Talk:2008 United States Senate elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Various unsection comments[edit]

Someone better provide some documentation about Liddy Dole considering a run for NC Governor, because I have heard nothing about her being interested in the position; it is more likely she'd give one more shot at a Presidential run.--63.19.158.7 07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> Isnt it a little early to pencil in Al Franken and Mark Udall as being the democratic nominees for their states, considering as how the primaries haven't been held yet?

I'm not saying they will be the Democratic nominees. I'm putting them in as candidates. That's what you're supposed to do. Put in all the candidates and only clean it up when the parties do have a nominee. I'm putting them back in!

> The person that removed Texas from the Races to Watch section, could you please explain why you don't think John Cornyn is vulnerable? Thanks. --Lst27 (talk) 7 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)

Well, I wasn't the one who removed Texas from the list, but whoever did had one very good reason - despite Cornyn's unpopularity (he is the most unpopular Senator in the country according to the oft-cited SUSA poll), Texas is very Republican and no prominent Democrat has announced their intentions. I think it would be foolish to assume Texas will be competitive in 2008, at least this early.

I would like to see a reliable source saying that Senator Collins is retiring in 2008 before it is posted on the webpage. Byrdin2006 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited Original Research Essay[edit]

And in many places badly written and badly thought out. It is absolutely fine to quote what notable sources say about this election. It is absolutely not fine for some anonymous IP address or registered user to set themselves up as an expert. Stirling Newberry 14:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all this speculation about retirements and possible candidates should either have sources added or be removed. KCinDC 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm workin', I'm workin'. We'll sift through the speculation soon enough. But keep an eye out and let me know if we need citations. Zz414 01:45, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

General cleanup[edit]

This page is terribly informal and speculative. I'm going to try to take some time, Senator by Senator, to see what the current news updates are and to remove a lot of the unverifiable or highly speculative information. Zz414 13:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make each three paragraphs for possibly retiring candidates - one for the current status of the candidate, one for his party's projected candidate, and one for the opposing party's projected candidate. I'm trying to source as much as I can. There's a lot of garbage floating around these articles. Zz414 13:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I keep removing speculation, but unregistered users keep adding it. A lot of these entries should just stick to bare bones if there's not much source data. It's very early, so having a skimpy record on a few races isn't too bad. By summer 2007, when actual information exists, then these entries can be fleshed out. Zz414 16:44, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to try and remove a lot of the speculative and tangential items on the pages this week.Revfig 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not sort by 'possible retirements'[edit]

The possible retirements heading is silly. Either Biden will resign after accepting the nomination for President or Kerry will. Most likely neither will but it is pretty certain that at most one will resign.

A list of possible retirements might make sense but listing according to the possibility of retirement does not. Might as well have a list of 'possible deaths', which should include them all. --66.31.39.76 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's quite fair. Retirements are common for senators every six years; deaths are not. Some candidates have been mulling retirement; age is a clear factor; a possible run for president increases the likelihood. Given that, the category is relatively narrow, and it will be whittled down in the near future. It's already been pared down significantly with a few cite-checks. Zz414 17:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links[edit]

Is there some sort of protocal neccesary for featuring a site under "external links"? Everytime I try to add a resource, its removed shortly thereafter, though there is nothing altogether special about the one external link that is allowed to remain. revfig 14:47, 17 November 2006 (EST)

External links must adhere to Wikipedia's guideline on external links. You'll see that "discussion forums" (among other things) are listed under "links normally to be avoided." For what it's worth, I read portions of the discussion board posts linked, and while I found them to be interesting, the link doesn't adhere to WP:EL. If the remaining link does not adhere to this guideline, it should be removed as well (I haven't looked at it). · j e r s y k o talk · 19:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for going over that. For matters such as future elections, I can't think of any site that can claim to be an "expert", given that much of the topic is speculation and based on predictions. The WP:EL page also lists "blogs" as a link to normally be avoided, which is what the remaining external link is; however, since the general purpose of that blog (and the discussion board thread which I maintain and tried to link) is to provide updated analysis based upon recent news reports (which are posted and credited), would it not be acceptable to leave these external links, given that there is likely to be no site that can claim to be an expert on this topic? -revfig —Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I removed the blog and included a couple of mainstream polling and political sites. It's so early in the season that Wiki won't have many decent links anyway. Over the next year or so, we'll be able to get more links. Zz414 20:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wayne Allard[edit]

Allard announced he's not seeking another term. I have the cite. Valadius 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? Carpet9 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Never mind. Carpet9 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please reference[edit]

Please please please cite your additions! Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

George Cook[edit]

The George Cook linked to in the Pat Roberts section is not the George Cook that the article is referring to; it's an opera singer. 70.254.28.213 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I disambiguated the link to George Cook so it points to a possible name for an article if it's created. --Bobblehead 09:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threatened Seats[edit]

Does anyone know if there are any threated seats that may swing the majority/minority situation.

At this stage, the answer is no. The Democrats are expected to pad their majorities in both houses of Congress, but it's doubtful that it will lead to a veto-proof Congress. At this stage, the only vulnerable seat the Democrats have is in Louisiana. Mary Landrieu's support base is depleted by Hurricane Katrina evacuees. The Republican side has three vulnerable seats. In Colorado, Wayne Allard is retiring and the race is considered a toss up. Norm Coleman's seat in Minnesota and Susan Collins' seat in Maine are considered vulnerable. Steelbeard1 22:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And what about Sununu? He's as good as a goner, trailing by 22 points is BRUTAL.

Larry Craig[edit]

I don't think rumors about Larry Craig being gay should be included in this article, because they are exactly that: rumors. Dozens of public figures have had rumors of being gay around them, and I don't think they have any place on an encyclopedia. --JMurphy 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that politicians should not have it public any rumors that they are gay, even if they don't supporty gay rights, but Craig's case is different. He was formally charged with soliciting sex in the Men's bathroom in Minneapolis's airport. There is more evidence here than just a rumor. Mark Foley was a rumor. Larry Craig is a record and hard evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npanton81 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he wasn't just charged, he was convicted (more precisely: he pled guilty). He now says that he didn't do it, but I think that his guilty plea makes it more than a mere rumor. HMishkoff (talk) 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He plead guilty to having sex in an airport bathroom. He didn't plead guilty to being gay. Calling Larry Craig gay is speculation, while the airport bathroom incident is not. They are separate and distinct. —kurykh 00:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't plead guilty to being gay because being gay is not a crime. However, (a) Craig is a man, and (b) Craig pleaded guilty to soliciting sex with another man. The only objection I would have to referring to Craig as "gay" would be that he might be bi-sexual, or he might basically be straight but "bi-curious." But to say that "calling Larry Craig gay is speculation" when he pleaded guilty to soliciting gay sex is a little silly. HMishkoff (talk) 04:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that only gay people can have gay sex (deduced from your logic) is silly in itself. We can only say that he had gay sex, and no more. To say he is gay based on our speculation is WP:OR. —kurykh 05:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, OK, this is getting way off topic, but... First, to say that he "had gay sex" is speculation, he solicited gay sex, a very different thing. But: Assuming for the sake of argument that he has had gay sex (as you stated), what other evidence would you want before you would not quibble with the statement that he "is gay"? I think it comes down to your definition of what it means to say that someone "is gay" -- which means that we're getting down to a semantic (as opposed to a factual) discussion, and getting even further off topic. Anyway, I'll let you get in the last word if you'd like, then I'll retire from the field. HMishkoff (talk) 15:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, we can say he solicited gay sex (not "have" as I erroneously said). I guess that renders your assumption moot, as I just misspoke. But it's still not our job to out people (loosely defined). We're not that far off topic; the topic was whether we can say Larry Craig is gay. And we can't say that definitively. That was my point. —kurykh 21:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now two Senate races in Wyoming[edit]

With the death of Craig Thomas, Wyoming will now have two Senate contests in 2008 with the special election to fill the remaining four years of Thomas' term. How do we accomodate this in the table? Steelbeard1 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that someone rectified that issue on the table. Steelbeard1

There is a news story giving the background for the selection process for interim senator in Wyoming and the history behind the law at [1]. Steelbeard1 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky[edit]

While many sections of this article need to be cleaned up, the Kentucky section is particularly egregious, especially the first half of it. For starters, Senator McConnell did not endorse or support either nominee in the 2007 Gubernatorial Primary. The rumor campaign that McConnell lent Anne Northup his "political machine" is speculation at best, and has not been corroberated by any news source or supported by any statement from anyone involved in the process. McConnell also immediately endorsed Governor Fletcher for re-election after he won re-nomination. Second, there is no proof that the quixotic "Draft Forgy" effort has any support (or attention) from Governor Fletcher and/or his allies. A quick Google search confirms that all the blog speculation on a possible Forgy primary challenge is based off the DraftForgy Blogspot page, which could be maintained by anybody, including Democratic opponents of the Senate Minority Leader. Finally, the 2007 Governor's race between Fletcher and Beshear has, at best, tangential relation to the 2008 Senate contest. Partial poll results for the Governor's Race in 2007 is immaterial to Senator McConnell's re-election chances, and should not be included.207.138.153.98 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Rev Fig[reply]

'Senate Vacancies' section[edit]

I decided to shift the 'Senate vacancies' subsection to the top of the 'Races' section to minimize redundant sentences after another one was inserted. Once the interim senator is appointed by Wyoming's governor, the 'Senate vacancies' subsection can be renamed 'Interim senators' with the interim senator's name replacing that of the late Craig Thomas. Steelbeard1 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Interim Senator" is used here like it's an official title - especially the sentence, "Interim Senator Barrasso will serve...". As of today's he a regular Senator, but with a 2 year-term. I would actually just include him in the "Republican incumbent races" section, with the approriate text in the section explaining the special circumstances. Comments? Simon12 21:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Speculation" messagebox[edit]

I removed the messagebox at the top of the article, because the lead section (which I just edited) doesn't contain any such thing (I don't think it did before, either). If in fact there is speculation in a specific section, whoever posted the messagebox at the top of the article should feel free to repost in the section that has the problem, rather than at the top of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sequence of the table in the "Predictions" section?[edit]

What exactly is the ordering here? It's not alphabetical by state or by incumbent's last name. For the Republicans, it sort of looks like least vulnerable to most vulnerable, but that's not totally consistent; for the Democrats, it looks like the reverse, which is odd.

Assuming there is in fact some underlying order, would someone please actually state, in the section, before the table appears, exactly what it is? And if it in fact is by vulnerability, may I suggest that both the Republicans and Democrats should be listed with most vulnerable first, since that's the most interesting thing to readers; it's rather boring to start out with a bunch of safe seats listed (again, if that's the order). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your supposition on the ordering is correct. My intent when I created the table was to have the most vulnerable seats, Republican or Democratic, grouped toward the middle of the table. This allows a reader to see all of the most vulnerable seats at once even with a fairly small window. The boring stuff gets pushed to the outside. I thus loosely ordered the Republicans from least to most vulnerable and the Democrats from most to least.
It is not possible to precisely order by vulnerability because not all analysts agree. Some method of weighting the analyses is needed. You could assign points to each rating: 0 points for safe, 1 for likely for the incumbent (or the incumbent's party), 2 for leans to the incumbent, and 3 for tossup. I imagine that if a rating ever said a race leaned to the challenger, it would be 4 points. Somewhat arbitrary means are needed to translate specific rankings to this scale, for example choosing a cutoff in the Hotline ratings to represent the boundary between 1 point or 2. I would not want to codify any such rating scheme because it assumes too much about the analysts' rankings that the analysts themselves have not provided (in other words, the weighting scheme would be original research). As long as races with reasonably comparable levels of vulnerability are close to each other, that should be good enough.
--RichardMathews 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Hotline rankings label those races starting at #17 as "The Rest." This suggests to me that they fit into a single category in which they are essentially tied. It is perhaps misleading to include the numbering for these races in the table. Furthermore, they seem well correlated to the seats that others rank as safe. It might be more accurate to go back to simply treating them as "safe" (with a note explaining that this is being done).

The Hotline rankings are also very old (February). It might be best to just remove that column until the rankings get updated. --RichardMathews 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a good way to weigh the Hotline rankings with the rest except as a tie breaker, so that is what I did when I just reordered the table.--RichardMathews 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think having the seats listed in alphabetical order is a very good method, I liked it the way it was. But if you are going to keep it in alphabetical order, please include a column or color coding that indicates the party affiliation of the incumbent. 74.240.193.120 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Personally the other way looked much more professional or at least as professional as wiki can get Gang14 19:12, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what exactly are we all agreed upon? Gang14 06:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While I don't see anything wrong with listing the rankings by various pundits of the vulnerability (and, in the case of Washington Post and National Journal, comparative vulnerability) of each Senate seat, I think that we shouldn't make any further attempt to "order" their vulnerability. The points system listed above sounds reasonable enough, but I still don't see how some of the seats wouldn't be ordered arbitrarily, which wouldn't conform to NPOV. Looking back at the 2006 page history, the table was ordered slightly differently. I'm pasting the last update of the table (it was removed after the election took place) below to compare with what we have now. Is this preferable to the current format? Bridger 06:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(*EDIT* 2006 table removed)

I converted the table to the format from the 2006 elections (and removed the 2006 table from the talk page, since it was rather large). I feel that the older format performed better in certain respects (Intrade rankings don't have to be updated as often, overall rankings can be updated by highlighting and dragging, and there is less extraneous data). Election Projection, Electoral-vote.com, and Rasmussen Reports have not yet started ranking the various races, so they are not yet included in the current table. I removed the rankings from The Fix, The Hotline, and DC Political Report for now, since they don't follow the same spectrum as the other sites listed. I'm not opposed to keeping them in the same section; I'm just not sure what to do with them right now. Hopefully, this works better than a simple alphabetical listing. Bridger (talk) 01:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colors in Prediction Table[edit]

Regarding the use of bold face: I originally used three levels. Blank represented "safe." Normal text was "likely." Bold was "leans" or "tossup." A recent change reduced this to two levels. The "safe" rankings are no longer left blank, and the "likely" has shifted to bold. I think this change to two levels reduces readability. I also do not like that the change of "likely" to bold provides no contrast between likely and tossup, which are clearly very different ratings.

Rather than reducing the number of levels, it might be worth considering increasing the number. While I thought that three levels was good enough, we could try: blank for safe (perhaps with an asterisk for no rating given), black for likely incumbent, brown for leans incumbent, orange for tossup, red for leans/likely challenger. I worry, though, that that too many colors would get to be too distracting rather than informative.

--RichardMathews 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We could use background colors like this. I am concerned that the colors may be too close together.
Safe R
Likely R
Leans R
Tossup
Leans D
Likely D
Safe D
--RichardMathews 00:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of using colors, but you're right, they are too close together. You can't tell the difference between either of the "leans" and "tossup". I suggest possibly making the text white and using bolder colors 42Strangelove 22:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The colors used for "Republican Hold" and for "Toss-up" cannot be distinguished by color-blind people like me. Please see the Wikipedia article on color-blindness, and note that up to seven percent of men are red-green colorblind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.71.171 (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading Predictions[edit]

Looking at this article I would conclude that the Democrats would be lucky to pick up two (2) seats in the Senate in 2008. However this ignores the 2006 election in which the Democrats picked up 6 of the 15 Republican seats while maintaining 15 of their 16 seats. Based on the continuation of the Iraqi war - with no end in sight - significant casualties every month - significant democratic gains (6 to 10 seats) should be the prediction. The economy has some faultlines forming which could be in play by next November - the economy has been a Republican Strength - which may have helped them preserve some seats in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.222.235 (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree (though I would count the Democratic caucus as having maintained all 16 of its seats in 2006, even if Lieberman is now an independent). The analysts always give a big boost to incumbents. Some of that is deserved. As 2006 showed, some of it is not deserved. For this article, however, we have to report the facts as the analysts provide them. We can't be doing original research by creating our own predictions.--RichardMathews 21:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Impact of News on Predictions[edit]

There is always going to be some news that is newer than the predictions. I don't believe we should be constantly updating a list of qualifiers to the predictions to give the latest news. I thus deleted the qualifier regarding the announcement that Mark Warner will run.

On the other hand, the table does show which seats are open. It thus would be misleading to show a prediction that was made before the seat was open. I thus have left the qualifiers that refer to predictions that predate retirement announcements.--RichardMathews 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, when does a news event predate a ranking? Sabato just updated rankings on several races. He did not update New Hampshire. Is it fair to say that his New Hampshire ranking predates the news, or did he make a willful decision to laeve the ranking alone regardless of the news? It is best to just stop making this section list recent news events that some editor thinks could or should affect an analyst's rankings.--RichardMathews 18:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Trent Lott retirement[edit]

Lott's retirement is different from the others, since he's leaving in the middle of his term, not just failing to run for reelection. The seat will eventually be listed under the new incumbent's name, just as the one for the Wyoming special election is listed as Barrasso. Actually, depending on when exactly the retirement occurs the special election may not even be in November. KCinDC (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding other predictions[edit]

I think it would be good to add Chris Cillizza's Rankings, the national journals rankings and Lindsay politics 101 to this page under the predictions section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangas (talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mississippi special election[edit]

Because the special election date is in dispute--the governor wants it in November, the state attorney general in March, the section for incumbent Roger Wicker is placed in a special section called "Election date disputed." If the courts decide on a November date, then Wicker's section could be included with the regular races. If the courts decide that the special election must follow Mississippi's election law and be held in March, then it must stay separate. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Circuit Court Judge called for the election to be held in March. Governor Barbour will appeal. Should we start to prepare a special table above the regular table for the Mississippi special election? Steelbeard1 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No special table needed as the MS Supreme Court ruled the special election can be held in November. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map incorrect[edit]

The map at the top of this page is incorrect. It has Oregon highlighted as a state with two incumbent elections happening in 2008, at least as far as I can tell. As Oregon does not have two Republican senators, and has only one senator up for reelection, this is impossible. I'd change it myself but I'm no good with graphics. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The map looks fine to me. Only Wyoming and Mississippi are dark red on the map as both have special elections to fill senate vacancies this year. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant tables[edit]

I don't think having individual tables for the races is a good idea since there is already one big table at the bottom of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Dates for Pundits[edit]

The table showing pundit ratings does not have the dates individual pundits updated their ratings. Instead it just says above that "All ratings are current as of ---". I think it makes a big difference in interpreting the ratings how old they are: not just the individual ratings themselves, but knowing X rating occured after a certain event, or didn't. (talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

President Obama or McCain[edit]

Since senators are the presumptive presidential nominees of both parties this year, it seems to me that this article should mention the consequences of that. One Senate seat, whether from Illinois or Arizona, will be vacated this year. I don't know what happens next; I believe that it depends partially upon state law (leave the seat vacant, governor appoints replacement, and/or special election held). According to a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service, Arizona law says that the governor must appoint a senator from the same party; whether this is still true, I do not know. Sacxpert (talk) 08:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Intrade Sum way greater than 100?[edit]

For the Intrade Oregon race as of August 6, 2008. The "Last" value for the Republican winning was 57.9, the value for the Democrat winning was 55.0 and the Field was 0.1 (this last one is "normal"). What do we do for this illogical situation in terms of ranking?Naraht (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for predictors[edit]

There's some discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 about whether to include the Pindell Report and Swing State Project in the table of House race predictions. Both are included in the Senate table. What do people think the criteria should be for which predictors get included on these pages and which don't? Are the partisan predictors (SSP and FiveThirtyEight.com) a problem (though I'm not even aware of any race tracking by conservative blogs)? Should there be a requirement that a predictor have been around for a few elections? —KCinDC (talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said something similar on the House discussion board, but I think it applies here: bringing in partisan blogs is problematic. Even if we brought a conservative blog in to accompany SSP, we'd still have balance problems. Neither blog represents the official party viewpoint, so unless the DCCC and RNCC started posting rankings online, we wouldn't really be getting the "Democratic" or "Republican" points of view, just the point of view of some bloggers. Cook, Rothenberg, CQ, and Sabato have been ranking a while, and are non-partisan: bias would still be a factor, but much less of one, and we wouldn't have to worry about getting certain points of view represented in our prediction tables. My suggestion is to delete 538 and SSp. We should also talk about In trade and Pindell, but at least there is no stated built-in-biases/ partisan leanings there. —CylonCAG (talk) 16:06 (PST), 29 August 2008
Let's back up a bit: Why include predictors in the first place? 96.56.162.82 (talk) 22:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In order to be able to have a (reasonably) objective source for what constitutes a competitive race. If there were no predictors, it could be a bit confusing on what a truly competitive race, and what isn't. I'll concede the predictors and our uses for them aren't perfect, but they do give a good idea of how competitive a race is. —CylonCAG (talk) 16:07 (PST), 30 August 2008

I see your point about including partisan ratings; in fact, I believe that there was controversy over including Election Projection last cycle because the site is run by a Republican. We should either include all or include none of the partisan ratings, and I'm leaning toward including none.

I have already commented on why I feel the Pindell Report should not be included in my post below. As for Intrade, I have gone back and forth on them throughout this cycle and last (when it was called TradeSports). First, the percentages which designate one rating or the other are completely arbitrary. I am not sure who came up with the original percentages, which are as they are now, save for the 90% "safe" rating, which I modified from 93% or 95%. Second, if there is a good amount of media attention on a race, its values can change very frequently and give that race a very fickle appearance as it goes from, say "leans" to "likely" and back again every other day or so. As such, while these values seem to confirm what other ratings sources show, it might be just as well if we took Intrade out of the table.

I'm all for only including those who have been in the game for awhile, as I think it gives the table more legitimacy. What is the consensus? Bridger (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is to only include Rothenberg, Sabato, CQ, and Cook. They're non-partisan, well established, well sourced, and don't have the problems that intrade can give us. Also, the House and Senate predictors would match. That's my vote, anyway. If we don't have much dissent in the next few days over removing everyone else, I say we should just do that. —CylonCAG (talk) 17:40 (PST), 4 September 2008

Can someone briefly explain why the methodologies for 538 and SSP are biased? It shouldn't be relevant that the person running either is biased if the methodology is good. There is a Republican poll, Strategic Vision, I think, that the mainstream media use because it is a good poll and reliable. The fact that it is run by a Republican strategist is not relevant. -Rrius (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find any listing of the methodology for either. But bias is still an important factor. You're correct about Strategic Vision (and Public Policy Poll, on the Democratic side). But the reason those two polls are given the respect that they are is that they release every single poll they do regardless of how good/ bad it is for their client, unlike most internal organizations which only release the polls that they want people to see. SSP and 538, as much as I like them, can't really be trusted to do that as much. While SV, PPP, and our predictors are professionals, these blogs aren't. Even if they have a great methodology, it opens the door to pretty much any partisan blog being posted here. —CylonCAG (talk) 8:29 (PST), 5 September 2008
I actually think it matters more how long the predictors have been "in the business," as they say. Even though the head blogger at 538 is a number-crunching genius, this is his debut cycle as an election prognosticator. Same goes with SSP (they've been around since 2003 but haven't formally rated the races before) and the Pindell Report. Intrade, I feel, is a different animal since it gives no named categories. As far as I know, CQ, Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato have all been rating races since at least 2002. Bridger (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last Edit[edit]

I just reverted an edit that I have a huge problem with. If you want to remove Politicker.com’s Pindell Report, I'm okay with that as long as we discuss it here first. I have to take serious issue with anyone changing ratings he or she doesn't happen to agree with. We're not supposed to do original research here. We are representing other people's research here and it needs to be reflected accurately. Frankly, I agree with the most recent edit about South Carolina, but that isn't the point. BTW, I have also heard that the Georgia race is tightening. I've heard that from multiple sources, but what I've heard is irrelevant. We cannot misrepresent the sources we are citing just because we don't agree with them. Henrymrx (talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had meant to post something additional in the talk page after removing the Pindell Report, but I got distracted. Sorry to upset you. What I meant to say was that not only does the Pindell Report seem to be giving the benefit of the doubt to some races which are not competetive, it seemed to be originally added without any discussion, and he didn't seem to be a well-known prognosticator (and looking at the House elections talk page, he has only been rating the races for a few weeks). I felt that adding in an unknown commodity wasn't a good idea, especially with a few ratings that deviated from the norm. I'm not saying that all the ratings have to agree, but I did find a few of his ratings (as I mentioned in my edit) to be going a bit out on a limb. South Carolina at no point was a competitive race, and while Georgia is closing up a tad and may yet become competitive, it's not there yet. I notice that there is a discussion above of whether to include other ratings firms, so I'll continue my post on the others above. Bridger (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we have been talking about removing Pindell, or at least establishing criteria for which ratings can be included, and which ones can't be. (See above topic). If you'd like to join that one, we can use more input. CylonCAG (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2008 (PST)

Pictograph at the bottom of the page[edit]

Hi all. I found it odd that the yellow boxes for the independents were at the beginning of the table. It seems like when we see graphics about the balance of power in mainstream sources, we see R's on one side, D's on the other, with any I's in the middle. I know that both independents caucus with the Democrats, but they're still independents and one at least has been acting an awful lot like a Republican lately. I'm going to "be bold" and change the table to put independents in the middle (holding the balance of power). It'll look like this:

110th Congress Senate Composition   111th Congress Senate Composition
                                                   
To Be Determined
                                                 
                                                 
                                                   
Color Key:   = Republican   = Democratic   = Independent

Thanks. Kingnavland (talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Senate Election pages from previous years, independents all seem to be located in different places. Until there's some standard established, this looks fine. —CylonCAG (talk) 17:43 (PST) 4 September 2008
I had moved the independents to the front because I thought it made it more obvious that they both caucused with the Democrats. Despite Senator Lieberman's increasing closeness to Senate Republicans, he is still the majority-maker for the Democrats and should be pointed out as such. I understand the balance-of-power argument, though, so I left the table as-is but appended a note with the allegiances of the independents. Even though it's mentioned elsewhere on the main page, I feel that the table should be clear about how many seats each caucus has. Bridger (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John Warner retirement[edit]

Does anyone have a citation for Warner's supposed retirement? Also, it appears we will need a new map at the top right corner of the page if Warner is in fact retiring, as Virginia would be light red. Jsnruf 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

11/5/08: Can someone start updating this page? (re-write it in past tense, record results, etc.?) I'm trying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.126.156 (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSNBC has called Oregon[edit]

They're giving it to Merkley. Is that enough to paint it blue here? -R. fiend (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not just MSNBC. Every major news outlet has now called Oregon. *And* Gordon Smith conceded. The Democrats have officially picked up 6 seats, with two (Alaska and Minnesota) too close to call, and a third (Georgia) going to a runoff. It's time to update the map and color Oregon blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.238.179 (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2006 template for 2008 results[edit]

Senate contests in 2006[edit]

Winning candidates in bold.

Blue = Democratic pickup
Yellow = Independent pickup
Gray = Retiring Senator

State Incumbent Party Status Candidates
Arizona Jon Kyl Republican 3rd term; Re-elected, 53.3% Jim Pederson (Democrat) 43.5%
Richard Mack (Libertarian) 3.2%
California Dianne Feinstein Democratic 4th Term; Re-elected, 59.4% Dick Mountjoy (Republican) 35.2%
Don Grundmann (American Independent) 1.8%
Todd Chretien (Green) 1.7%
Michael Metti (Libertarian) 1.6%
Marsha Feinland (Peace and Freedom) 1.3%
Connecticut Joe Lieberman Connecticut for Lieberman 4th term; Defeated in Democratic Party primary, won re-election as member of Connecticut for Lieberman, 49.7% Ned Lamont (Democrat) 39.7%
Alan Schlesinger (Republican) 9.6%
Ralph Ferrucci (Green) 0.5%
Timothy Knibbs (Concerned Citizens) 0.4%
Delaware Tom Carper Democratic 2nd Term; Re-elected, 70.2% Jan Ting (Republican) 28.7%
William E. Morris (Libertarian) 1.1%
Florida Bill Nelson Democratic 2nd Term; Re-elected, 60.3% Katherine Harris (Republican) 38.1%
Belinda Noah (Independent) 0.5%
Brian Moore (Green) 0.4%
Floyd Ray Frazier (Independent) 0.3%
Roy Tanner (Independent) 0.3%
Hawaii Daniel Akaka Democratic 4th Term; Re-elected, 61.4% Cynthia Thielen (Republican) 36.8%
Lloyd Mallan (Libertarian) 1.9%
Indiana Dick Lugar Republican 6th Term; Re-elected, 87.3% Steve Osborn (Libertarian) 12.6%
Maine Olympia Snowe Republican 3th Term; Re-elected, 74.4% Jean Hay Bright (Democrat) 20.5%
Bill Slavick (Independent) 5.2%
Maryland Paul Sarbanes Democratic Retired, Democratic victory Ben Cardin (Democrat) 54.2%
Michael Steele (Republican) 44.2%
Kevin Zeese (Green) 1.5%
Massachusetts Ted Kennedy Democratic Re-elected, 69.5% Kenneth Chase (Republican) 30.5%
Michigan Debbie Stabenow Democratic Re-elected, 56.9% Mike Bouchard (Republican) 41.3%
Leonard Schwartz (Libertarian) 0.7%
David Sole (Green) 0.6%
W. Dennis FitzSimons (Constitution) 0.5%
Minnesota Mark Dayton Democratic Retired, Democratic victory Amy Klobuchar (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) 58.1%
Mark Kennedy (Republican) 37.9%
Robert Fitzgerald (Independence) 3.2%
Michael Cavlan (Green) 0.5%
Ben Powers (Constitution) 0.3%
Mississippi Trent Lott Republican Re-elected, 63.6% Erik Fleming (Democrat) 34.8%
Harold Taylor (Libertarian) 1.5%
Missouri Jim Talent Republican Defeated, 47.3% Claire McCaskill (Democrat) 49.6%
Frank Gilmour (Libertarian) 1.2%
Lydia Lewis (Green) 0.9%
Montana Conrad Burns Republican Defeated, 48.3% Jon Tester (Democrat) 49.2%
Stan Jones (Libertarian) 2.6%
Nebraska Ben Nelson Democratic Re-elected, 63.9% Pete Ricketts (Republican) 36.1%
Nevada John Ensign Republican Re-elected, 55.4% Jack Carter (Democrat) 41%
None of These Candidates 1.4%
David Schumann (Constitution) 1.3%
Brendan Trainor (Libertarian) 0.9%
New Jersey Bob Menendez Democratic Elected to 1st full term,[1] 53.4% Thomas Kean Jr. (Republican) 44.3%
Len Flynn (Libertarian) 0.7%
Ed Forchion (Marijuana) 0.5%
J.M. Carter (Independent) 0.4%
N. Leonard Smith (Independent) 0.3%
Daryl Brooks (Independent) 0.2%
Angela Lariscy (Socialist Workers) 0.2%
Gregory Pason (Socialist) 0.1%
New Mexico Jeff Bingaman Democratic Re-elected, 70.6% Allen McCulloch (Republican) 29.3%
New York Hillary Clinton Democratic 2nd Term; Re-elected, 67% John Spencer (Republican) 31.0%
Howie Hawkins (Green) 1.2%
Jeff Russell (Libertarian) 0.4%
Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality) 0.2%
Roger Calero (Socialist Workers) 0.2%
North Dakota Kent Conrad Democratic-NPL Re-elected, 68.8% Dwight Grotberg (Republican) 29.5%
Roland Riemers (Independent) 1%
James Germalic (Independent) 0.6%
Ohio Mike DeWine Republican Defeated, 43.8% Sherrod Brown (Democrat) 56.2%
Pennsylvania Rick Santorum Republican Defeated, 41.3% Bob Casey, Jr. (Democrat) 58.7%
Rhode Island Lincoln Chafee Republican Defeated, 46.5% Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat) 53.5%
Tennessee Bill Frist Republican Retired, Republican victory Bob Corker (Republican) 50.7%
Harold Ford, Jr. (Democrat) 48.0%
Ed Choate (Independent) 0.6%
David Gatchell (Independent) 0.2%
Emory "Bo" Heyward (Independent) 0.2%
H. Gary Keplinger (Independent) 0.2%
Chris Lugo (Green) 0.1%
Texas Kay Bailey Hutchison Republican Re-elected, 61.7% Barbara Ann Radnofsky (Democrat) 36.0%
Scott Jameson (Libertarian) 2.3%
Utah Orrin Hatch Republican Re-elected, 62.6% Pete Ashdown (Democrat) 30.8%
Scott Bradley (Constitution) 3.8%
Roger Price (Personal Choice)1.6%
Dave Seely (Libertarian) 0.8%
Julian Hatch (Green) 0.4%
Vermont Jim Jeffords Independent[2] Retired, Independent victory Bernie Sanders (Independent) 65.4%
Richard Tarrant (Republican) 32.3%
Cris Ericson (Independent) 0.6%
Craig Hill (Green) 0.5%
Peter Moss (Independent) 0.5%
Peter Diamondstone (Liberty Union) 0.3%
Virginia George Allen Republican Defeated, 49.2% Jim Webb (Democratic) 49.6%
Gail Parker (Independent Green) 1.1%
Washington Maria Cantwell Democratic Re-elected, 56.6% Mike McGavick (Republican) 39.9%
Bruce Guthrie (Libertarian) 1.4%
Aaron Dixon (Green) 1.0%
Robin Adair (Independent) 0.8%
West Virginia Robert Byrd Democratic Re-elected, 64.4% John Raese (Republican) 33.7%
Jesse Johnson (Mountain) 1.9%
Wisconsin Herb Kohl Democratic Re-elected, 67.3% Robert Lorge (Republican) 29.5%
Rae Vogeler (Green) 2.0%
Ben Glatzel (Independent) 1.2%
Wyoming Craig Thomas Republican Re-elected, 70% Dale Groutage (Democrat) 30.0%

--Levineps (talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better template than the current one, in that it actually says who won. We should use it here. -R. fiend (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's not great either. Too much emphasis on the incumbent rather than the candidates. I think we need a new one. R. fiend (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the incumbent is somewhat important, such as in 2002 when Elizabeth Dole won Jesse Helms seat. People vote partly as referedum on the incumbent--Levineps (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, it is too much emphasis on the incumbent. -Rrius (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ appointed on January 182006 by Governor Jon Corzine upon his resignation as Senator
  2. ^ winning candidate pledged to caucus with the Democrats despite not running as a Democratic candidate

MN section[edit]

I would suggest moving the bulk of what is in the MN section as the history should be on the Minnesota Election page not the overall US Senate election page.--Levineps (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fate of Illinois and Delaware's vacancies[edit]

It has dawned upon me that it is not certain that the Democrats are going to enjoy a 57 majority in the Senate. Obama and Biden are going to vacate their seats and it all depends on how they are going to be filled. If the State governors are to appoint the replacements, then they are to be held by Democrats; however, if the laws in any of the two states dictates a special election, then the Republicans could - however unlikely, given that both states are considered Democratic safe havens - have a go at them. That being said, does anybody know how Illinois and Delaware replace vacant seats in the Senate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.88.195 (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In both states, the governor appoints replacements to serve until the next election. In Illinois, that will be 2010, and in Delaware, 2014, as Biden was just reelected. Timmeh! 02:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was mistaken. In Delaware, a special election will be held in 2010 to fill the vacancy for the remainder of Biden's term. Timmeh! 02:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that? As far as I know, Delaware's governor would choose who will serve the rest of Biden's term, and in 2010 that person can stand for reelection. Is this what you meant? Guy0307 (talk) 11:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The appointed senator would only serve for 2 years and then have to stand for election to be able to serve the remaining 4 years of their term (not reelection as he/she was not elected); thus, does not automatically get to serve Biden's term completely. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... Which is pretty much what I've said. I just found out that Jack Markell, the governor-elect of Delaware would decide who will serve until 2010, not Minner, as Biden wouldn't resign until after January 20. -guy0307
I have seen the ABC story that Markell is planning to be sworn in at 12:01 on January 20, which suggest that he thinks he will make the appointment. I have also seen a story saying Biden is waiting until January to resign, which could make sense if Biden plans to resign on January 20 (otherwise why leave DE with the lowest-ranked senator?). Has anyone seen any stories saying Biden admits he is waiting until January 20? If so, is it sufficiently related to this article to be mentioned here? -Rrius (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Republican Holds[edit]

Why are Nebraska, Idaho, and the Wyoming Special Election considered Republican holds not Safe Republicans, they won but large percentages of the vote, it wasn't even close, and no one expected it to be close, I am sorry but I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're confusing the terminology used before (prediction) and after the fact (result). They were considered "safe" before, but now that the election is over, it's a reportable fact that the Republican Party "held" them. -Pete (talk) 03:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AP has called Alaska[edit]

The Associated Press, main source of election projection for a number of national media outlets, has declared Mark Begich the winner. Alaska should now be bright blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 (talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swing?[edit]

What does the number swing mean in the infobox? I assumed it compared the percentage to the previous (2006) elections, but the numbers do not match up. It also does not work for 2002. If it is supposed to compare to 2006, then I would argue this makes no sense and should be removed, since in 2006 different states were voting for senator. --KarlFrei (talk) 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, giving percentages here (of the popular vote?) really does not seem to make sense, since we are really talking about 33 separate elections (for different offices). I'll just be bold and remove some of the numbers and see if that gets any discussion going here. --KarlFrei (talk) 12:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is some meaning to the aggregate popular vote and vote share. While local issues affect each, so do national issues. The extent to which each contributes to the outcome varies year to year. Seeing the difference in popular vote helps show how dramatic the mood was for or against one party. It is certainly not a perfect measure, but it is a measure. As for the swing, I'm not sure what it is. It does not appear to be a straight comparison to 2006 (the last election) or 2002 (the last election for this class). If it is a British-style swing, I'm not exactly sure how it's being calculated. As such, I did not restore the swing when I restored the other numbers. -Rrius (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Seats won" infobox caption[edit]

This caption is incorrect, since only 35 seats were up for election this year. Democratic seats won is 19 to 21 depending on recount/runoff outcomes, and Republican seats won is 14 to 16. I am not changing the numbers in the table because I understand that this is actually showing the makeup of the new Senate, but I don't know how to change the infobox caption (or even if it should be changed -- might create problems in other articles that use it). Cmadler (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what this means. Was posted before the "to 9" was added back in? -Rrius (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to "Seats won", which is followed by "56 to 58 (+ 2 independents)" and "40 to 42". This is the makeup of the new Senate, but is not the actual seats won in the 2008 elections. Only 35 seats were up for election so only 35 seats can be won. The Democrats will have 56 to 58 seats in the new Senate, but they only won 19 to 21 seats in the 2008 elections. The Republicans will have 40 to 42 seats in the new Senate, but they only won 14 to 16 seats in the 2008 elections.Cmadler (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is that this infobox is too generic. How many total seats won at this election may be interesting on some level, but what is more important is the total seats. While staggering is not unique to the US Senate (some state senates and and the Australian Senate do it too), it is weird enough that the general purpose infobox isn't good enough. I'd suggest leaving it for now. I'll go ahead and make a Senate-specific infobox if there is no parameter lurking in the current one. -Rrius (talk) 18:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've created {{Infobox Senate Election}}, which is a direct rip-off of {{Infobox Election}}. The only change I made was to replace "Seats won" with "Seats after". This may not be the best way of putting it, and I would invite everyone to edit the heck out of it. -Rrius (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would be better off adding a "seats won" function in the existing template rather than ripping off {{Infobox Election}} and creating 1) a not so needed template and 2) a potential GFDL nightmare. —kurykh 18:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first is only true if you assume that the seats thing is the only thing that could be tailored. As to the second, I don't see the problem. We are allowed to take Wikipedia templates, articles, and the like for copying and manipulating within Wikipedia. -Rrius (talk) 19:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strike out the second; I've seen you've attributed back to the original template. About the first thing, with enough expertise and time to tinker with it, you can add anything to the template. —kurykh 22:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, when I first said "seats won", I meant "seats after election" or "seats after" or whatever. —kurykh 22:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the "seats_after" function to {{Infobox Election}}, making {{Infobox Senate Election}} unneeded. Shall we more quickly dispense of it somehow? *cough*Rrius: G7*cough* —kurykh 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Race chart[edit]

At some point, we will change the candidate chart to one such as is used at the 2006 election page. I have created one at my sandbox that could be used now. Any thoughts? -Rrius (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota[edit]

We should probably turn light blue. Franken is the de facto winner, and court challenges shouldn't stop us from updating it, we should just have a note saying the results are still being contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.85 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being certified by the state canvassing board as the winner is a bit more than being the "de facto winner." At this stage Fraken is every bit as much "the winner" as any other senator elected in 2008. 204.128.230.1 (talk) 02:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Franken has been certified. No court challenge has yet been made. There should be a note that there is expected to be a challenge. Unless the election gets overturned, Franken will be the new Senator from Minnesota. Henrymrx (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sense Franken has been certified, I am updating the Seats won box to say 8, rather than 6. ~ Bluedemocrat —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluedemocrat (talk • contribs) 22:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox[edit]

Do not include the independents with the Democrats. It is oxymoronic. The fact that Bernie Sanders is a socialist and sides with Democrats is self-explanatory. Most people know that Lieberman sides with Democrats except on national security matters. Lumping them in with Democrats is an insult to the independent candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonsjester (talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sanders calls himself an independent and caucuses with the Democrats. Lieberman calls himself an Independent Democrat and caucuses with the Democrats. Since they are part of the Democratic caucus, their two votes are included with the rest of the caucus. If there were independents who did not caucus with either party, they would be in their own column. If there were independents who caucused with the Republicans, they would be counted with the Republicans. What alternative do you propose and why? -Rrius (talk) 20:08, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freshman senators[edit]

Our list of freshman senators includes not just freshman resulting from the election, but also freshmen whose seats result from post-election vacancies. I wonder whether it would make sense to either leave out the post-election sorts or move this list to 111th United States Congress. -Rrius (talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

house voting rules[edit]

Please explain why in congress 50%+1 wins and the senate must have 60% to win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.92.242 (talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because in the Senate a motion to end debate on an issue must have a 60% vote. If 53 Senators support a bill and 47 Senators oppose a bill, the 47 Senators can simply talk forever. See Filibuster.Naraht (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intro cleanup[edit]

Should the text of "In April 2009, Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democratic, which gave the Democratic Party another seat (their 59th) in the Senate. In June 2009, Al Franken was seated in the Senate after a bitterly-contested lawsuit in Minnesota. This gave the Democratic party their 60th seat in the Senate. In January 2010, Republican Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts, and so the balance of power became 59-41." remain in the introduction? This may not be germane to an encyclopedia article introduction. Myownworst (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the text mentioned above because it clearly does not belong in the introduction of an encylcopedia entry. This type of information belongs in the body of the article.Myownworst (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history[edit]

What is this supposed to mean? Why have a column where every entry is "data is missing"? john k (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 22 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate elections, 2008. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 14 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change the Interface[edit]

It would be really helpful if, in addition to being able to navigate to the previous Senate election (2006) and the next Senate election (2010), if there were arrows that would lead to the previous and next elections of the same Senate class (like 2002 and 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.66.73.251 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_United_States_Senate_elections&oldid=1212495052"