Talk:2006 Texas gubernatorial election

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

Election Results[edit]

I updated the table with the most recent election results with 99% of precints reporting. But, on that table, what would go under %change (+/-)? Its not like there will be any sampling error with the final election results because its not a percentage of a sample (the entire population), but its just the percentage of the votes cast. There should be no possible error in the results because what votes were counted are what is counted. How can I remove this column from the table? will381796 15:16, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Sam Houston's Independent Status[edit]

Was Sam Houston an independent? List of Governors of Texas lists him as a Democrat, as does List of United States Senators from Texas. Ieverhart 05:44, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • He was a member of the Democratic Party, at least later, but ran against the "establishment" (non-Unionist) Democratic candidate in his election as governor, much like CKS is doing with the Repubs, at least as best I can tell. Souperman 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup Discussion[edit]

Okay, it's well and good to slap a tag on this page and say that it needs cleanup, but what exactly needs cleaning up? You didn't do a very good job of explaining yourself, and I can speak as the original author of this page that it has improved with many leaps and bounds past what I started with (a thank you is owed to many sources for that). As the tag itself explains See rationale on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. There is no rationale here from the editor who added that, and certainly no more specific message - without grasping at straws and tearing this entire article apart to see whatever nugget of it you don't like, kindly let us know. Thanks. Souperman 21:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Polling Discussion[edit]

James Werner is on the ballot. To be fair in the article he should be included in the polling section, as is everyone else on the ballot.

Options:

1. Add all the names on the ballot to the polling section.

2. Remove all polls that don't include everyone on the ballot.

  • My view is that you have to have a party do better than a poll's average margin of error (the 2002 Libertarian candidate received less than 1.5% - it is impossible to poll for that assuming similar support). I will put a blurb in the polling section saying that polls do not include him, but I do not see an argument for excluding the polling section altogether because your guy isn't in there or having a blank column because it was impossible for pollsters to come up with an accurate number. Best, Souperman 11:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not true. The people who take the polls pick and choose who they want on their polls. A truly scientific poll should have every candidate's name who will appear on the ballot regardless of what political party they are from. Wikipedia should be unbiased, even if the polls are not. If there is a polling section it should everyone on the ballot, it's not an unreasonable number of candidates. If the Libertarian shows up at or below the margin of error that's polling information too, but not to include the candidate in the poll is quite another. In physics there is a saying, that you can't measure something without effecting the thing you are measuring. This is true of polls too, polls are a form "free" advertisement for some candidates. Adding a tiny blurb is not equivalent to listing him as a candidate.
    • Hey, I tried to offer a compromise - it's not my fault that polling data does not fit your lofty standards. I don't write polls, I just put them down for comparison - and in my mind, Mr. Werner has to show up in a poll before he gets a column all to himself. For all I know, they did ask (pollsters are notoriously tight-lipped about methods) and the number was too low to report. Wikipedia attempts to be unbiased, yes, and I think we give more than enough deference to a third-party that garners less than three percent in almost all races that include both main parties. We listed him as a candidate in several locations in the article; I don't see why giving a blank column is useful other than to promote your own point of view. Souperman 11:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He is on the ballot, and therefore deserves a column as do the other candidates. If he wasn't included in some or all of the polls, that's just the way it is and should be reflected in the chart. Just because the polls are biased, doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to be. It's called being unbiased to include all candidates who are on the ballot in the table. I wouldn't call this page unbiased yet, take a look at the Background Section Libertarians, the word "claims" is inflammatory. Wikipedia should have lofty standards for being unbiased. Maybe removing the polling section is the answer.
      • Show me one election in which the polling is there for the Libertarians nationwide - I didn't find one; no Wikipedia article has it either, and a blank spot is not useful for anything. The word "claims" is not inflammatory since there was no cited reference - before, it looked like you wrote him a campaign ad and I couldn't substantiate it. Bolding the "he is on the ballot" (in effect yelling louder) does not make your argument any more valid. I do not want to get into a revert war, but this is getting ridiculous. Souperman 03:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Polling is generally paid for by one of a very few major media companies, I'm not surprised you can't find any polling. These companies in the past have gone so far as to exclude the Libertarians from their election results, giving their votes (and percentages, yes they were low) to other candidates to make it appear that they never even ran at all. An example, Kay Bailey Hutchison last Senate race as reported on CNN, they rounded her election results up by 0.8 or 0.9 percent, essentially giving all the Libertarian votes to her and her other opponent so that the results appeared to add up to 100%. Even PBS in Houston excluded Libertarian candidates, giving free access and time to their sole opponent. A news organization with a political agenda, go figure. Apologies for yelling in bold, but not including one of Texas' major party's candidates seems ridiculous to me. The Libertarian Party obtained ballot access under the major party ballot access law, and that's the way it is. In Texas there are different election laws regarding various major/minor parties and candidates. Do you have a list of the Wikipedia polling pages that have problems?
        • You still cannot poll someone under the margin of error - it would be impossible to get a representative sample of what happens in an election if you did so, eeeevil corporations or not. Wikipedia is not a place for your personal crusade to change the world, it is a place for the best information we have. Just because a party gained ballot access does not entitle them to anything past getting ballot access, which is where I think we philosophically differ. The LP has ballot access - great. They don't deserve a place in polling just because of this fact (and if they did, it would be in the nice alphabetical order by candidate I created the table in, not shoved in there because you want more visibility). CNN does appear to have done that in 2000, fine - but they didn't in 2002 [1]. And now you're accusing officials of illegal behavior on the main page in a different guise - who's using their POV to influence this article? As to the pages who follow the same convention I did and keep the LP out of polling, try every one on the 2006 election here. Putting a blank space to do nothing more than take up room on the page is you using your point of view, not trying to make the whole thing NPOV. Souperman 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unethical behavior by the SOS, please don't put words in my mouth. At most I called it "possibly illegal", and retracted that part, it was inflammatory. "eeeevil corporations", listen, CNN is free to change their web site at any time and in any way they see fit. During the 2000 election, there was no major media company that included Harry Browne's results on election night. You might have been to busy watching some other candidate. I think it was only ABC that even included the state by state breakdown of Harry Browne's results, and they didn't bother to total them up. If you remember, it was a controversial election. Anyone wanting to know how Harry Browne was doing on election night, had to total up all fifty states themselves. I know because I searched and found that I had to total them up myself, several times. While doing it, and watching Harry Browne's total number of votes going down as the other candidates flip-flopped for the lead. I concluded I was waisting my time. Most likely entry errors on my part (there were 50+), or entry errors on ABC's web page, but pretty much there was a large void of Harry Browne information. The year 2000 was the worst, but that is the first year that I really looked. 2002 was actually a little better, and 2004 a little bit better, from my perspective.

The Texas Libertarian party qualified for ballot access under the major party portion of the election laws. The Texas Libertarian party is a separate entity from the National LP party. There are three parties in Texas that qualified for major party access on the ballot, not two. Parties that qualify for access on the ballot under the major party law enjoy some benefits. Like not having to spend the time, effort and money to get a bunch of signatures to be placed on the ballot.

      • Shakes head and wonders, here take a look at this page: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2006_primary.shtml , labeled as "new" there is this page: http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2006gensby.htm . Notice anything strange?
        • Yes, Kinky and Carole aren't on there either. Give it a break - the state is often slow in updating their pages. Souperman 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Toned it down a little, but i really don't understand what your saying here about updating their pages? My understanding is that State really doesn't know who is "officially" running until after the political conventions which occur on the same weekend for all parties. My understanding is, that the party delegates meet, vote, and fill out the paper work to submit to the state. Is this wrong? If I'm right, then the State is giving preferential treatment to various political parties. This isn't the only time this type of thing has occured. Some Counties in the State of Texas only count and report Republican and Democratic votes on election night. It's not a common practice, but it happens.
          • That would be illegal if the counties of the state only counted major party votes, and according to the SOS page for 2002, all counties except two had at least one Libertarian vote for Governor. The other two counties, Loving and Kenedy, had turnouts of 63 and 115 in that election respectively, so it is likely that there simply were no votes for him. The major party candidates were determined in March and April and are bound by law to be on the ballot (notice that Tom DeLay is still there, for instance), so there wasn't a whole lot of suspense. The GOP convention was a week before the Democratic, Libertarian, and Green conventions, so I don't think your statement is true on them being on the same weekend. I think the main party conventions deal with the platform and rules for the next two years and determine the state chair - there may be an official annointment, but it is rather irrelevant, as the voters have already spoken. Calm down, there isn't a vast conspiracy, and it has only been two weeks since end of the state conventions. Souperman 03:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • lol, So your a vast conspiracy dude. Sorry, I wasn't clear, it was the election night returns. But, the confusion is my fault, I should have added that the SOS page was updated several months later with the actual results of the election. But, on the night of the election, and following days for months there were no results for anyone else except the Republicans and Democrats a south-east Texas county. Funny you should have looked up the year 2002, I'm pretty sure that was the year I was referring to. Would you like a copy of the SOS page I saved, I think I can find it for you. It's the certified SOS results that really matter, just as it is the party certified candidate list that matters. I don't believe the delegates are bound by law to vote at the convention to vote a certain way, but are bound by ethics and probably party rules and practices. Even if they are bound by law, I don't believe there is any penalty for not doing so, and they are still free to vote at the convention. Several times in the past rogue delegates have voted for people other than the person they were sent to the convention for. If Tom DeLay is still on the ballot, that's the Republican Parties problem.

Polling Discussion[edit]

The link for some recent polls WSJ/Zogby gives me a blank page - could someone provide a VALID link please?

Also, has anyone found a poll which actually includes ALL the candidates? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Anarchist42 (talk • contribs) {{{2}}}.

  • The link you provided above (presumably the one we have in the links) works fine on my computer. It is, however, a flash page and a bunch of data all at once. Make sure you have the flash plug-in installed, and if you're on dialup, it may take awhile longer than a normal page. Apparently that one did include everyone's favorite debate club with ballot access, so the very vocal tiny minority can have one less thing to complain about. Rasmussen, SurveyUSA, and Zogby are all of the polls (and DMN's single one back at the beginning of the year) I've found thus far (and I have been looking, seeing as how far they diverge from one another). Souperman 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone changed up all the polling results so that it looks like Chris Bell has Perry's poll numbers. This makes it appear as though Bell has a lead which he doesn't. Someone please fix this as it is wrong for the entire list of poll results.

Statistical Corrections to the data[edit]

To make the Polling Statistics correct over 10 polls, a correction is needed for all the votes that Werner would have gotten if he had been included in the polls. If anybody has a better idea of how to make it data statistically correct, lets discuss it. Wording changes?

SOS Ethics Discussion[edit]

Calming down.....You try to calm down too....I agree revert wars are a waist of time and effort....Time to do a little homework for a better Wikipedia page.

Here is a good web site, discussing some of the things at issue here:

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/el.toc.htm

I was wrong, it's the month of June.

§ 174.001. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. This chapter applies to a political party holding a primary election.

§ 174.092. TIME AND PLACE OF CONVENTION. (a) The biennial state convention shall be convened on any day in June.

This was my point, the State doesn't have a certified list to publish until this is done.

§ 181.001. APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER. This chapter applies to a political party making nominations by convention except a party making nominations only for county and precinct offices under Chapter 182.

§ 181.068. PARTY'S CERTIFICATION OF NOMINEES. (a) The presiding officer of each convention held under this chapter shall certify in writing for placement on the general election ballot the name and address of each candidate nominated by the convention.

Unethical behavior by the SOS, he gets the certified list for all parties around the same time.

  • That would be true, if the Democratic and Republican parties nominated by convention - using the same webpage you so nicely gave, look at section 172.

Sec. 172.122. CERTIFICATION OF NOMINEES FOR STATEWIDE AND DISTRICT OFFICES TO SECRETARY OF STATE. (a) The state chair shall certify in writing as the party’s nominee the name and address of each primary candidate who is nominated for a statewide or district office. (b) Not later than the 20th day after the date the state canvass is completed, the state chair shall deliver the certification to the secretary of state.

In other words, Perry and Bell were certified by the parties, which was reported to the SOS near the end of March. I don't know when that SOS page was put up, but it's only been two weeks since the conventions - we have over four months until the election. I also do not see anywhere that states that the Secretary of State is obliged to update his webpage on a continual basis. Another example - if the GOP had the chance to replace DeLay on the ballot at the convention, don't you think they would have done it then? They aren't like the National Conventions, where in theory you can overturn the primaries with a floor vote. Souperman 06:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your correct on the different laws with respect to election by primary and convention, added 181.001 above. But, you are just speculating about what the SOS has done. Even if your speculation is correct (which it is blatantly not), it is still unethical to produce a page entitled "2006 General Election - Candidates Side by Side" that doesn't contain all the candidates. Ethically, he would have to wait until all parties and independent candidates are certified before producing the page.

This is the web page that contains the links entitled, “2006 Primary and General Election “:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2006_primary.shtml

It contains the following two links:

A list of Libertarian candidates in the 2006 general election (with no "New" or "Printer Friendly" banner):

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/forms/candidates/2006lib.pdf

A list under the little yellow "New" banner and "Printer Friendly" banner/link, indicating that it is something that is "new" and just added to the web page. And "Printer Friendly" version of the link. That this is the link that is "Friendly" and should be "Printed". This is blatantly unethical, if not illegal, to advocate to all the "Printers" of Texas that the Secretary of State considers this the be the "Friendly" list of some candidates. Funny thing is, that the "link" and the separate "Printer Friendly" link actually point to the same web page. Two links pointing to the exact same web page, the "Printer Friendly" link serves no useful purpose other than to add the "Printer Friendly" statement to a web page that is already linked on the web page. There is no different and distinct "Printer Friendly" web page. And that list only contains some of the candidates. A list of Republican and Democratic candidates running in the 2006 general election:

http://www.sos.state.tx.us/elections/voter/2006gensby.htm

You can't have it both ways. I think we just went from "unethical" back to "probably criminal" with the Secretary of State blatantly advocating some candidates in the 2006 general election.

By the way, check out that page again [2] - see anything different from the "unethical" SOS? I'll make the change. Souperman 19:33, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, your funny. Do you think maybe getting a phone call from one, two, or all three of the candidates after they became aware of his web site might have had little something to do with it?. I do, since they all found out about it at about it at the same time. lol, That was quick, glad to see our SOS doing such a bang up job. You removed too much and all references to what he did, maybe you should stick to editing things about the Republicans and Democrates.
I think you put too much importance on websites and how evil the SOS is. I deleted it because it's not important in the long run that for a grand total of two weeks in a lull of the campaigning in general - that's why it doesn't need to be in the article. No, I don't believe I should be limited in what I write on - NPOV does not mean that everyone writes about one single thing; otherwise, we'd get "Democrats are great!" "Republicans are great!" "Libertarians are great!" "Kinky is great!", ad nauseum. We are not here to build ads, which is what would happen on your scenario, we are here to moderate everyone's view, including yours. In two more weeks, this subject will be irrelevant to everyone, just like Kay Bailey not running doesn't matter any more either. It's a non-issue now. Reverting again. Souperman 00:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, the SOS makes his web site worse, an even bigger issue, and you volunteer to make the mods on the main page. And what do you do??????

GP Discussion[edit]

  • Green Party should be added to the polling results also.
    • The GP doesn't even have ballot access - so you can't even use the other anonymous guy's arguments to validate it. Souperman 03:11, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, but wikipedia is really about education too. Having a write-in candidate included would round out the page. The three major parties in Texas who enjoy ballot access, two independent candidates who struggled for ballot access under a different law, and minor party candidate that couldn't obtain ballot access and was forced to run as a write-in candidate. A six way race. I agree, the arguments are not as good, but it's a thought.
      • I don't get the idea that he's going to run a write-in campaign, though I could be wrong. And if you can't poll below the margin of error before, you certainly can't poll below the margin of error on someone who is unlikely to even break 0.5%. Souperman 17:52, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually you can poll down below the margin of error, there is a whole field of statistics dealing with that topic. But that isn't what I was talking about, the page has quite a bit of discussion on the green party. Why not make the page totally non-biased and included them as not appearing in the polls? Just an idea. Also, in the last presidential election Nadar abandoned the Green Party and ran as a write-in candidate in Texas. It's not unheard of. Nader was probably included in many more polls than Badnarik, even though he didn't run for President in nearly as many states as Badnarik.
        • Because it's a waste of space to have an entire column for no really good reason, other than that you don't like it - I'm fine with listing it below the table, and indeed I will when I revert it next (as there is no consensus on your radical edit of the polling section, it should go back to how it was, which was in the previous unwritten consensus of the authors of this page to this point). We make note of all the intended candidates on this page and do educate them on their positions. I applaud your attempt to be bold, but you do need to work in the constraints of the page consensus and work with us instead of against us (calling that one revert "vandalism" was not polite, nor was it accurate). Souperman 03:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You, me and the other guy who didn't want to join the discussion, but prides himself in reverting vandalism. Not polite, yes I agree, but he should have joined the discussion. Apologies to the other guy. When I first viewed this page, one of the major parties in Texas wasn't represented at all and it looked like the entire thing had been written by a Republican or a Democrat. Yeah, I was a little hot, but I'm calming down. Let's try to work together and come up with a good non biased Wikipedia page that is acceptable to all that wish to contribute there time to this page. That's my goal. As far as the Greens are concerned, a waist of space, I'm agreeing with you. If this were California and we were talking about the California Green Party, I might not. It was just an idea, and not all ideas are good ones.
          • I didn't join the discussion because I'm not a very articulate debator, and Souperman is doing an excellent job of expressing things. Me jumping into the debate in general would not help it progress all that much one direction or another. The one thing I will say is that calling as vandalism what is in reality a legitimate edit dispute only serves to weaken your position. It implies that noone can legitimately disagree with you. That only you are right, and that someone who dares to change from your way is vandalizing. Well, I'm sorry, but edit disputes happen all over the project all the time without it being vandalism. And that's exactly what is happening here. Vandalism means some very specific things here on the project, but it does not simply mean that someone has made an edit that you dislike. - TexasAndroid 13:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hi TexasArdroid, I hope you will accept my sincere apology. Wikipedia needs more people like you to spend there time and effort keeping this a great web site. Thanks for joining the discussion and giving me the opportunity to apologize personally. Keep up the good work.
              • Hi TexasArdroid, I'd like to add it also seems rude to revert when a discussion is going on about Polling and not joining the discussion. And it wasn't silly, I thought it got the point across very well about the statistics, maybe needed some rewording or a few more words. Keep up the good work, but join the discussion on the topic that's being changed if it's going on.
As I say below, the only reason I did not join the discussion was because I had real life things come up and drag me away from the computer. In fact, the first comment below was 99% written right after my first revert. The second comment was written after the second revert. - TexasAndroid 19:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TexasArdroid, I've never uploaded any pages before. What's the best way to do that for a non-registered contributer?

Libertarian Discussion[edit]

The independant candidates are also not listed on the side by side candidate list.

Not included in the poll, could be 100%, but no one really knows.[edit]

Come on, Mr. Anonymous. The above is just getting silly. And totally non-encyclopedic. Noone has reverted out your extra column for a day or two, but you are still not satisfied. And I hope that the part of the edit that disrupted the Polling section header was an accident. (On a side note, I 100% agree with Friedman and Strayhorn having their own sections, instead of being lumped together as Independants at this point.) - TexasAndroid

A couple points on why this is silly. 100% is just as silly as 0%. We all know that the totals are not 0%, and it is simply false to say they are 100%. Neither is true, so neither belongs in the table. I still think that the gentleman himself does not belong inthe table, for all the reasons Souperman has given, but I have held back from pulling it out any more in an attempt to have a compromise that will minimally disrupt the page. But I'm sorry. Blatantly inacurate imformation in the table just to [prove your point of him being ignored by the media is simply wrong. The project is about showing how things are, not how you would like them to be. A note below describing why the Libertarian candidate does not show up in polls does perfectly well to describe the situation without disrupting the rest of the polling table just to make the point. While I don't care for the column with the reference notes to the bottom, I was willing to live with it to have peace here. But this last... I'm sorry. Knowingly inacurate information included just for making a point does not belong. Sorry. - TexasAndroid 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, were editing pages at the same time. I'll get back to you tommorrow and clean up the discussions into one discussion, do you have anything else to add? Thanks for discussing.
I have to put my lot in with TexasAndroid here - your edits have not been NPOV; they have, in fact, been your own POV without regard to anyone else's, including the consensus built by many hands in the writing of this article. Instead of attempting to detach yourself from the issue and write as an observer from outside (while we all acknowledge that this is not always completely possible, it is why we have many authors instead of just one to moderate the response), most of your edits have simply thrown your own disgust about the current political system into the article. There are many fora for such a discussion (like a blog or message boards), but wikipedia is not that place. You do not own this article (nor do I claim to - and I started this article), so I wish you would stop acting like your opinion and point of view are all that matters. Wikipedia is here to report facts as best we know them, not conjecture about the actions of others or the unfairness of the electoral system and media. Souperman 01:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You should read your own words here. Quite frankly, I've been trying to do this on the main page from my first edit. Reserving my biases for the discussion page. Yes, I am biased, but that doesn't mean that what I've done on the main page is biased. If you look at all the my edits, they have been from a standpoint of an unbiased the main page. Before I edited anything: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_gubernatorial_election%2C_2006&oldid=60154309 and now: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_gubernatorial_election%2C_2006&oldid=61016967 . Leveling the playing field so to speak, and I think it looks much better. But then again, I am biased. Just because the polling that goes on by the media in this country is blatantly biased and unscientific (against my POV) doesn't mean that Wikipedia must be bias and unscientific. It should be better than the rest, not just repeating whatever they say. Souperman, when I look at your first edit on this page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_gubernatorial_election%2C_2006&oldid=14435410 , I see can see where your coming from and your bias right from the beginning. Yet, you seem to not want to admit your biased, like every human being on the planet is. Example of one of your edits on the main page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Texas_gubernatorial_election%2C_2006&diff=60301516&oldid=60265071 "Werner comes from a business background, and claims to have helped educational clients raise tens of millions of dollars in private support" using the word "claims" and doesn't seem to understand how others might see this as inflammatory. When you could have used a more appropriate statement like the one that you may have even written, "According to Perry's campaign website, Perry has", which I didn't change to "Perry claims", for consistency on the main page. Feel free to point out were I've been biased on the main page. I agree adding the green party guy to the polling was a bit much, as he may or may not be running, but may or may not be the best write-in candidate to have some info on. And yes, I shouldn't have just grabbed stuff off Werner web site, but when you pointed it out I wrote my own stuff with the "According to" perviso. Personally, I think you put way to much stock in unscientific polling data, with no explaination of it's flaws and limitations on the main page.
I do read my own words, and I do have my own biases - I have a BA in history and political science, areas that both rely on bias as issues - don't assume things. You may think it looks better, but that's because it fits your POV - I think you nearly destroyed this page with your crusade that you seem to think is unbiased. I also used the phrase Bell claims that his plan... (which I notice you didn't complain about) - that's a literary thing, since using "according to the (insert name of candidate here) campaign" gets boring time and time again. I'll let you in on a little secret that I shouldn't: I'm a Bell supporter, so am I suddenly biased against the guy I'm voting for because of the "inflammatory" word "claims"? However, I think we're giving the Libertarians way too much leeway - you guys need to get better than 1.5% statewide for anyone to start caring, especially the electorate and the polls. We mention minor parties here, and they do deserve a place (I spent hours weeding through the election pages putting the Libertarian nominees for all state and congressional offices down after their convention - don't give me the crap that I ignore them) - but polling is not it. I "put too much stock in unscientific polling data" because that's what we have - it would be against the original research proviso if you were to tweak it. Also, you have ranted and raved against the media (which is a POV), polling (also a POV), the secretary of state (yep, POV), my ordering of candidates (because you wanted your guy at the top). That may have some place somewhere on wikipedia, but this is not it. Souperman 19:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Kinky Discussion[edit]

Shouldn't something be said in his section too? Also, Kinky needs another paragraph in his Friedman Background section.

Souperman, nice name, I would have bet money that you were a Republican after reading the earliest page. But, it's pretty hard for a Libertarian to tell one Authoritarian from another. It's kind of funny, most of the general public has the same problem.
  • Bells were heard ringing in the State of Texas this Fourth of July, as Kinky Friedman waves bye to Chris in the polls, on his way to the Governorship. Although, Kinky doesn't seem to put much stock in unscientific political polls among "likely" voters, saying, "It's Kinky Friedman versus apathy". He's going after the 71% who didn't make it to the polls. If the election were held on June 26, 2006, he would have finished in second place ahead of Chris Bell. Polls indicate that he is building significant momentum among voters in Texas that may very well carry the race.
  • Dazed and confused with Kinky Friedman passing bye, drawing over half his support from the Democratic voters in Texas. Bell was overheard saying, "that his plan is to get Democrats to unite behind and vote for a Democrat, predicting (and betting on) a splintering of the Republican vote between Perry, Strayhorn, and Kinky Friedman, which would give the Democrats the needed plurality to win the election. [1] Traditionally, it's the Libertarian Party's candidate James Warner who would draw votes from the Republican Party, and the Green Party's candidate who would draw votes from the Democratic Party. Kinky Friedman has more than filled the void on the Texas ballot left by the Green Party when they failed to gain access.

24.240.209.18, Thinks "This whole article is full of Friedman propaganda that reads like it's cut and pasted from his official site."

Nope, not cut or pasted from his web site or propaganda pages, to me it was written in the style of newspaper article, at worse Tabloid. Reads much better as wikipedia article without the colorful adj., thanks. You did get a bit too carried away and missed and removed the point about the green party not making the ballot, kinky filling the void (not the right wording), and really Kinky and Strayhorns' ballot access campaigns driving the Green Party off the ballot. Kinky's ballot access campaign drew many petition gathers away from the Green Party.

Other pages linking to this one[edit]

I had had trouble finding this page, so I added links to this page on the pages for each of the candidates. --Xerxes855 00:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biased polls[edit]

Considering that there are five candidates, two of which are Independents, I find it somewhat interesting that all but one of the polls include all candidates except the Libertarian. I suggest that this polling bias warrants the change I just made. Anarchist42 23:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now that someone has finally included the Libertarian candidate, I think it would be more appropriate to give him a column in a single table. The less enlightened pollsters will have "not reported" (or some similar, NPOV text). I'll also put the margin of error column, which hopefully will get filled in for the other (and future) polls. --Robertb-dc 00:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My problem with the former labelling was that all of the polling seemed to center around the candidate of a party that almost never gets above 4% in races that involve both major parties, hence the four and five way matchup nomenclature that I used. It's kinda clunky as is with all of the asterisks (I agree that he should be in the polling now that someone has actually included him in a poll), but it works, it's mainly a stylistic thing, and not something I'm going to fight over. Just as long as you don't get into the diatribe and edit warring that the anon editor did whose dispute a few months ago still fills the talk page, we'll be fine. Souperman 09:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The combined poll list with double asterisks works fine. I won't get into any "diatribe", I just believe that omissions are a kind of bias (some wikipedia articles described Libertarian candidates as "unopposed"; CNN election coverage calls Libertarians "Independents" yet calls Greens "Greens" - go figure). Anarchist42 17:10, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Transcript[edit]

A link to a transcript (video?) of the October 6th debate would probably be a useful thing to include if anybody can track one down. --69.7.175.193 21:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 7[edit]

When I hovered, it reads as an .exe file. Seems a bit odd. Same for Ref #1--Billymac00 (talk) 23:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Texas gubernatorial election, 2006. 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) 03:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Texas_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196488568"