Talk:2011 New York's 26th congressional district special election

Nomination of Jack Davis (industrialist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jack Davis (industrialist) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jack Davis (industrialist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Note on Rochester Business Journal polls
Regarding the weekly Rochester Business Journal snap polls, they are completely unscientific, so I removed them. Specifically: - The poll is only of RBJ readers, and of those readers, only a few hundred who signed up to participate. Both of those are complete disasters when it comes to polling (See the infamous 1936 Literary Digest poll.) For any information, you need to have a random sample. You can't just survey readers of a *business journal* which for obvious reasons would skew wealthier/older/more conservative. And surveying only readers who volunteered themselves is also a huge no-no - just look at the disaster that's the Zogby internet polls. - Only 35% of the respondents actually lived in the 26th CD.

The poll is worse than useless, and including it would only mislead readers into thinking it might have some predictive value (if turns out to be correct, it will only be through sheer chance.) Hence, I removed it. Seleucus (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, and here's a link to the RBJ poll (that I deleted) to show what I meant: http://www.rbj.net/article.asp?aID=187617 Seleucus (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I see what you mean about that poll. It really doesn't merit inclusion based on the reasons you've described.  I'd be up for removing that "unknown source" Davis poll too; the NY Daily News article mentions that no crosstabs and no information about the group that commissioned the poll were provided.  (I'm also a bit skeptical of a poll that claims to survey 4,600 "frequent" voters.)


 * Yes, there is the Global Strategy Group poll that was commissioned by the Hochul campaign listed in this article; however, at least information such as the sample size, MOE, and the name of the group that conducted the poll are given. I don't know what the Wikipedia standard (if any) for the inclusion of election polling within an article is, but I think we need to have at least this information (plus the fact that the poll is indeed scientific) to merit inclusion. Just my thoughts; any other opinions would be greatly welcomed.  Thistheman  04:31, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Then please also delete the Davis-commissioned poll. At least the RBJ poll has crosstabs and is of at least a partially random sample of registered voters in the district (they separated that information from the rest). If that one doesn't qualify, then the mysterious poll Davis claims was issued certainly doesn't. We know more about the RBJ poll and can glean more from it than we ever will be able to discern from the secretive Davis poll. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 12:52, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Polling in reverse order - misleading
Multiple attempts have been made to change polling info table to reverse chronological order with no reasons given. At least 2 eds, myself and Muboshgu have objected     Consensus to change the polling table to reverse order is needed. I think chronological is just fine, and it is what the reader expects. Muboshgu, by his past edits, seems to agree.KeptSouth (talk) 06:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The polling is already in reverse chronological order. The most recent poll should be at the top and the oldest should be at the bottom. For reference, see other articles for elections in 2011:, , , in 2010: , , , , , , , , , , , , , and in 2012: , , , , , including in polling for the 2008 Presidential election , , , , and for the 2012 Presidential election |32, |33, |34 and |35. :My point is that there is a consensus that the most recent poll is placed at the top and the oldest poll is placed at the bottom. Tiller54 (talk) 09:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You had not made any point before, you had only made the change with no edit summary. I believe listing the polls in a table in reverse chronological order for an ongoing campaign is somewhat misleading to the reader. One other editor objected to your edits also. The entire article is mainly in chronological order, therefore this is what the reader would expect. It is nice that you have finally given some justification for your reversions, but I believe more discussion is needed for consensus, especially one that involves introducing an internal inconsistency in the article.--Regards--KeptSouth (talk) 11:34, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have checked the relevant examples of ongoing elections you have given - there are three - and in two out of the three you are the editor who made the change or who listed two polls in reverse order. That hardly shows a consensus.KeptSouth (talk) 11:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I apologise for not leaving an edit summary. I usually forget, it's a bad habit. I feel, and from the evidence, most other editors agree with me, that listing polls with the most recent at the top is what the reader would expect. As for polling of "ongoing" elections, there are only a handful of elections in the US in 2011 and there hasn't been much polling done for them yet. Like I said, look at the polling for senate and gubernatorial races for 2010 and for 2012. I didn't decide by myself how to order the polling in those pages, so why do you only focus on the 2011 elections pages? Also, look at the polling pages (of which there are about a dozen) for the presidential election in 2008 and for 2012 - you could say that is an ongoing election. It's not just limited to the US either - in the UK:, in Canada: , in Australia: , in Ireland , in Portugal , in Brazil: , in Austria: . I'd say that's a consensus. Why do you claim it isn't? Tiller54 (talk) 19:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Polling should absolutely be in chronological order. I don't understand why any article lists the most recent poll first. Election articles are meant to be encyclopedic, which means moving from the start to the finish. We aren't keeping track of "who is up and who is down", but the entire storyline of the election. All those articles that list polls in reverse chronological order are, simply put, wrong. I've been meaning to change more of them to chronological order. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So everything is wrong because it goes against what you say? You said earlier that consensus is needed... well the consensus exists! You can't just now go ahead and say they all "are, simply put, wrong" and announce your intent to change them when your initial complaint with me is that I'm saying they are wrong and changing them!
 * Furthermore, your claim that "in two out of the three you are the editor who made the change or who listed two polls in reverse order. That hardly shows a consensus" is wrong. I have not edited the California 36th election page; the Kentucky gubernatorial election page looked like this before I made my first edit, with the most recent poll at the top and the West Virginia gubernatorial election page looked like this  before I made my firs edit, again with the most recent poll at the top. So I'm afraid your claim is wrong, I have not made the change by myself, it's part of a consensus! Tiller54 (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I know this isn't a pure timeline article, but it does share some elements with them. Note that they are written chronologically - []. I just can't see any common sense methods to justify listing them in reverse order. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see why you're opposed to it now. This has been commons practice for years - a look back at previous election pages shows that. For example, the opinion polling pages for the 2008 presidential election, including the Democratic and Republican primaries on both a state-wide and national level are all ordered with the most recent polls at the top. These are pages that had dozens of top editors pouring over them for years, and the consensus was to list the most recent polls at the top, and this continued with high-profile races in 2010 (Harry Reid in Nevada, for example) and on the 2011 and 2012 election pages and on the UK polling page, for example. It just makes more sense! Tiller54 (talk) 19:51, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have spent much of my time since November 2007 editing polls, esp. during the height of elections. I really do enjoy editing polls as someone deeply involved in politics. The common pratice is to list polls up to down, dating back to at least the 2004 elections (that's as far back as I can remember). And quite franly, it looks better. When a person is going to scroll through one of our election articles, they are going to see the most recent and CURRENT polling data, not a poll from months if not a year ago. The most recent polling should be the first thing that a viewer see's, not a poll from a year ago that had a candidate up 10% and is now trailing by 5% (example). Also, I stated above I really enjoy editing polls. When you put the most recent polls at the bottom, it is truly a pain in the a** to edit. Tiller54, I couldn't agree with you more! There is no purpose at all to changing polling formating. It looks fine, it's not a timeline, and it would be a lot harder to edit it. I know what I'm talking about, I have been doing it for almost 5 years. So I would ask, please let's keep it the way it has been for years. I'm very passionate about it. Thank you!! America69 (talk) 20:18, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My point is that the general reader, who is generally not someone who avidly peruses these articles, expects to see earliest first, in an ongoing election, and that of the 3 ongoing elections listed by Tiller as proof of consensus for reverse chronological order, 2 of the 3 had been entered by him. But I know better than to argue with a couple of people who feel "passionately" about such matters, and use such terms as "pain in the a**", rather gratuitously in my opinion. I have made the dates bold, and that should be a good compromise. The order you two want is preserved, and the reader's attention is drawn to the date. Hope this is acceptable, and that passions can be laid aside. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 22:52, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I understand your point completely. I think this is a great compromise and I thank you. I hope there will be no hard feelings, and I look forward to continuing working to maintain future political articles! Thank you again! America69 (talk) 23:01, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, that is fine with me too. I have no problem with making the dates bold on the page. However, I must respond to your claim that "of the 3 ongoing elections listed by Tiller as proof of consensus for reverse chronological order, 2 of the 3 had been entered by him"


 * I have not edited the California 36th election page; the Kentucky gubernatorial election page looked like this before I made my first edit, with the most recent poll at the top and the West Virginia gubernatorial election page looked like this  before I made my firs edit, again with the most recent poll at the top. So I'm afraid your claim is wrong, I have not made the change by myself. Tiller54 (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The compromise idea of bolding the dates... I'll take it, at least for now. I'd rather see polls listed chronologically, but at least the bolding does draw attention to how the polls are out of order. Of course, it wouldn't be needed if the polls were actually in order. For the sake of wiki-peace on an issue that's not that important (or else I would've been changing more tables to chronological order than I have), I'll leave it be for the time being. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


 * [← outdent] I'm late to this discussion because I wasn't following this article until now (sorry). Last year, I brought this same discussion to a wider forum and we discussed it at length: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 5.  At that time, I was also concerned about the reverse chronological order, and I advocated then (as I do now) for ordering from earliest to latest.  My rationale is this: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a voters' guide.  It is a historical record and if a story is to be told chronologically, it ought to be from earliest to latest.   Other chronological lists are ordered that way, and (for the sake of consistency perhaps) polling should follow that guideline.—Markles  14:36, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with this. I can't get behind this anti-chronological order (or un-chronological? I'm not sure what to call it). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Call it the normal order, or the consensus order :) Tiller54 (talk) 18:38, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not the normal order. What's so normal about reverse order?   Was a consensus reached through discussion or through repeated editing?  We developed a consensus to the contrary at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 5 during the 2010 election cycle, but it was then ignored.—Markles  19:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't remember a consensus. I did however re-read the whole conversation, and still don't see it. I saw a divided group with no clear concensus on several things discussed. And why do you claim it was "ignored"? Because other editors and IP's also agreed with keeping the order it always has been. I think that is a pretty clear sign. It's obvious we all have the same goal (maintaining political articles), just a different way of doing so. I wish we could all get along. America69 (talk) 21:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hopefully it's something that will be brought up again in the WikiProject Elections forum before the next election cycle. It seems that it comes down to an "agree to disagree" issue, at best, with the consensus a bit blurry. I would agree with America69 above, that we all have the same goal but different ideas; until a certain consensus agreement is applied to each and every article from here on out, this issue will always exist. And even then, there are always other editors. (There's nothing wrong with having other editors; that's the beauty of a collaborative encyclopedia. Just that there will be differences.) Thistheman  21:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * When this discussion started, I was sure that there had been consensus that polls should be listed chronologically, but couldn't remember where it was. We should take this to a larger discussion. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * This issue really bothers me. I work hard to keep the polling in check, and updated ASAP. For 5 years I have done this. I'm going to be blunt now because some editor's are going with the "my way or the highway" approach, and it is upsetting to me. First, the polling is in order. When you go down the page, you are going to see the newest polling, with the older polling at the bottom. It has been done like this since the starting of Wikipedia. It is done like this in elections internationally(please see the many examples Tiller54 provided above). I have never edited an international election, so by seeing these examples clearly should show that it is not just me or a few editors fighting to keep the CORRECT format, but that it is the way it is done here on Wikipedia all together. What about those pages? I highly doubt any of us have even edited them, which should indicate that the consensus Wikipedia-wide is to keep the current format. So the argument that U.S. articles are only like that is dead. This is not a timeline, it is slightly different. I understand this is an encyclopedia, but someone show me an encyclopedia with polling charts in them. Also, I said I do polling religiously. I have been searching through the contribution history of my fellow editors above, and I see in one case only polling edits to the Massachusetts Senate election 2012. In the other case, in 500 edits, not 1 to any polls besides to the NY-26 polling that started this debate, mainly edits to baseball releated topics. I have no knowledge of sports besides my hometeam =). So I have experience to say this: It is a bonafide pain in the butt to edit polls in the way being advocated by Markles and Muboshgu. So why do you want to make it more difficult for the people who work hard(and I'm not saying that no else works hard, so please don't think that) and enjoy the updating and changes to polling? I also have seen very few other editors complain about the format of the polling. Is it even a big deal? No. I feel bad saying parts of what I did. I have never in 5 years gone into so much detail. But after almost a year of this non-sense, I needed to say it. I hope that the could be some kind of agreement on this. I hope there will be no "bad-blood" after whatever outcome comes about. Sorry about rambling too. America69 (talk) 23:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry about what I said above, but I really felt I had to say it. This issue is really stressing me out. I don't know how much more I can take of this in-fighting. America69 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Template borked
The tea party candidate seems to be messing with the template. Maybe it expects some input where some hasn't been created yet for tea party candidates? Either way it is broken right now. I'm going to remove the tea party candidate from the template and hope that someone can fix this as I've been futzing around with it for a few minutes and I can't get it to work. Protonk (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * NVM. While I was writing this someone moved him to "independent".  Protonk (talk) 02:22, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I fixed it by creating an entry for the Tea Party. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I felt pretty clumsy trying to get it to work just by fooling with parameters. Protonk (talk) 02:57, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Davis an independent? No way.
Come on, the guy ran three times for office as a Democrat. Calling him an Independent is about as fraudulent as him calling himself a TEA Party candidate. BOGUS! 138.162.128.52 (talk) 12:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * He ran as a Democrat in past elections, he ran as an independent under the self-proclaimed "Tea Party" line this time. – Muboshgu (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * This seems to be intentionally misleading since he is mainly known for his protectionism (which tends to be a Democratic, not Tea Party belief). Maybe we can elaborate on this in the Issues section? Educatedseacucumber (talk) 20:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the suggestion that Democrats are protectionists, since both Clinton and Obama have supported free trade pacts, and so have Democrats in Congress. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Under New York State election law, Davis is not running under the endorsement of any of the six political parties authorized to have automatic ballot access. Thus, he is running as an independent. That is the only issue here. See also Joe Lieberman's senate run in 2004-- very similar situation. (And for the record, the guy was a Republican for about 50 years prior to his runs as a Democrat, and is once again a registered member of the Republican Party.) Political views aside, no party endorsed him. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 23:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Davis "siphoning" support
I removed the following from the section on Medicare:

"However, The New York Times also cited the third party candidacy of Davis, a former Democratic congressional candidate (and previously a lifelong Republican) who ran under the Tea Party banner, as a factor which is 'siphoning support' from Corwin."

Whether Davis hurt Corwin is irrelevant to the section laying out the candidates' positions on Medicare. I'm preserving the material here in case someone wants to plug it in elsewhere in the article. JamesMLane t c 14:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's debatable whether or not Davis actually did "siphon" support or not. Some of the analysis I've seen has demonstrated that a number of Democrats voted for Davis, so it's not certain that if hadn't been there, the Davis voters would've broken to Corwin. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If this is debatable, it's a legitimate point to keep in the text of the article, provided that sources are properly cited.—Markles 15:43, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Polling again
Chronological order was agreed upon in 2010, see the link Markles gave above. Chronological order is the encyclopedic way to tell a story, independent of newspaper usage, voters guides or political campaigners who abuse Wikipedia as a platform. Kraxler (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur 100%. The oldest poll should be listed at the top, and then as you scroll down, polls get more and more recent. This is the encyclopedic way of looking at a table: top to bottom. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree wholeheartedly with America69 and Tiller54. You guys seem to be so wrapped up in your encyclopedic format idea that you are forgetting about what makes polls important. They are there to tell people how the general population is leaning. The most recent poll should be the first one that is seen as it is most important, then if the history is of interest people can look through the older ones. Just because your personal opinion is different doesn't mean you can force others to break with the established format that has been followed for years. If anything you are in the wrong and should stop changing things until you have the clear consensus on you side. Incitatus13 (talk) 00:18, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please add new comments at the bottom. Besides, you seem to be so wrapped up in your polling format idea that you are forgetting about what makes an encyclopedia important. As above, please check out WP:What Wikipedia is not. And, even if something was done in the wrong way, it is never to late to change, to correct things. Kraxler (talk) 02:00, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was just saying that the format America69 and almost all editors use is the traditional format that has been used for years, so I don't know why KeptSouth and Muboshgu think that they can come along and force a change from the established format. The article referenced above does not come to a clear consensus on this issue, it does on other issues involved with polls but not this one. In such a case wouldn't it be standard practice to follow the established format until a clear consensus is reached in favor of change? Incitatus13 (talk) 03:49, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, Incitatus, in that case - under the rule to avoid unnecessary edits - the format of the first editor should be left as it is. But, most "contrarians" argue "consistency" to change the format to their preference, and this leads usually to a quasi-edit-war. In this special case - the order of poll tables - there are two irreconcilable positions: the encyclopedians and the pollsters. Established format, since Wikipedia was conceived (long before 2004 when polling tables were added), is that history is told in chronological order. The encyclopedians don't care what little bit of history you tell, it should be all chronological. The pollsters, who (like America69) do not edit anything else (literally "wrapped up" in a single issue) brought their polling table format from unencyclopedic workplaces, like newspapers and poll institutes, and stick to it at any cost. They claim long-time usage, but the debate over this usage is as long as their editing, and (apparently) no consensus was reached. Any debate of this will necessarily end in a "hung jury", I propose to have it arbitrated by some higher authority. The arguments I read in the previous debates are too ludicrous to lose time with anyway (just 1 example: somebody claimed it was painful in his lower backside to add a new poll at the bottom instead at the top, hahahahahaha). Kraxler (talk) 13:02, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Kraxler, how dare you attack the fact that I only make polling contributions. I'm not even in this discussion, and you are attacking me? Really? Everyone's contribution to Wikipedia that is helpful is welcomed. Also, I was not here in 2004 when the polling was formatted. It sounds as though you are accusing me of doing it this way. I had zero to do with it. America69 (talk) 13:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also like to echo a comment I made earlier on another page concerning this. This is a relatively minor issue, important, but not anything really but minor. It is a disagreement. I said, and I hope this is followed, that we can agree to disagree nicely. I would hope this debate/discussion can be conducted at a civil fashion. Let's keep some wiki-peace. America69 (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I re-read what I wrote above, and can't see any attack. I hope you aren't getting paranoid, America69. I stated the facts as they appear, and just mentioned you, since you have made a point of it that you edit/add only polling tables. Certainly anybody's contribution is welcome, as long as it is done according to the Wiki guidelines and/or common sense. Kraxler (talk) 15:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I just checked, and saw that the original polling info was added in chronological order on May 7 by JMyrleFuller. Considering that there has been no consensus about the format, it is not helpful to start an edit-war about it. The format has later been reversed 4 times by Tiller54 alone, although JMyrleFuller, Seleucus, KeptSouth, Muboshgu, Markles and Kraxler edited in chronological order. Is this your one-man war against all the wrong world, Tiller? Please check out: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Kraxler (talk) 19:45, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I support Tiller, but I am not doing anything to the polling to attempt to keep wiki-peace. So no, it's not a one man war. America69 (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tiller has just reverted for the fifth time. He claims consensus where there is none, according to a discussion, linked above. He claims consensus where there is a tacit vote of 6 to 3 against him. Could we reach a consensus to consider this disruptive? Kraxler (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Tiller has just reverted for the sixth time. I asked for a link to an alleged convention to leave out candidates with votes below 5% of the total, but got "It was discussed on the elections page" as an answer. Could you stop treating other users as idiots, Tiller? PLEASE give me a link to this "election page"!!!! I beg you to adhere to the general Wiki guidelines. Wikipedia is a place where things should be discussed, I refuse to be steam-rollered. Kraxler (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ian Murphy
This discussion has occurred many times before. Ian Murphy was not a major candidate in this election. The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. Any candidate on the ballot is still included in the election article, just not in the infobox. The infobox was made to have only the major candidates. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). In United States elections, 90% of the time there are only two major candidates (Democrat and Republican). This election was one of the rare elections where a third party candidate was actually a major candidate. Jack Davis polled over 5% in many polls and had significant media coverage.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Yhe Green Party has automatic ballot access in New York, which makes it a major party. To gain automatic ballot access is a major feat, and should be recognized by people who write an encyclopedia. In this case, the infobox has four candidates, and looks fine. Show me a discussion that says that candidates with automatic ballot access should not appear in the infobox. In exactly these words, please do not try any oblique argument here. Kraxler (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on New York's 26th congressional district special election, 2011. 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/20110708120339/http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/03/special-elex-timeline-to-be-extended/ to http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/03/special-elex-timeline-to-be-extended/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110312103057/http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_5b324302-4b41-11e0-8f6f-001cc4c03286.html to http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_5b324302-4b41-11e0-8f6f-001cc4c03286.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130209214903/http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/108834/37/Whats-Next-For-26th-District to http://www.wgrz.com/news/article/108834/37/Whats-Next-For-26th-District
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110705064536/http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_c39ec55c-3e24-11e0-b3c3-001cc4c002e0.html to http://thedailynewsonline.com/news/article_c39ec55c-3e24-11e0-b3c3-001cc4c002e0.html
 * Added tag to http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/03/conservatives-will-pick-ny-26-candidate-on-march-14/
 * Added tag to http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=408
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325024335/http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/03/nrcc-attacks-washington-lobbyist-hochul-davis-to-file-petitions/ to http://www.capitaltonight.com/2011/03/nrcc-attacks-washington-lobbyist-hochul-davis-to-file-petitions/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)