So I asked this questions: Do voters refuse to believe accurate accounts of Republican tax plans?
It was very rapidly put on hold as:
"Please focus this down to a specific claim and quote it. Claims need to be specific and explicit. The thread you cite gives two factual examples which perhaps can be used. All the rest is an opinion piece whose discussion is certainly more suited to politics.se."
Despite the fact that the the question, despite being politically controversial was not itself a political question but a factual one. Many commenters complained that the claim had been made by Democrats and was therefore suspect and political. And the context of the claim certainly is. But skeptics.SE, as far as I understand it, doesn't refuse to answer questions because they come from partizan sources (would we refuse to answer a question about homeopathy because the claim was made on a pro homeopathy website? I think not.) The claim was that voters don't believe republican policy when explained to them. That is a factually testable claim and not, itself, inherently partizan. It is possible, for example, to imagine an answer that "the democrats never explain things about republican policy in a factual way which is why voters don't believe them". That would, with evidence, be a decent answer. So I think there is nothing wrong with the claim. Possibly the moderator and many commentators failed to distinguish the context from the question. But I was clear about the question and honest about the context in a way that would be open to answers from either side.
Then the moderator requested:
Find a specific, factual claim, cite it verbatim and I'll try to see if we can reopen.
The question was edited with the explicit claims made clearer. The claims are verbatim from the source and not unclear as far as I can tell.
So I have responded to the apparent objections of the moderator, but the question has now been closed and with no further explanation. It quotes a specific claim (as the moderator requested) and it quotes the claim verbatim from the sources (as the moderator requested).
I can only assume that any questions related to politics, no matter how factual or coherent the claim, must be off topic. Did I miss that ruling? Or is there something else wrong with the question?
PS Could I request that moderators make at lest some attempt to explain why they make the judgements they do. In this case the judgements and comments by the moderator didn't seem to correspond with the state of the question at all. "claims need to be specific and explicit" seemed to me to be true before the question was put on hold. And "Find a specific factual claim, cite it verbatim..." was already true and was made much clearer in subsequent edits but the moderator action was to close the question.