![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
During the campaign I was very intruiged with this site's use of least squares linear regression to "average out" the results of many polls in a state. If I recall correctly, the linear regression map was VERY similar to the map that came up on election night... that is until he changed the rules in early September because he didn't like the answer he was getting showing a decisive Bush win. I would be interested in seeing someone write a paragraph or two regarding the accuracy of using linear regression to average out the biases of the several poll takers.Elipongo 04:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I second that - something needs to be noted here regarding this man's liberal bias. During the 2004 campaign he linked many stories supporting Kerry and even said he was very depressed when Bush won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.148.218 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Reply
He's definitely liberal. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/general-faq.html#republican has, as a FAQ, "I hate this site. Is there one run by a Republican?" His answer is "Yes. Take a look at electionprojection.com. It is run by someone who has devoted his life to Jesus and is strongly biased in favor of Republicans in his commentary (but his numbers seem to be OK)." Tuanomsoc (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Here is your answer via the wayback machine. This information, surprisingly is not available in 2008.
[long copyvio removed]
http://web.archive.org/web/20041102014915/www.electoral-vote.com/info/votemaster-faq.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
I have posted many times the authors own archived site http://web.archive.org/web/20041102014915/www.electoral-vote.com/info/votemaster-faq.html that not only introduces himself as a liberal but as an activist liberal, at that. Just because the site has not garnered enough 3rd party stories about it, doesn't mean a primary source, directly from the authors mouth, proudly trumpeting his liberalism on his FAQ page and his daily blogging immediately below his poll numbers. In addition, the polling he decides to collect on his website leans left. For instance, look where he had kerry bush the day before the election in 2004 as opposed to most other news sources. Even today, his aggregate of polls will be further left than most other sites. Something, just something, even if it is one word needs to be on here about his liberal bias. I know wikipedia has an incredible liberal bias, as noted on its on wiki page, but can we please be rationale here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Then why is his polling usually left to most other aggregates? Further, all I want to have on here is what his blog postings lean left, which they do. Just because nobody is taking the time to write if this site is either right or left doesn't negate the fact that it is. Sure currently he claims to be a libertarian but his archived page from 2004 shows he is dedicated to the liberal cause. I know I won't win on wikipedia because it is so unbelievably biased, but I am just trying to bring some fairness to this site. Just read bill oreilly's wiki page then Keith Olberman's the disparity is hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, 4 years later, back in the election, you can clearly see that this man is biased toward liberalism/democrats. Why is it such a big deal to note that? The author himself has concluded he and his website is liberal biased with references! I have a feeling if I put it on there, it will be removed, though. I think it's clear the census is there are well referenced sources and even the own author that he has a liberal bias, why isn't this included? nezZario (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Image:Electoral-vote.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply
Shouldnt the article mention other websites that offer similar information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.246.126 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)Reply
Aprock followed me over here and removed my addition "The site content is produced solely by Tanenbaum." This is important information needed to evaluate the usefulness of this website and is supported by the first reference:
He also removed the important information as to exactly who Tanenbaum is--a computer science professor. Drrll (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
The last updates appear to have been in December 2014. The site has a prominent Dec. 07 banner at the top. Is the site now dead, or does it only update when conducting analysis? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)Reply
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)Reply
I'll be frank: I hadn't heard of this website before I landed on this page via the random article function here on Wikipedia. However, having looked through the linked references, I cannot help thinking that this article is based on self promotion by the website's creator. Of the listed sources, all except 2 are links to the website. The other 2 sources imply that this website was regularly checked by some people in 2004 and 2008, but one of them is completely trivial, and while the other gives a brief description of how the site works, I gather that the site has changed since 2004. Was this website a 5-minute wonder back in 2004 that has limped along for the following 15 years? I suppose if this site was fairly accurate in predicting previous elections and people noticed, it might be notable. Of course, then people would have written exposes along the lines of, "This formerly obscure website accurately predicted the outcome of the election! Here's how they did it: ..." Such articles are also better places to find sources for methods and history than the website itself. Rockphed (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)Reply