Talk:2018 midterm elections

Section removal?
This section, while missional, is entirely based on original research and no reliable sources I could find, preventing this page from being bronze. Thoughts on just removing it? --Andrew5 (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. We also don't have policy on original research either. I understand why Wikipedia would have it, but RationalWiki's sourcing is more lenient. So try to think about this instead: do you dispute the content here, like is what it's saying inaccurate or flawed? 00:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. What I am saying is this largely unsourced paragraph is literally the only reason why this article isn't an otherwise bronze, and the more articles with brainstars, the better. --Andrew5 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think the section is terrible, like it has useful responses to GOP supporters who ultimately lost the midterms, and I don't agree with removing it just for the sake of having a brainstar. True, it's not easy to find the very specific sources for it, and I'm not really a politics expert to look for the sources, but I feel this section would be agreed by people who do follow politics more closely. 01:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If the article could recieve a brainstar with it, then I'm ok with keeping it. However, I wouldn't like it if I put significant work into the article and it still has no brainstar. --Andrew5 (talk) 01:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To help narrow it down, what statements do you believe should be sourced? 01:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * by comparison, Republicans lost two swing state Senate races in 2010 (Colorado and Nevada) and five in 2014 (New Mexico, Minnesota, Michigan, Virginia, and New Hampshire).
 * GOP apologists point out that Democrats "only" netted 40 seats in the House of Representatives in 2018; by comparison, Republicans netted 63 seats in 2010, and 54 in 1994
 * Many Republican House members retired rather than run for reelection in 2018; some GOP apologists have argued that it was the failure to defend these seats, rather than a surge in support for the Democratic Party, that allowed Democrats to take the House.
 * Most of anything defining "swing state" in the last paragraph should be sourced.
 * That should be enough, at that point it should be bronzeable. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure you really more evidence beyond a wpl template to Wikipedia on Republicans losing states or the precise numbers of states won or lost since those usually aren't outright falsified or held as contentious information. As for GOP apologists, you probably do need something more specific on who exactly those apologists are because it's true that you don't know if said apologists amount to random social media arguments or if pundits seriously argue this. I don't know if it's so contentious on what "swing state" is, particularly if there is debate on if certain states in the 2018 midterm are swing states to the point a source is required. I don't think you really have to sweat it for sources on these overall. 07:23, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Swing state is a broad definition, definitely needs sourcing. Andrew5 mobile (talk) 11:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Now it wouldn't be bronze until the ref error is fixed, which I have to see what to do. --Andrew5 (talk) 12:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Does it? Again, I don't know the climate of the 2018 midterms but I don't think it's highly contested on what's a swing state during that time or not. I even looked briefly at Wikipedia to see if there are points of contention regarding swing state definition, but I didn't see it. I don't think you need to sweat it whether certain states in the 2018 midterms are swing states or not, if that needs a source. 02:05, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * was the only example I could find and even then, it's different in a lot of ways. --Andrew5 (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)