Talk:Swing state/Archive 1

Archive 1

More Presidents from Virginia

I deleted "more Presidents have come from Ohio than from any other state" since it listed 5. There have been 7 or 8 from Virginia. RickK | Talk 04:10, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wow, I should have realized that. I thought for sure I'd heard that there were more Ohioans than any other; my fault for not thinking of Virginia. Dur. Meelar 06:39, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Part of it depends whether you're talking about where the person was from at the time of the election, or where he was born (for example, George W. Bush was born in Connecticut, but in the public cognizance he's "from" Texas). Ohio and Virginia are tied as far as birthplace goes; Ohio includes Grant, Hayes, Garfield, Harrison, McKinley, Taft, and Harding. I guess after the corruption of the Harding administration we just gave up. --Birdhombre 17:59, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

First time commenting here, hope I don't blow it up. But Ohio went for Nixon in 1960, one of the very few times (I believe FDR in 1944 was the only other in the 20th c.) that it didn't break for the winner. I've never been able to find a source to back this up, but allegedly Kennedy said that Ohio "broke his heart." - DavidNYC, author of the Swing State Project http://www.swingstateproject.com

Delaware?

Whoever listed Delaware, what was the source? Doubts have been raised. Yours, Meelar 23:24, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meelar, thanks for stopping by my blog. I think the confusion about Delaware is that while it's been a *bellwether* for a very long time (since 1952, in fact) - in other words, it's gone with the winner every time (except in 2000) - it isn't very likely to swing back to the GOP anymore. I'm not sure why that is precisely, but it favored Gore by a large margin in 2000 and is likely to go Dem again by a big margin this year. Basically, almost no one I know of thinks DE is in play this time around, and I'd be very surprised if either candidate spends any time or money there. - DavidNYC

One other bit of color, in case you are interested: Ohio actually went with the winner in every election from 1900 to 2000 except in 1944 (when it went for Dewey by less than 0.5%) and 1960 (when it went for Nixon by about 6.5%). - DavidNYC

No consistent distinction between swing and battleground states

68.167.249.223 02:38, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC): Based on a random review of reputable news and .edu websites, the distinction made here and in battleground state between the two terms does not reflect reality:

News

• http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/politics/campaign2004/03%20battleground.pdf PDF
• http://www.cnn.com/interactive/allpolitics/0010/battleground.states/battlegroundstates.html
• http://www.economist.com/World/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2651806
• http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,120492,00.html
• http://slate.msn.com/id/2101779/
• http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-02-26-ohio-battleground_x.htm

Universities

• http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/battleground04.html
• http://www.usfca.edu/fromm/lubalin.html
• http://www.ithaca.edu/library/htmls/elect.html
• http://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/csp/elections/
• http://www.nyu.edu/ofp/news.html

The two terms are used interchangeably; if these sites don't convince, do your own search on the two terms. I proposed eliminating the distinction and redirecting references into a common article.

I found these to be very convincing. Nice work, and thank you! Have you considered creating an account? These articles could use you. Anyway, I agree with your suggestion--I think battleground state should, in light of this, redirect to swing state (I'm not just being arbitrary--"swing state" gets 38,000 google hits, while "battleground state" gets half as many). Jengod, any objections? Best wishes, Meelar 05:09, 6 Jun 2004 (UTC)

67.100.125.66 04:38, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC): Updated to reflect this...

All swing states are, by definition, battleground states. (Ohio, for example.) But not all battleground states are swing states. (North Carolina, for example.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.92.126 (talk) 04:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

2004 swing states

Having three different lists of swing states in this section seems a bit unnecessary to me; it also makes the article harder to read. How about purging the third one and change the preceding paragraph into something like "A survey conducted by a firm for the Bush campaign also gave a figure of 19 states, but with one change: It cited Colorado instead of Delaware."

Also, the criteria for inclusion on the first list in the paragraph (the bullet list of "close outcomes") are unclear. Especially North Carolina's merits can be doubted. The percentage margin was smaller in California (11.8%) as well as in Vermont (9.9%). The difference in number of votes was smaller in several states, including, obviously, several rock-solid Republican states with populations hardly reaching the NC victory margin, such as Montana and Wyoming. I assume NC is listed here due to the possibility of an Edwards factor, but in my opinion it would then make more sense mentioning the state later in the paragraph instead. Or, even better, merging the lists into one, preferrably sorted by victory margin. Alarm 18:29, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• I think this section should break out to become its out article ✏ Sverdrup 11:42, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Speaking of swing states, New Jersey could be considered a swing state, as the 2006 elections for Senate was closer than it was in the pat. Also, the elections have been getting closer, and NJ may go 'red' in 2008. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Eisen8388 (talk • contribs).

And THAT... was largely because of the 9/11 factor. NJ is a heavily suburban state, and Bush fared better in NYC's suburbs in 2004 than 2000, because of 9/11. The 2006 race for Senate was close, because Mendenez's approval ratings weren't all that high. And did you know that many people actually thought Kean would beat Mendenez? Also, Cardin won over Steele in what was considered to be a close race in Maryland, but I doubt anybody's going to consider THAT a swing state anytime soon.

If you want a good look at how NJ and NY go without the 9/11 boost, look at 2000. If you never noticed, Gore scored 56% in Jersey, and broke 60% in New York.

And to clear some things up... -Hawaii. Sure, it was closer in 2004. But it has a heavy pro-incumbent bias. Just look at the results from 1988-1992-1996. You'd see a huge swing towards the incumbent party every time. -Margins: You can't just look at the margins. If you look at the margins of victory from 2000-2004, you could come under the impression (almost) the whole nation became more Republican. That really isn't the case.

California

Didn't they go for republican as recently as 1988, surely they are a swing state? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ajuk (talk • contribs) 22:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC).

California was a red state from the 50s till 1992, then it flipped to a Democratic state. It supports Democrats by significant margins.

No, no, no! California is no swing state. See, how you can figure out if a state is swing or not is if it has voted for a candidate by less than 10 points consistently, or if the winning candidate fails to break 54%. California meets neither criteria.

It is true that California went Democratic in the latest four elections, 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004. However, in the ten elections before that (1952-1988), it voted Republican nine times out of ten! (The only exception being 1964). (See this link: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/). So, would it not be more correct to consider California a swing state? Paul kuiper NL (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

No it wouldn't, because a swing state is a state that's up for grabs in any individual election, not a state that's been one by either party. Given the national realignment in the 70's and 80's, by your logic most states would be swing states. California's probably one of the most reliably democratic states that there is (after Hawaii, Massachusetts, and New York). 59.38.32.9 (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

California was a swing state in 1992, but it was solidly Republican before that and has been solidly Democratic since. 75.31.108.8 (talk) 02:24, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

question

If Arkansas votes for Hillary Clinton in 2008, as it is expected to, is it now a swing state, or a safe state that had a democratic burp? 72.230.61.217 09:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, since both US Senators, 3 out of 4 US Congressional Representatives, and the Governor are all Democrats (and they voted for Clinton both times and Bush both times) I would say Arkansas is sufficiently purple. They probably deserve to be considered a "swing state". (Cardsplayer4life 22:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC))

Also, they are already listed in the List of 2000 swing states, and the List of 2004 swing states. I am going to go ahead and add them. (Cardsplayer4life 02:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC))

But the thing is, Arkansas's Democratic party hasn't gone through the death stage that those of Texas and Georgia have went through. Same with WV. They're solidly Democratic on the state level, but does that really mean they're solid blue on the presidential level?

Choice of Polls Used

The polls cited in every case use Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee and alternate the Republican nominee between Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani. While it may be a bit of a stretch to ask for polls that use John McCain as the Republican nominee, it forms an incredibly incomplete picture to not cite polls that show Barack Obama and John Edwards as nominees on the Democratic side.

I also think it's important to note why this will give a better picture: John Edwards outperforms Hillary Clinton against every Democratic candidate according to Rasmussen polls (the most oft-cited pollster in this article) and Barack Obama has a very different performance state-by-state vs. both Hillary Clinton and John Edwards. 67.168.213.168 21:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that Rasmussen is just polling Clinton vs. the Republicans (Giuliani, Romney, Thompson, McCain) in their state polls. I saw Obama and Edwards included in their recent Massachusetts poll, but Massachusetts is hardly a swing-state. They also included Obama in their Illinois poll, also not a swing state. I´d prefer Clinton vs. Giuliani polls though until we know the party nominees, as both Clinton and Giuliani already experience about a 100% name recognition, making the definition of a swing state more accurate, rather than pitting a less-known Obama against a less-known Romney. --The Pollster 11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Definition, Origin and Inclusion or Exclusion of Swing States

I'm working on revamping this entire article since there is a slant towards what is "defined" as a swing state in terms of the 2000 and 2004 elections. Historically, swing states have been fluid, particularly so after a two-term presidency and arguably more so when generations redefine the major issues of the day (World War, depression, civil rights, energy, economy, Iraq War, health care, etc.). The snipets currently offered in this article do not accurately represent the historic nature of swing states. To segue into the current definition, not enough attention or examples are given to how polling, media reports, public perception, and other factors weigh in on determining swing states in addition to hard data such as voter registration and previous election returns (and perhaps most importantly, how candidates use all the above information in determining the worthiness of campaigning in any particular state).

While the elections of 2000 and 2004 were similar (most "blue" and "red" states remained the same), that has not been the case in past elections (Johnson, Reagan and H.W. Bush almost won every state, Carter won the south, Clinton won western and southern states). Another minor addition that I believe is necessary is the "favorite son or daughter" factor in determining certain swing states.

That said, I wish to gauge opinion as to whether the following states should be included in the current crop of 2008 battleground states:

CONNECTICUT: Clinton leads Giuliani by 6-7 points in various polls. I don't have information about the remaining candidates. CT has shifted between both parties in previous elections. CT media and local Democratic groups have stated Giuliani makes the state competitive in 2008. In 2006, a Republican governor was elected by a comfortable majority and Joe Lieberman was reelected Senator as an independent after leaving the Democratic party. Voter registration data from 2004 and 2006 does not indicate an advantage for either party.

KENTUCKY: Similar to CT, Kentucky media is reporting the state as a potential battleground in 2008. Clinton leads in one poll (as does Edwards and Obama), yet another has Giuliani in the lead against Clinton (no information is available about the other candidates). Bill Clinton has been campaigning in Kentucky recently and local news outlets report that Hillary could "recapture" the state "her husband won in 1992 and 1996." I'm evaluating the voter registration data but nothing stands out to benefit either party.

NEW JERSEY: Clinton and Giuliani are in a statistical tie in NJ according to polls (1-3 points depending on the source). No information is available about the other candidates except Edwards, who would also be competitive against Giuliani. Like CT, Giuliani may be a factor in NJ due to his reported popularity in the region. Voter registration is inconclusive.

TENNESSEE: Other than Thompson, Clinton is ahead in most polls in TN. Local news reports the "potential" of TN as a battleground in 2008. Democratic organizations also report an increase in field efforts in the state, possibly to increase voter registration which may prove significant since Republican registration has been stagnant since 2004. On the other hand, Harold Ford lost his bid for the Senate in 2006 after it was reported he was a "shoe-in" based on "growing opposition in TN to the Iraq War."

TEXAS: This is a wild card but I thought it interesting to note that the Dallas Morning News conducted a survey, concluding: "if the election were held today, 36 percent of Texans would vote for Mr. McCain, 35 percent for Mrs. Clinton and 29 percent undecided." The same survey indicates that Clinton has a 3-1 advantage over Giuliani. Since no other candidates were included in the survey, voter registration benefits Republicans, and election data makes TX a "strong" Republican state (regardless of any nominee on either side), I am not certain Texas is a strong case for inclusion at this time. -JPmaverick 04:27, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

• These are interesting maps: Image:2004CampaignAttention.png. I think if 2008 brings us a moderately liberal Democrat and a conservative Republican, the 2008 maps will be similar (with exceptions for native sons/daughter). If Giuliani actually succeeds in getting the nomination, I strongly suspect that we'll see a conservative third party challenger. If that happens, some of the reddest states will turn blue, with a three-way split, and recent swing states will turn red (Giuliani attracting moderates). So the swing state map would look totally different with Giuliani in the race. For that reason, I think the more encyclopedic track would be to talk about swing states in relation to 2000 and 2004, at least until the nominees are more certain. Otherwise, you could take the five leading Democrats against the five leading Republicans and come up with 25 (OK, realistically 6-8) different maps depending on the specific candidates. I believe Clinton/Obama/Edwards wouldn't change the map much, but Thompson/Giuliani/Romney cause huge shifts.--Appraiser 06:41, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

My opinion on the "swing states" you mentioned: If Giuliani IS the GOP nominee, he would have some serious appeal in the Tri-state-area, as well as PA and OH. But when additionally asuming that Clinton will be the DEM nominee it´s all becoming murkier. Hillary Clinton is a force in New England. Various polls have shown her trouncing Giuliani in NY state. The latest Rasmussen CT poll has Clinton ahead of Giuliani by 6 points, while she has massive leads against Thompson and Romney in that state. In New Jersey, Clinton has closed a 10-point deficit with Giuliani since the beginning of 2007 and both are now even according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. She even pulled ahead in a recent Rutgers poll. Additionally, no other (more socially conservative Republican - Thompson, Romney, McCain - stands a chance against her in the Garden state). With respect to Kentucky, Tennessee and Texas, the situation is reversed. Social-Liberal Giuliani would probably struggle more than Thompson, Romney against Clinton, but there are not enough polls out yet for this assumption. --The Pollster 06:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This is getting ridiculous. Before you know it, every state's gonna be considered a swing state. Just cause some pre-preliminary primary poll says something doesn't really mean squat. Swing states are determined largely by precedent, and it is very rare that a state will swing more than 10 percentage points from one side in 2000 or 2004 to the other side in 2008. I think it's safe to say that if the state went to Bush by over 55% in either 2000 or 2004, or to Gore/Kerry by over 55% in 2000 or 2004, it's not a swing state. Unless we get a major third party candidate (like Perot), which doesn't appear likely at this time. But I'm sorry...Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, Texas...these places are not going to go Democrat in 2008. Abog 04:35, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Current map

The current map shows Indiana, Kentucky, Tennessee, and West Virginia as Swing States, however the article fails to mention those four. The minimum requirement for being on the map should be a paragraph rationalizing their characterization as swing states.--Appraiser (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Note also that Indiana's page says "Indiana has long been considered to be a Republican stronghold. It has only supported a Democrat for president four times since 1900 -- in 1912, 1932, 1936 and 1964." So... sorry, but Indiana's not a swing state, and the map is definitely inaccurate in that regard. I'm considering removing it, and hopefully someone will make a more accurate map (which I don't know how to do). Thoughts? Kier07 (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the argument can be made for pretty much every state on the current map except Indiana. Subsurd (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source for the possibility of Indiana switching, Washington Post. HoosierState^Talk 00:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's a source. It could be the basis for a paragraph about Indiana being added as a swing state. I STILL think that the map should only show states for which there is a section explaining why it's a swing state. (Kentucky, Tennessee, & West Virginia are still missing.) My opinion is that that old (11/07) clipping is totally bogus. If Obama or Clinton wins Indiana, the election will be a total blowout. If McCain wins at least 10 states, Indiana will be one of them - just my opinion.--Appraiser (talk) 13:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Wisconsin

Wisconsin is clearly a swing state if there ever was one - see here for instance. -Nichlemn (talk) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree; more info at 270towin.com[Link] Closer split in 2004 than many of the other swing states, and a closer split according to polls now, coupled with not nearly as solid a voting history as (for example) Minnesota... What was the reasoning behind not having it be a swing state? Alpha dk (talk) 02:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I second both arguments. Wisconsin met the criteria for swing state in 2000 and 2004 based on previous election results and voter registration, as noted in the links provided by Nichlemn and Alpha dk. The most recent poll from Rasmussen also confirms that Wisconsin (to date) is, by definition, a swing state in 2008. JPmaverick (talk) 05:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

EDITS

Minnesota and Michigan are strong Democratic States, please fix the problem. Dwilso 05:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The way to fix this is by adding reliable sources. -- Rick Block (talk) 06:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Minnesota

Minnesota has been democratic since 1970, and Wisconsin has been Democrat since 1980. Just because a state has voted Republican once or twice doesn't mean it's a swing state. Thank You! 69.108.139.173 (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The purple and green in these maps Image:2004CampaignAttention.png indicate which states were "in play" in 2004, which means that the campaigns thought the states could "swing" in or out of their favor. PA, MI, MN and WI are all in that category.--Appraiser (talk) 13:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Possible States to Delete from Map

While these states may have, historically, been swing states, they have not been the case in 2000 and 2004:

ARKANSAS Arkansas was in play in 2000 [1], yet Bush won that year and again in 2004. Hillary Clinton was polling 20-30 points ahead of all GOP contenders (except Huckabee) in a Rasmussen poll in December 2007 (link deactivated). The most recent poll from Rasmussen [2] indicates McCain is leading Clinton by 7 points and Obama by 29 points. Given the obvious disparity in polling numbers, I'm inclined to keep Arkansas as a potential swing state should Clinton capture the Democratic nomination, but not if Obama becomes the nominee.

CONNECTICUT Unlike Arkansas, Clinton becomes a factor if she is the Democratic nominee in terms of making Connecticut (a "blue state" since 1988) up for grabs. Quinnipiac [3] and Rasmussen [4] shows Obama ahead of McCain by 17 and 12 points, respectively; Clinton is ahead of McCain by 3 in both polls. Obama has clear advantage in a state that is traditionally blue whereas Clinton does not. I'm not sure this state should be included unless Clinton wins the Democratic nomination since opinion polls aren't enough to determine a true swing state and CT has not been "in play" for a decade.

KENTUCKY Polling data from Survey USA [5] indicates a 2 point lead for McCain against Clinton, yet Obama trails by double-digits. I have yet to research voting trends/registration so perhaps that will determine if Kentucky is worthy of inclusion. I'm reluctant since this appears to be another Clinton anomaly (as with Arkansas). —Preceding unsigned comment added by JPmaverick (talk • contribs) 08:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

MASSACHUSETTS Similar to Arkansas, Clinton is not a factor if she becomes the Democratic nominee. Both Rasmussen [6] and Survey USA [7] show Clinton with a comfortable lead over McCain, yet Obama leads by 2 and 7 points, respectively. As with Arkansas and Connecticut, I don't think MA should be included unless Obama is the Democratic nominee and all other criteria for a swing state is met. Reagan was the last presidential contender - in 1986 - to win this state (well over a decade ago).

NEW JERSEY Unlike the states mentioned above, New Jersey is a possible flip for McCain since polling data indicates an uncertainty. Quinnipiac [8] and Rasmussen [9] show both Democratic contenders in different positions against McCain. NJ last voted Republican in 1988. NJ may be a true swing state in 2008 but until I can research the voting trends/registration, state elections, etc., I'm not sure if this should be included.

Swing states

This article should represent "Presidential" elections only. Because if we include mayor, senatorial elections, everybody would be a swing state. Dwilso 17:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why you deleted states such as MN, WI, and MI. In 2004, they were clearly "in-play" as can be seen from the "visits and money" map. Determining which states are "swing states" in 2008 is difficult to determine before the party tickets are established. For example, CT may be a "swing state" if Lieberman is on the R ticket, and AR will be a "swing state" only if Clinton is on the D ticket. At this point, I think the best data we have is based on the time and money spent by the 2004 candidates. The current version of the article is way out of touch with that data.--Appraiser (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Minnesota a swinger, the Dem's have won that state by 4% margin since the late 1970's. I am shocked why people think it's a swing state. Dwilso 19:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am only basing my opinion on the money and time spent in MN in 2004. If Bush didn't think he had a chance and Kerry didn't think he could lose it, they wouldn't have been there. Also, why is VA in the discussion? VA Republican margins:

• 2004,8%
• 2000,8%
• 1996,2%
• 1992,4%
• 1988,20%
• 1984,25%
• 1980,13%
• 1976,1%
• 1972,37%

And in 2004, neither candidate visited Virginia or spent any money there in the five weeks before the election. Virginia doesn't look like a swing state from the data. On the other hand, it will be if Jim Webb is a VP candidate.--Appraiser (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's 2008, Bush and the GOP are very unpopular, Virginia has a Democratic governor and a popular Democratic Senator (though he barely won in 2006) and the current GOP Senator is losing by double digits in the polls. I still bet it goes for McCain, but it's worth calling a swing state. Swing state doesn't have to mean "50-50"; in this article it can include states that could reasonably go either way.

Also, make sure to use PNG images when you make new maps. You can save images in the PNG format in Paint, as well as many other programs, like Gimp. PNG images aren't grainy like the JPEGs people have been uploading. SteveSims (talk) 21:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Texas

A SurveyUSA poll released last month has both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama within one percentage point of John McCain in the state of Texas [10].

Texas's ethnic diversity, particularly with regard to its Hispanic population, is part of what is propelling this, but in any case there is a realistic chance that the Democratic candidate for president could carry the state's thirty-four electoral votes in November.

For these reasons, I feel that Texas should be listed as a swing state (one of even greater significance than electoral powerhouse Florida), which it now blatantly is.

SwedishConqueror (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2008 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

I don't think so, Texas is a republican stronghold and always has been, although It 'almost' voted for Bill Clinton in 1996, texas has gone back to it's republican roots. Dwilso 03:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The polls paint a very different picture, and individual opinions really don't matter. If 49% of Texans support Obama, then 49% of Texans support Obama, case closed.

SwedishConqueror (talk) 02:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)SwedishConqueror

'Texas' does not appear to be in the column, because it has voted Republican the past couple decades, It is not even close to being a swing state. 67.99.103.78 (talk) 03:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What this article is about

I think this article is essentially a mess because we haven't figured out the purpose and scope of the article. In the U.S. we have safe Republican states, safe Democratic states, and "swing states", those in which "any of the major candidates have a reasonable chance of winning the state's electoral college votes." Each election year is going to vary somewhat depending on the individual candidates. In 2004, "swing states" can easily be recognized by looking at this list [11] and the maps Image:2004CampaignAttention.png, both of which clearly include Pennsylvania and Minnesota. In 2008 Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, and even Connecticut could be swing states depending on the candidates (and VP candidates). So we need to decide what definition we're going to use as we work on this article. Is it going to be constantly evolving based on the most current polling, changing slowly based on the most recent election, or based on 20- 30- or 40-year trends. The article and main map will be very different depending on how we view the encyclopedia. In order to cut down on all the reverting, I suggest that we first figure out what bases we're going to use to define "swing state" and we need to realize that whatever definitions we use, the decision will conflict with the other possible definitions and certain states may be in or out, to the consternation of editors who haven't bought into the consensus.--Appraiser (talk) 04:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Current Swing States in an Obama-McCain Matchup

[12] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.73.27 (talk) 22:40, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Map of swing states is missing several obvious states

PA, MI and MN should definitely be on the swing state map. Also if Colorado is listed OR and WA should be as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.143.134.123 (talk) 17:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree. This is how it probably breaks down, as of now, in an Obama-McCain matchup (not accounting for VPs)

Main swing states: Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Florida, Virginia, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire

Secondary or Long-Shot Obama targets: Montana, North Dakota, 1 of Nebraska's EVs, Alaska, Indiana, North Carolina, South Carolina, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississipi, Georgia, Texas

Secondary or Long-Shot McCain targets: Oregon, Washington, California, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine

Obama states: Hawaii, Illinois, New York, Maryland, Delaware, DC, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont

McCain states: Wyoming, Utah, Idaho, Arizona, South Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, West Virginia

It's a little hard to classify, and a lot of those are debatable, but that's roughly how I would describe it based on current polls/candidate strengths etc

EJB341 (talk) 12:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Arkansas and West-Virginia

With Clinton dropping out, Obama his poll numbers seem to be improving in Arkansas (nine points behind McCain) and West-Virginia (eight points behind McCain) but they're still not good enough to warrant inclusion as swing states. Everybody agree?--Sloane (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on if you are just considering this election or if a state is a swing state generally or not. If this was a "Swing State for the '08 election" article or something then I would definitely agree with you, but since it is just on swing states in general, and Arkansas is very Democratic (Democrat governor, both US senators, and 3 out of 4 US congressmen (as well as a majority of the state legislature, etc.) while voting Republican in the last 2 presidential elections seems to warrant inclusion. Not sure about WV, as I am not as familiar with that state. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 02:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

WV is also quite Democratic at the state level. But like with Arkansas, WV state Dems are more moderate and therefore may well vote GOP for president.

They should probably be left for now. Obama is targeting Virginia, Georgia and Carolinas, due to relatively strong numbers there and hope about black/youth turnout. If his red state campaign efforts go well, he may try and expand into Mississipi and Louisiana as well. And if he does well in southern states I just listed, he's probably going to bounce in WV and Arkansas too.

He's also targeting North Dakota, Nebraska, Indiana, Alaska and Montana (in Montana he just pulled ahead in the polls for the first time), by the way, again due to strong numbers/new voter hopes. All the states I just addded may be worth considering adding to the list here. Also, McCain's hoping to target California, Washington, Oregon, Minnesota, Maine, Connecticut and New Jersey. The polling is less on his side right now on that (except possibly for Minnesota), but it's what their hoping.

EJB341 (talk) 14:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I think North Dakota, Montana and Alaska all deserve to be on here more than West Virginia and Arkansas. No recent polling even shows Obama semi competitive in those two states.66.229.89.202 (talk) 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, it is a general article on swing states, not specific to the 2008 race. Cardsplayer4life (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Indiana

Indiana is a swing state? It seems pretty safe Republican to me, in fact I think its one of the most safe Republican states in the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crd721 (talk • contribs) 10:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• I would have to agree it has been republican although it appears to possibly be a swing state in this upcoming election. I have seen mixed reports. If wisconsin is a listed as a democratic state then Indiana has to be listed as Republican Frank Anchor ^{Talk to me} 03:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Canidates or parties?

The lead here says that a swing state is where no one candidate has an overwhelming advantage. Shouldn't it be no one party? That is, California is a Blue state because it consistantly votes Democrat, not because they love Obama. They were a blue state before the nominee was ever picked. Hence the practice of choosing a running mate from a swing stateto get an advantage there (the Candidate then has an advantage that the party alone doe not). Or am I totally misundertanding the concept? Stevecudmore (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Map

I believe there are maps with yellow (swing), light blue (favor dems), dark blue (strongly favor dems), light red (favor repubs), dark red (strongly favor repubs) ... shouldn't there be a map like this? ElmerBront (talk) 05:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Revise

I don't believe North Carolina to be a swing state, somebody needs to fix the map? Nissanaltima (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

North Carolina is a swing state. Traditionally Republican, most recent polls put things tied or Obama marginally ahead. Map should probably be fixed though to include Wisconsin and Iowa, which are also swing states.Nwe (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

This really gets at the distinction between a battleground state and a swing state so blithely dismissed in the merger discussion that appears to have taken place a few years ago. While there is substantial overlap and a tendency to use both terms loosely, they are different. A swing state is one that has swung from party to party in a series of elections. A battleground state is one that at least one of the candidates believes can be plucked from the other party's win column in the previous election. Iowa, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Ohio are examples. North Carolina has been a reliable Republican state since Southern conservative Democrats became Southern Republicans. All the same, North Carolina is currently tied (and Obama might even be ahead). That is because Obama saw it as a state more likely to go for him than it was to go for Kerry and, with effort and luck, has made it competitive. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Changing the swing state map at the top

I changed the swing state map at the top to reflect the 2008 presidential election results. I changed the percentage of the margin of victory from 5 to 6 so that Virginia would be included, if someone doesn't agree Virginia being labeled a swing state, please leave feedback and I can change the image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.117.107 (talk) 07:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Current Swing States

Now that the Democratic field has narrowed and the Republican party has a presumptive nominee, opinion polls (coupled with 2004 election results, voter registration, etc.) are increasingly important to note as we include CURRENT swing states. That said, Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin have been readded as swing states because they meet all the criteria - by definition - for a swing state. I will clean up the language and add citations, as well as provide links to reliable sources if any of these states are the subject of dispute.

I don't really see how states that never "swing" can be called swing states. Those are all very reliably blue states. 207.98.198.84 (talk) 02:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Edits made by SnowFire123

That latest revision doesn't make a lot of sense at all. Some of the newest content, which had been recently updated, was deleted. If anyone would like to change it, please give some relevant reasons in the talk page before reverting more than a month's worth of nearly three thousand new characters.

24.246.89.125 (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I deleted it because it's strange and bad phrasing that you've added, per my comments before. Sorry. We can get a WP:3O third opinion if you like. For example, "In the 2008 election, the campaigns did not mount nationwide efforts when the victor became clear, but instead focused on select states later on" is word salad and less clear than the simple "In the 2008 election, campaigns did not mount nationwide efforts but rather focused on select states." Ask a friend of yours which reads better.

Some of this new content is basically unsourced dispatches from fantasyland, or misinterpreting a website. Look at the last paragraph in the 2016 section: it's talking about a hypothetical matchup between Sanders & Trump. Sanders is not going to be the Democratic candidate according to any mainstream source, and yes, Wikipedia openly favors of accepted, mainstream sources even if they are somehow wrong (WP:VNT). Did I mention again there are no sources? Or, for another example, the 270towin website, while not appearing to be a super-great source anyway, is very clearly trying to promote a "horse race" approach to the election, conveniently claiming that the Dems & Republicans have each locked an identical amount of electoral votes beforehand, for example. This isn't a journalistic attempt to determine swing states, but rather "what makes a cool interactive gadget." And lastly, the sentence "Left-leaning blue states in the American Rust Belt may become more Republican, due to Trump's appeal to poorer blue-collar workers whose job opportunities have reduced in recent years, and generally represent a large portion of the white American populace." is totally unsourced, and presumes quite a bit. I replaced that with the The Economist article which makes clear that while Trump is making a *play* for these Rust Belt states, that doesn't mean they actually ARE becoming more Republican or states as a fact that Trump's appeal will flip them.

SnowFire (talk) 17:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the. Those edits about the 2008 election and Sanders-Trump were originally not from me. I'm fine with removing, or clarifying, them. But the 12-swing state situation is very current. I agree that it may be leaning a bit towards the Republicans, but that is only because the Democrats have more support, especially this time around, and Clinton leads in the odds as opposed to Trump. However, many, if not a majority, stated that a generic Republican nominee, at least before this election, would be stronger than the standard, Democrat, at least this year. Again, in a hypothetical race in which both candidates are equal, that would be the case.

I think that the the 270towin website, is actually quite reliable. May I ask why you do not think that that is the case? Perhaps they include some other partisan biases, but they do take their information from mainstream media, as well as places such as the Crystal Ball and Political Wire.

Perhaps we can change the Economist article to the Politico one, here? In my opinion, it discusses the Trump strategy for the Rust Belt a bit more clearly. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/donald-trump-path-to-victory-224239

The part with "Trump's appeal to poorer blue-collar workers whose job opportunities have reduced in recent years, and generally represent a large portion of the white American populace" was from this year, and did have a source. However, if you think it should be altered, I would be glad to discuss an alternative.

Anyone's opinion would be welcome. Your edits are quite constructive. I think that we should keep some of the original information, however.

However, I do kindly suggest that you leave the article as it was previously, until all users can come to an agreeable consensus. Thank you very much for your help and cooperation.

Rep.donsman456 (talk) 17:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

When in doubt, we can use both sources - the Economist, as well as Politico. That said, as a reminder, it's really useful to rely on "neutral" media in a presidential campaign and sideline the likes of editorials. I think everyone agrees that Trump is making a play for the Rust Belt, just it's important to also reflect that according to the sources, Clinton is still favored there. In the same way, Clinton is making a play for the likes of Arizona, but Trump is still favored there.

270towin doesn't seem to have any notable "names" attached to it and, to put it bluntly, I've never heard of it before despite following politics. I'd much rather use, say, The New York Times's list here, which conveniently includes a bunch of other well-respect sources, such as 538, Politico, and Sabato. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot&region=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=3&pgtype=sectionfront

Suggesting to "leave the article as it was previously" doesn't really work because I could say the same back to you, and it'd be just as meaningless. What obligation do you have to reflect the article like it was two months ago when it was largely written by me, and stable for years? None. In the same way, I don't really have an obligation to lay off editing myself. The solution is constructive talk page dialogue, and occasionally looping in other editors if there's truly an intractable dispute. Telling people to not edit tends to just annoy them. The edit notice on Wikipedia used to say, a bit more bluntly than what they have now, that "if you do not want others to edit your work, do not submit it." My content isn't sacrosanct, but neither is yours, basically. Let's talk out a compromise rather than insist the other can't edit.

SnowFire (talk) 18:09, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Thank you for your suggestions. That is certainly a good idea. Of course we can talk out a good compromise; I definitely did not suggest only keeping one editor's information. Your additions to the section in question are certainly valuable, and should be kept. I don't know exactly which parts of it you were against in the first place, but if there is anything you feel should be changed or corrected, your advice is greatly appreciated.

The Crystal Ball article you mentioned from May 2016 did included the same content, if I am not mistaken, and did explicitly say for a neutral scenario that, safely, "neither party starts with an established advantage" in the road to the White House.

The swing states are, of course, a quite touchy subject, and many sources could claim that either Trump or Clinton have an advantage in most of them. For the most part, however, I think that the current information is quite accurate. Feel free to correct me if you believe that I am wrong, however. Were you referencing the one from the old newspaper?

If anything, I'll take the new edits that have been added recently by all of us, and we can work from there. Thank you very much for your help.

My suggestion would be to incorporate content from all of our editors, and both of us can revise where needed. Would that be acceptable? Regards.

24.246.89.125 (talk) 14:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

I was going to just take out the Sanders bit until I realized that this article has been updated after it was clear that Trump and Hillary would be facing off, and that there was some debate already happening. Now, I just want to check – the Sanders analysis is no longer relevant, so we should take that out, right? I also thought some of the language wasn't super neutral, so I went ahead and cleaned that up – scare quotes seem too editorial for Wikipedia.

Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 18:25, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

That is absolutely fine. I agree that the Sanders content may be a bit old, and should at least be updated, in order to make the contest information more relevant.

24.246.89.125 (talk) 22:41, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Swing state map

Michigan will probably be at least somewhat competitive this election cycle, and almost all sources identify it as a swing state. Should we add it on to the map at the top? 24.246.89.125 (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

2016 content

The intent of this article was about swing states in general. Most of the entire section regarding the upcoming 2016 election should be eventually moved/merged to United States presidential election, 2016#Battleground states. As of now, this recent content is taking up a large portion of the page. Zzyzx11 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a nice suggestion. Should some editors discuss how to merge it in, or edit it along? Thanks! 24.246.89.125 (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd definitely be in favor of moving the 2016 bit to the 2016 Battleground States section. That'll definitely get more eyes on it for neutrality too. Maybe just leave a sentence linking to that and mentioning that swing states are kind of different this election than they have been for the past few? Heliopolisfirebirdii (talk) 17:53, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely! As the previous users noted, perhaps you can leave a small section for it, and then link onto the main page. The article doesn't have any sections for the other years, however. I am a bit in doubt about including any. Rep.donsman456 (talk) 21:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Bottom of the page

Hey there, everyone,

If any of you wouldn't mind changing the margins section so that the new information is updated to original form, where it is noted that Republicans generally have an advantage in smaller states with more electoral votes, which would play a role in terms of closer elections, where the Democratic party could win with a similar popular vote advantage but less weight in the Electoral College. Thanks.198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Picture at top

Could anyone maybe change the description on the right-hand side, and also perhaps adjust the current, outdated image form to a vector that would look more visually appealing? I appreciate your work. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

New section for 2016

I think some of the new information added recently was imported from the actual 2016 article, some of which wouldn't be entirely relevant to the section's focused topic, which was specifically on swing states and their role in 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Swing_state&type=revision&diff=753471923&oldid=752415340 Also, some of that content is outdated anyways, and should be fixed to reflect the actual results. Thanks. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Edits to main page by ProgrammingGeek

Hello @ProgrammingGeek (talk), You reverted my recent edits to this page yesterday. As I had previously noted, I did intend to add in the information, but couldn't find the sources on the web, and asked for other contributions. Thanks for correcting the article, as it was confusing when removed. If you have no complaint about it, I should bring it back in, with the same data, sometime soon. Thank you very much. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 03:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Map is incorrect

@Noahr183650: Indiana doesn't have a number. It also was far away from being within 7 points in either election. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing section about Electoral College

Should I remove the section about the Electoral College, which is already repeated, word for word, at its own article? It doesn't seem relevant to the topic of swing states on this page. Also, if it is kept here, I would like to request commentary on the other side. Otherwise, it will be taken as biased, and removed. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 01:53, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Several editors have already said with their actions -- i.e. reverting your removal -- that the material should not be removed. If you want to convince other editors that it should be removed, you are going to have to explain why you think the material is irrelevant to the article. To my reading of the article, the section seems entirely pertinent, as swing states would not even be an issue if we had the alternative system (i.e. direct national popular election of the president). It is only by the existence of the Electoral College that "swing states" are a thing at all, as, in effect, the Presidential election is actually 51 separate elections, and some of the elections carry an inordinate amount of weight due to the methodology of determining how many electoral votes each state gets. This is because using the number of Representatives is related to the state's population, but the addition of the two Senators per state gives smaller states more weight then their population would otherwise call for. No discussion of swing states is complete without a connected discussion of why they exist, which is the Electoral College system. For these reasons, the material needs to stay in the article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay, then I will. First of all, the section is about its criticisms. That title is misleading. Nobody here is criticizing swing states or their residents, although you could make an argument for the concept, at its heart. Here, they have been talking about swing states in general, and why it shouldn't be taken on the inside. The coverage is also biased. There's a whole three paragraphs, and nearly 3000 characters, of those arguments. But there isn't anything on why they're good, or why the Electoral College should stay. I say that it's irrelevant because it's about the Electoral College and their importance, not about what the swing states are, where they're located, or any similar idea. As it goes, I could, in theory, take the whole section for the same content on the page about the Electoral College (where they, presumably, already have it) or put it all on here. There's no overlap. Besides, it states in itself that it's about the "criticisms of the Electoral College". That doesn't apply on this page. But I don't see why others can revert, and I can't. Thank you.

One more time: There wouldn't be swing states to discuss, except that we have the Electoral College. The latter is a necessary condition for the former, and therefore eminently relevant to the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

But this section isn't about the EC, it's about its criticisms. I don't think that's fitting. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 02:26, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Three other editors disagreed with you sufficiently to revert your changes. It's your job to convince them, and other editors, that they're wrong. Simply repeating your opinion ain't gonna do it, because that boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not repeating the opinion, instead actually giving an argument. It's their job to reply now that the section's been created, and tell us what their views were. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

As usual, you're not getting it. The "Criticism" section has been in the article since 21 February 2009 [13], when it started as a couple of sentences. Since then, it's been expanded to what you see now. Now, having been there a long time is not necessarily a slam-dunk argument for it staying there, but the section has survived several hundred editors until you came along. Since the section is properly sourced, and cannot be removed for not being sourced, that means that the onus is on you to make a cogent argument for its removal. So far, you haven't done that, all you've done is say that "it doesn't seem relevant". If all you're going to do is make that statement of your opinion, and repeat it ad nauseum, then you're not going to convince anyone, and there will be no consensus for you to restore your changes. Do you get it yet? You need a consensus here, since the standing de facto consensus is that the section should be there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have gotten it back. I know that there has to be a consensus, that's why I started this section. As I stated yesterday, I'm not adding any of it back, unless there is a consensus to do so (like you and the other editors have suggested). I'm assuming that means that at least a few users must agree, with little or no opposition, in order for that deletion to move forward. But I don't see what you think I don't understand. The first time, you noted the discussion in your edit (which I didn't read). At the time, I thought that you and the others had believed I had deleted the section without moving it to the other page. I had made that belief very clear, as was my original intention. Now that I'm looking through it, it was only the second time that you brought it up. By then, I had opened this discussion already. And the first time you stopped me, you insisted that I had no sources for the content, which I continued to protest as untrue (but you blocked me) and you have never taken back that assertion. And there's no need to snap it. I know quite well what support I need to remove the information, even if it took some time. And I'm not going to repeat my position again. My opinion is quite obvious, as is my argument that there should be the other side of the argument as well, not just the criticisms. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Section: Swing states in the 2016 election

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)

• Neutral pointers to this discussion have been placed on the talk pages of the WikiProjects listed above. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

External links modified

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.

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) 06:26, 11 December 2017 (UTC)