Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Florida

Orphaned references in United States presidential election in Florida, 2016
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States presidential election in Florida, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ncsbelist": From United States presidential election in North Carolina, 2016: NC State Board of Elections presidential primary candidates' list (preliminary) From United States presidential election in South Carolina, 2016: S 

Reference named "WRALcandidates": From United States presidential election in South Carolina, 2016:  From United States presidential election in North Carolina, 2016: WRAL: NC approves 27 candidates for presidential primary ballots 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in United States presidential election in Florida, 2016
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States presidential election in Florida, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "realclearpolitics.com": From Republican Party presidential debates and forums, 2016:  From Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016: Scott Conroy (October 23, 2014) In Iowa, Mike Huckabee Is Making Moves RealClearPolitics.</li> <li>From Donald Trump: </li> <li>From Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016: </li> <li>From Statewide opinion polling for the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016: </li> <li>From Democratic Party presidential debates and forums, 2016: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Analysis section is filled with NOR flags
Although it's essentially entirely verifiable facts, (about the margin of victory, voting history of Florida etc.) so those flags need to be removed Beetlejuicex3 (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The flags need to stay until a third party expert source is cited with a footnote and attributed by name in the body text to support the statements. What makes it original research is the choice to cherry pick particular statistics or superlatives out of an infinite number of factoids that could be chosen for any election. These factoids should be chosen by third party experts, not Wikipedia editors. This is a kind of WP:SYNTH and WP:FRANKIE.<P>Anybody can make up any set of criteria to highlight: how many "Democratic" counties went "Republican". How many "Obama counties" flipped to Trump. How many counties that begin with R had between a 3 and 7.1 point margin for either candidate. Best performance by a left handed Democrat since 1874 excluding blondes. See how arbitrary that can be?<P>Yes, there is significant conventional wisdom saying "Florida was a toss-up" or that 7 out of the last 10 elections show that Florida is "Republican leaning". But since there IS significant conventional wisdom to back up those opinions, then it ought to be very easy to cite all of it. And if no editor can cite a source for it, it should be deleted. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

it seems like some editor had this vandalized with a lie for some time
It read that the "socialism liberation party" was the same "green" and it read, "(july XX)". why? that had be wrong. that same editor (nutcracker100) has on their, mostly anonymous and uninformative, mishmash user page "theyre against communism" (and yet for eco-politics and paris agreement), and many other unrelated things put together. it smelling like sabotage. or insinuating about relations (that, far as i know) are not there between that and this party. why was it like this so long??????? clearly vandalized. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 18:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)