Talk:110th United States Congress/Archive

message: All these names shouldn't be listed, until the newly sworn in 110th Congress (January 2007) has elected them to there respective positions. The only name that should remain is Dick Cheney ;(assuming he's still living by then), Cheney will continue as the President of the US. Senate until early into the 111th Congress ('til January 20, 2009). Crystal Balling isn't accurate. GoodDay 02:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, Dick Cheney shouldn't be listed either. There's no 100% quarentee he'll still be VP of the USA (Senate Pres) by Jan. 3, 2007. Cheney from now 'til then, could die OR resign. Though it's highly unlikely, it's not impossible. GoodDay 02:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you as well. People are simply trying to get a jump on this article and as a result confusing people who may not be as involved in the political process to know that none of this is true as of date. Edward Lalone 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I brought up this point as well but it seems that people want to be involved in political shannigans and political prophecy instead of just waiting until the information is available. I personally think the information should either a) be removed, or b) footnoted to clarify that these are not the actual officers of the Senate or House starting in January. Personally I think I simple explaination of possible candidates for these positions would suffice at the start of the section dealing with Leadership of the 110th Congress and it would be best to leave the fields blank. Edward Lalone 04:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: But, in all truthfulness; these are crystal-balling Or at least semi crystal-balling edits. For example, Harry Reid is the (soon to be majority) Senate Democrats choice to remain as their Floor Leader; Hypothetically, he could not want the job (in Jan.2007), he could be dead OR have resigned by then. There's another scenerio that is quite possible (in the Senate, for sure). The Senate is set to be configured as 49 Democrats, 49 Republicans & 2 Independants (leaning Democrat), between now & January 2007 ,either of these Independants could suddenly choose to caucus with the Republicans, which would quickly change the Democrats & their leaders from Majority back to Minority status. Even possible (though extremely unlikely), a Democrat could cross-the-floor and become a Republican. The Democrats (more or less) are depending on Independants. Therefore again, we should wait until January 3, 2007. GoodDay 17:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If only there was some tag we could put on the top of the article to indicate that this article contains information about scheduled or expected future events and that the content may change dramatically as the event approaches. Of course Harry Reid could die or not want the job he is expected to accept. In fact, while we're at it, we should indicate that every expected future event is subject to the world not ending, or everyone involved not dying suddenly, by that time. Lets give the reader a little credit for understanding that the future hasn't happened yet and that information included here is subject to change. We don't have to wait until January 3 to include sourced information (even of a speculative nature) in this article. All it does is put Wikipedia behind every news organization in the world. Sansbras 22:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's cool, I'm alright with that. GoodDay 00:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The dispute however, wasn't about confirmation of who's been elected. We know whom the Democrats & Republicans have chosen as their leaders. The dispute was, alot could happen, between now and Jan. 2007 (deaths, resignations). GoodDay 22:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My post was an effort to provide some historical context to the debate. While "a lot could happen," my point was the "ifs" don't really matter. The entire article on the 110th Congress is premature, and the "ifs" are far too unlikely to avoid proving the facts as we currently know them. I'm new to editing Wikipedia, and have a personal interest and first hand expertise regarding congressional matters, having worked there for a number of years. I'm here to help and contribute as much as I can.Dcmacnut 04:28, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

text: That's terrific, your contributions will help & enhance Wikipedia. PS you should create yourself an account. GoodDay 13:37, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: House & Senate Leaders

message: I still support listing Harry Reid as the majority leader for the time being however. 74.192.210.39 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright; as long as Senator Johnson doesn't resign OR die (in office) & the SD Governor appoints a Republican to complete the Senate term (term expires, 3 January 2009), the Democrats will assume majority status in January 2007. GoodDay 19:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Two words why we have this tag: [[Tim Johnson]]

message: The Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call is reporting that Speaker-designate Pelosi has asked the current Sergeant-at-Arms and Chaplain to stay on in those positions in the 110th Congress. The current Clerk and Chief Adminsistrative Officer are being asked to stay at least until February 2007. This is not confirmed outside of Roll Call, which cites an unnamed source. Not sufficiently "confirmed" in my view to include the info on the main page, but I include it here for reference.
*Sergeant-at-Arms: Bill Livingood
*Chaplain: Rev. Daniel Coughlin
*Clerk: Karen Haas
*Chief Administrative Officer: Jay Eagan
Dcmacnut 20:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Employees 

message: The opening paragraph states that all 435 members of the house were elected on Nov 7, which is not quite correct.  Elections were held for all 435 seats, however I know at least two seats will be decided in yet-to-be-held run-offs (Louisiana 2nd & Texas 22nd).  The introduction should probably be changed to say something like "Elections were held for all 435 seats of the House of Representitives, however two races (LA-2nd and TX-22) resulted in subsequent run-off elections."  It should probably be checked to make sure those are the only run-offs. Tmaher 05:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The TX seat is actually TX-23.  22 is Delay's old seat, which was won by Nick Lampson.  TX-23 is the race between Henry Bonilla and Ciro Rordriguez.  News organizations are beginning to call the race for Rodriguez, which would would put the TX delegation at 19-13. David 03:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The sentence in question has now been rewritten and is now correct. Simon12 03:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Runoff Elections 

message: Please merge any relevant content from [ Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 110th congress] per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 109th congress.  Thanks. —Quarl (talk) 2007-01-02 08:16Z
:I merged it, expanding the size of this article from 53 to 61 KB, which seems counterproductive. Perhaps in the future I will suggest breaking out this section again ;-p. NoSeptember 00:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from [[Partisan mix of congressional delegations, 110th congress]]