaurant, right? Therefore, I am unable to determine what percentage that said 'Other' actually wanted spaghetti. I could decide to wait a bit and repoll, with both 'Other' and 'Spaghetti', but I have no knowledge over what percentage knew I only had three meal. The same thing applies here; how can I be sure no one supported him, or, on the contrary, all 10% supported him? It is impossible to determine, so IMO we should wait until a poll with him listed get published, and decide what to do from there. Toa Nidhiki05 20:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The stuff you wrote about the poll makes sense, which is why I did not put it that way when I added it. With the vote problems in the primary, endorsement from the unions, and the observations from Larry Sabato it is perfectly reasonable to expect Clements to pull a significant amount of at LEAST the Democratic vote. Clements belongs in the top part of the article. -Bob Aubin

WP:CRYSTAL. We do not speculate here, and it take a 5% poll to get added to the top panel, which Clements has yet to pass. When he does (which he will at some point), we can add him, but not until then. Toa Nidhiki05 22:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to find the 5% poll rule, where is that located? -Bob Aubin —Preceding undated comment added 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC).

It's what Jerseykidd, an established editor (who happens to be involved here) told me on the NC page. Toa Nidhiki05 23:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not a rule. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

If it is not a rule then Clements stays in. -Bob Aubin

I'm still not sure he should be added without any polling. For all we know, the large black population in SC could rally around him and give him most of the Democratic vote. I still think we should hold off until we get polling data that shows him specifically getting a good chunk of the vote. We work by, consensus here, not the will of Bob Aubin. Toa Nidhiki05 14:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Hysteria, in previous elections (2008 presidential election, 2010 Massachusetts election, etc.) we established that a candidate needs to poll at least 5% in order to get into the infobox before the election. After the election, the candidate would need 5% of the vote in order to get into the infobox. We came to this consensus because if we allowed every single candidate in the infobox, then it will look horrible if there are more than 5 candidates on the ballot. It's only fair to allow the candidates who poll a significant margin to be allowed. The purpose of the infobox is show a summery of the election results. In the United States, most election feature two major candidates and most of the time the others get less than 3% of the final vote on election day and make very little difference in the election. That's the way it should be and that's the way it typically is. In this election in SC, Clements should be in the infobox because he indirectly polled at least 5%.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I should say that I'm not in favor of the 5% polling threshold for ballot qualified candidates. Why should Wikipedia have a standard for inclusion that is higher than the ballot qualifications of the state? I think a qualification that a candidate poll at 5% should maybe be a rule of thumb, and not an ironclad guideline.

However, even if we are abiding by a 5% threshold there are good reasons for including Clements' image:

• There are only three ballot qualified candidates. No crowding.
• Rasmussen, which is the only poll we have references for, generally only includes Democratic Party and Republican Party candidates in its polling, even when Independents or other party candidates are ballot qualified.
• Despite the exclusion of Clements by name from the polling, the volunteered "other candidate" response is high and consistently above 5%.
• The Clements campaign is well organized for a minor party effort. It has garnered the support of organizations like the Columbia AFL-CIO and several Democratic Party organizations, such as the Irmo Democratic Club (representing a large suburb of Columbia) have invited Clements to speak.
• The Clements campaign has raised more money than the Greene campaign and is arguably better organized.
• South Carolina media and the Associated Press are giving the Clements campaign significant coverage. Clements has been interviewed by The State, the Charleston Post & Courier, the Aiken Standard, the Florence Morning news, WIS, WLOS and SCETV Radio, among others. AP routinely mentions him in their stories on the race.

So, notwithstanding Rasmussen's refusal to include Clements in its polling, Clements' picture should appear on the Wikipedia page for this race. DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Cowards

You can't get what you want, so you decide to get a staff to protect the page, despite the violation of wiki policy? Aside from being <sarcasm>extremely mature</sarcasm>, it proves your cowardice. Toa Nidhiki05 14:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are the immature one. Consider for a moment that you demand a consensus be present for our position, but you see no such requirement for yours. You throw around words like cowards in a debate over a Wikipedia article about a Senate election in a State you have no direct knowledge of. You may feel that you can rule over this page like a petty dictator, but you are mistaken. Bob Aubin (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I demand consensus because you have none to change it. Consensus is that a candidate must reach 5% to be added; currently, he has not. You cannot demand me get consensus to revert consunsus-violating material; that is a fallacy. I have direct knowledge of it, because I live in it's border state, North Carolina; I'm about two and a half counties above the border, and they report S.C. news quite frequently on local news. I don't rule this page; consensus and wiki policy does. Toa Nidhiki05

Jerzykydd, who Toa Nidhiki05 attributes with the creation of this rule, argues that Clements should be included for effectively polling over 5%. Rasmussen, which is the polling company that has conducted polls in this race, usually only includes Democratic and Republican candidates in its polling. They may make exceptions in races where prominent politicians are running as independents, but generally, Rasmussen does not include the names of minor or third party candidates. Since Rasmussen is the only polling company we have any reference for in this race, and the "other candidate" vote is unusually high, and Tom Clements is the only "other candidate" who will appear on the ballot, I say we interpret the 5% rule of thumb to include Clements' picture in the article. Better to be on the side of including more rather than less information. DJ Silverfish (talk) 05:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Continued

Ok, here is the deal, the 5% rule is already set in stone whether you agree with it or not. Refer to my page User:Jerzeykydd. The question is whether or not Clements has gotten the 5%. As much as Clements has raised money and been endorsed by major organizations, the fact is that he has not met the requirements to be a major candidate. Why? Because "other candidate" could mean anyone or none of the above. Yes, he is the only other candidate, but we have agreed in the past not to do it. He is still included in the article, just not in the infobox, where only major candidates are allowed to be in. Minor candidates are still mentioned, just not in the infobox. I will admit, Clements will probably get a significant amount on election day in November. If he reaches the threshold he will be allowed in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This could be the case that redefines the rule, for the reasons I mentioned above, and on your talk page. Why did you change your mind and rule out any flexibility between the post of July 23 and today? DJ Silverfish (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I changed my mind after reading Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums. I'm going to email Rasmussen and tell them to include Clements in their next poll. You should do the same so maybe they will listen.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have written them and wish you good luck in earning a positive response. It is a long-standing practice of Rasmussen and most other polling agencies to exclude all but major party candidates, except in situations where a major party politician runs as an independent or a party has performed well in the past, like the Maine Green Party, or the Independence Party of Minnesota. Organizations like Zogby are sometimes better, but not always. It's a catch-22 to rely on polling. He's not a notable candidate because he's not in the poll. He's not in the poll because he's not a notable candidate. Seems simpler to work in the Wikipedia environment where a reasonable person might accept that since the Democratic nominee seems unacceptable to his own party, any other (in this case one other) candidate appearing on the ballot becomes notable.

The discussion that you're referencing here http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#Inclusion_in_Infobox is very recent. It was only begun on August 29, and fails to take into account a great deal of variables that should be considered for inclusion. For example, the infoboxes for elections outside the United States frequently include three or more candidates with no problems. See for example: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Icelandic_parliamentary_election,_2009. Maybe by stacking the images, it reduce the appearance of crowding. The arguments that it is unsightly to include as many as three candidates could be addressed as an infobox design issue. DJ Silverfish (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that in this case, Clements can definitely be defined as a major candidate. Many have projected that he may gain more votes than the Democrat. He has been endorsed by major interest groups. Until the "5% rule" is codified outside of talk page discussions through a large consensus, it is a strong suggestion, not a WP:RULE.--TM 17:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My issue is not with him possibly gaining votes (Wikipedia is not a crystal ball), it is that his 'polling' is not high enough to justify addition. How do we know all 8% will vote for him? Heck, how do we know even 4% will vote for him? For all we know, the write-in guy may get more votes than Clements. If he is polled by name and gets over 5%, we can add him. Until then, I think it is a violation of both consensus and policy to add him to the infobox. Toa Nidhiki05 10:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The endorsements and media coverage are proof in themselves that Clements is an important candidate in the election.--TM 01:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Clements is opening a campaign office and attracting major party support, receiving national press coverage and significant local coverage. It is very reasonable to include Clements despite the (what I'd call very biased) polling data not including his name. Polling is not the only way (or even the most accurate) way to see the important candidates in an election.--TM 03:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You've shown three sources, one by a progressive-green hippie website that would support and cover him anyway. Toa Nidhiki05 23:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Common Dreams NewsCenter is a reliable source with extensive coverage. Toa, I think your stated bias (on your userpapge) against third parties is getting in the way here. Clements is receiving widespread coverage from both local and national news sources and is thus considered a major player in the election, which is what the box is for in the first place.--TM 23:18, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

...It says in it's page it is 'progressive', which is left wing; also, I have no bias against them; I support a two-party system, but third-parties can give a valuable alternative vote. In fact, I tried to add the Libertarian candidate to the Florida page a few months ago. My bias does not translate into my edits. Toa Nidhiki05 23:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Still don't think Clements is a major candidate in the election?--TM 03:29, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

No, he is not; endorsements mean nothing without an accompanying increase in polling, and SC's heavy black population could shift toward Greene. Toa Nidhiki05 16:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for Editing Help

I've posted a request for help in determining how candidate pictures are included here: Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#United_States_Senate_election_in_South_Carolina.2C_2010:_inclusion_of_candidate_images

DJ Silverfish (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Inclusion of Clements, one last time

The preponderance of evidence suggests that Tom Clements (politician) is a major candidate in this election. What evidence you may ask? Well, The Nation, a national progressive news source, endorsed Clements over Greene and DeMint. This is the clearest indication, not to mention the variety of reasons posted above, for the inclusion of Clements in the infobox.--TM 00:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

This just in...the South Carolina AFL-CIO labor union endorsed Clements[1]. How much more obvious can it be that Clements is a major candidate?--TM 00:09, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

How about substantial polling data? 'Other' barely hits 5%, and when you factor in the two other write-ins running, plus the fact that 3rd parties in the US tend to poll higher then the amount of votes they actually get, there is no sign he is 'major'. Endorsements does not make a candidate; polling does. Toa Nidhiki05 00:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

POLLING DATA IS NOT THE ENTIRETY OF A CANDIDACY.--TM 00:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

When national news sources, local major interest groups and academics are calling a candidate important to an election, we must include them in a prominent way in the article. Be mindful Toa of the WP:3RR rule which you are at.--TM 00:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I don't see what makes Clements a major candidate. Sure, he has a few endorsements from some liberal newspapers/unions, but I have not seen some endorsements from prominent Democratic officials; heck, Mazie Ferguson even got an endorsement from Jim Clyburn! Given the relatively low percentage of undecideds, and the massive number of total candidates, I don't see why we should treat Clements any better than a write-in like Ferguson. Toa Nidhiki05 15:39, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Rfc

==

A disagreement has emerged as to whether include Tom Clements in the infobox or not. Arguments in favor and against are located above. Please comment.--TM 16:53, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I think there needs to be a centralized discussion regarding which candidates qualify for photos in these types of articles. Major candidates plus the strongest independent? Anyone averaging 10% in a certain number of weeks prior to the election? From my point of view, 12% is enough for inclusion but then again that's only one poll. I would suggest that Clements' photo be trimmed to be more similar to the other two candidates... it looks like he's wearing freakin' shoulder pads. Location (talk) 22:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Clements polling 12% in last poll

I tried to correct the polling but I am not good with that formatting. Can someone fix it? Clements polled 12.2%, Alvin Greene polled 11.2%. The source is already on the page.--TM 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Toa Nidhiki05 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Changes to campaign contribution section

This section needs a short blurb describing what the three things - Receipts, disbursements, cash on hand, actually mean. Debt is self explanatory. I think I know what they mean but I'm not sure. Besides, the source cited for this gets a 404 not found. Another source already cited(opensecrets) has more up-to-date info anyways, maybe the whole section should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.107.130.68 (talk) 11:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in South Carolina, 2010. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate

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) 12:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)