Talk:Blue shift (politics)/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Blue shift (politics). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Speculation?
Most of this article is dedicated to the prediction of a future event that may or may not happen. I also noticed that this is a highly partisan issue. I wonder if we can't find more examples of this happening already? Mattcwu1988 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
graphics for 2020 presidential election vote count changes
There are some great graphs out there demonstrating how vote counts changed over time as the absentee ballots were counted. I don't have the skillz...is this something someone could create? —valereee (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
Here is a good article from 538. They have a graphic in it if some kind soul would like to upload and source it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/where-we-saw-red-and-blue-mirages-on-election-night/ Additionally, they've covered this topic before, so there might be other graphics to pull from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.224.51.145 (talk) 11:54, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
Play on words
Shouldn't the article at least mention, for those to whom it won't be obvious, that the term is a play on words that alludes to the (mostly astro)physical phenomenon of red shift / blue shift? Since the political term was coined by an academic, it's virtually impossible this would not have been in his mind as a witticism of the type so usual in American discourse. Had it not been, it's likely he would have chosen something catchy in a more obvious, downmarket way, such as "blue skew." And since Foley is still very much alive, it's always possible to ask him if there's any doubt. But someone of his education really couldn't be unaware of the obvious parallel and the intrinsic humor in drawing it between such disparate contexts. Tosiaan (talk) 06:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Neutrality and encyclopedic phrasing of lead section?
The lead section seems to suffer from some significant POV issues, and could probably use a significant re-writing. It makes a lot of assumption and insinuation, bordering on original research. For example, "Americans are accustomed to learning projected results on election day and often assume the projected results announced then are an accurate representation of final results" appears to be unsupported by the attached source, and likely falls under original research. The lead section further describes it in a highly partisan and unencyclopedic manner; "This can lead some Republicans to call the legitimacy of the election into question, when in fact, the election results are legitimate." - A sentence of this nature should not be written in a predictive tone, but should focus on events where this has happened - to do otherwise again borders on original research. Builder018 (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2020 (UTC)