Jump to content

Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Montana

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

Financing

[edit]

Could anyone find a source for how much money Burns and Tester had for their campaigns, and how much was spent? I know that this info had been on NYTimes.com before the election, but I can no longer find it there. I'd think that this info would not just be interesting, but also highly relevant to the race. -- Kicking222 16:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The FEC has a public disclosure database. It won't show all of the money they had until the end of the month probably, but here's a link to for Burns and Tester. --Bobblehead 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Corruption?

[edit]

Has anyone found any information of vote fraud in this race? I know of none explicitly, but I'm a statistician noting that Burns hadn't led a poll since April, yet lost the race by a hair. If it looks like a duck, and it walks like a duck ... (I'm hoping that someone has said it's a duck so I can say so on Wikipedia :) ) Topher0128 20:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an infinite number of reasons why polling is not accurate for elections, the number one reason being that people do not tell pollsters how they will really vote. It's a lot easier to vote for Burns in the privacy of a poll booth than it is to tell a pollster that they'll vote for him over the phone. There's also a propensity for people to see that the person they want to win is ahead by 10 points in the polls and then say "He's ahead by ten points, I don't need to vote". Pollsters also either use "Registered voters" or "Likely voters". Registered voters is perhaps the most inaccurate as anywhere from 20-70 percent of registered voters actually vote. On the other hand, the pollsters rely on people that tell them they are likely voters to actually vote and.. Yet again, people don't actually tell pollsters the correct information. Etc. ETc. Even then, how the pollster asks the question can determine the answer. The order the candidates are included in the question, whether or not the party is mentioned in the question, the tone of voice the pollster uses, etc, etc can influence the answers. Another way certain polling agencies "influence" the answer is by starting out asking people questions about one of the candidates before they ask who they'll vote for. Additionally, most of the final polls are released a week or more before the actual election itself and many of the most intensive ads (both in frequency and negativity) are in the final week. Polls are a snapshot in time (and a blurry snapshot at that). Long story short, polls have a +/- for a reason. A 10 percent lead in a poll with a +/- 5 means the pollster thinks there is a 90-95% chance the actual results is between 5% and 15%. All in all, polls are not accurate, get used to it. --Bobblehead 01:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Montana, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Montana, 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, 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) 11:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Montana&oldid=1227322846"