Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Michigan

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Michigan Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

I think it is worth mentioning the historical significance of the major upset that occurred in Michigan's Democratic primary. Virtually every poll showed Hillary up. She was consistently up by an average of over 20%, yet she still lost to Bernie.

Somebody should update the Republican primaries part Nutcracker100 (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should update the results table heading changing Hawaii to Michigan.

The page suggests that the state was won by Donald Trump but as of November 18 it is yet to be called. The European betting exchanges are taking bets on both sides. Admittedly the odds are -10000 for Trump and +8900 for Clinton (in other words she's 89-1 and he's 1-100) but they're still counting and apparently it's not absolutely definite yet, hence the action on both sides of the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.36.193 (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Today is 11/23/2016

1. By November 22nd - Boards of county canvassers complete canvass of November general election; county clerks forward results to Secretary of State within 24 hours.

2. Recount petitions must be filed with the Secretary of State within 48 hours after the Board of State Canvassers completes the canvass.

3. By November 28th - Board of State Canvassers meet to canvass November general election. In fact, the meeting is scheduled for November 28th.

I am not a lawyer. It looks like a Presidential Recount must be filed within 48 hours of November 28th.

<ref>chrome-extension://oemmndcbldboiebfnladdacbdfmadadm/http://www.michigan.gov/documents/sos/ED-12_2016_Elec-Dates-Booklet_10022015_501879_7.pdf<ref>Easeltine (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking this confirms the results, but I'm not sure. http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/donald-trump-wins-michigan-votes/94360852/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.225.135 (talk) 00:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The main map, with the counties for DT & HC, needs labeling: not every-one knows that red/pink is Republican and blue is Democrat. The map should have a legend indicating what the colors mean (including the difference between red and pink). The colored lines under the candidates' pictures are more of a puzzle-clue than a real help.Kdammers (talk) 09:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why the list of counties that swung from DEM in 2012 to GOP in 2016 could be classified as such. The list is based on maps of presidential vote by county in these two elections already present in Wikipedia Commons and in many other sources.--MaGioZal (talk) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it matters that a county swung from one candidate to another? Why 2012 and not 2008? Is Wikimedia Commons your only source? There are an infinite number of ways of analyzing an election outcome. You could take a poll to see how many people with blonde hair switched from a left handed candidate to a right handed candidate from 1980 compared with 2016. If I wanted to add that to the article, you could point out that Politico and the NYT and BBC and FiveThirtyEight and everyone else, has never thought blonde hair was a meaningful way to track changes in electorate preferences. Whereas these sources have thought gender or past party preference have matted, and they have made analyses based on these things, and we can cite them.

Are you the first person ever to think of making a list of counties that swung from one candidate to another? If you are the very first, then your invention is original research. If you are not, and a reliable expert has made a similar analysis of the 2016 election, then all you need to do is cite them. If they are a reliable expert, then they will very likely explain to us why we should care about these counties, as opposed to blonde hair or how many Starbucks outlets there are in a precinct or the shoe size of the candidates. I wouldn't be surprised if a good source supports having this kind of list of counties, but it's your job to cite it. We can't just assume it must exist.

Do you see? Which statistics we choose to say are significant is not obvious. That choice should be made by

secondary sources, not Wikipedia editors alone. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply

]