Talk:Swing state

message: I have removed this section in its entirety, as it has become essentially a fork of the general article on the election.  A short synopsis of the role of swing states in the election would be acceptable, but not one editor's personal analysis of the election, separate from the main article, and therefore not subject to the community consensus which would naturally be focused there. Discussion of the removal is invited here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear, what's your opposition, specifically, to leaving the content on this page? Or maybe moving it to the main article? Perhaps you could start a discussion there, to see if anyone wants to make some improvements to that section or choose what to add on. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not that familiar with the main article, so I have no objection to your trying to move it there - you'll have to see what the editors there think about it.  As for why I removed it here: it's really well beyond the scope of this article, which is about the overall concept of the swing state.  You've presented a very detailed blow-by-blow of how the swing states affected the 2016 election - but what did you imagine would happen in 2020, 2024, 2028, 2032 etc., that each one would have a similarly detailed section? And didn't you wonder why there weren't already equivalent sections for 2012, 2008, 2004, 2000, etc.?  The answer is obvious, this article is a general one, and it would be totally overwhelmed by sections on every election as detailed as the one you made. An historical overview, expanding the current history section, of how the swing states have changed over time would be valuable, as would a comparison of different strategies employed over time for dealing with the swing state problem. But the section I removed was the tail wagging the dog, especially since there's already an article on the election.You could also try making a new article Swing states in the 2016 election, but dollars to donuts someone would attempt to delete it as a fork.  I think you might be able to make the point that the new article had a focus which was specific enough to qualify it as a legitimate article, but you'd probably have to work hard at it. I certainly don't recommend going that route, as I think it would be a tough road to travel. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the reply, it was very helpful. I understand your motives and I'll try to ask about adding it into the 2016 election article. As for creating an entirely new article, there probably wouldn't be enough content, at least from what I've written (which was only a few paragraphs of that long section). And as you mention, it should either be on this page or the one for the 2016 election, or a cross. However, I don't personally believe that it merits its own article either. But why is the section still included on this page, as it's already empty, and as you say, not relevant to this page? Will it be permanent? I'd also like your take on whether or not to propose it at the 2016 article talk page, which is quite busy (and I'm not allowed to edit the full one either). What parts do you think I should add, which ones removed if they were to be re-instated at for 2016 election? Thank you for the help. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section: Swing states in the 2016 election 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Swing state. 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 https://web.archive.org/web/20070125003904/http://www.swingstatethemovie.com/ to http://www.swingstatethemovie.com/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html to http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Perhaps I'm not understanding the map correctly, but I'm pretty sure that's a map of the 2016 election, not 2020. The map shows Arizona, Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, and Pennsylvania as going for Trump. I've replaced it.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey @Ermenrich Erminrich: thanks for your edit and update! We have decided to change the map shown on this page to no longer be specific to any particular year's election, and rather a reflection of the long-term voting trends and tendencies by state, as discussed here at the time. If you wish to re-open this discussion, you may do so under a new topic on this page (or right here, if you would like to choose). A Red Cherry (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "State races" map