Talk:2006 United States Senate elections

message: Mitch McConnell was only the Minority Leader after the elections took place. Bill Frist should be listed as leader, if the logic from the previous page, concerning the 2004 Senate elections was followed, which shows Tom Daschle as the Democratic leader even though he lost his seat after the elections. If the logic of this page is preferred, then the 2004 page should be edited to show Harry Reid as the Democratic leader.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Falconclaw5000 (talk • contribs) 17:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: You can find the results of the Kansas elections here:
http://www.kssos.org/elections/elections_statistics.html  I don't have Excel, so I cannot open the docs.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.103.67.214 (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas Election results 

message: The small picture on this page that lists states as either having 2 democratic senators, 2 republicans, etc. shows the wrong color for Delaware. Delaware has 2 Democrat senators.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.82.52.2 (talk) 01:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Incorrect graphic

message: Am I reading this wrong or what. It says if the Democtats win in Virginia then it is a 50-50 split. Since this is the last uncontested race the Democrats cannot take control. So shouldn't that language be removed? Or did I miss something. Since in a 50-50 tie the Vice President will cast the deciding vote and he's a Republican
:Remember about the two independents who say they will, and are expected to, vote and caucus with the Democrats.
::Technically, the Senate is split 49-49. The two independents can choose which major party to caucus with and whom to vote for as the Majority Leader. In fact, as many speculated to, Senator Leiberman, who lost the Democratic primary in CT, will actually hold the difference in the Senate. (The other independent Senator, Sanders, is a self-described Socialist and will always vote with the Democrats.) In addition, while Lieberman will vote with the Democrats for leadership, the Dems better give him whatever he wants because he can "switch" at any time.
: You are reading this wrong. With virginia, the democrats have 51 to republicans' 49. They won montana and missouri, and with virginia, that's the 6 they need to have 51. 68.35.201.102 18:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Democrats Can't Take Control Of Senate

message: Why is there no election in some of the states? Is there one senator for every state, and you only have an election after his/her 6 years are up? Also does "incumbent" mean they are the previous senator and are running for re-election, or does it mean they're still in the middle of their 6 years? I'm not hugely into politics, and I'm not an American, but I think a wikipedia article like this should be slightly clearer on these points for people who don't already know what's going on. 203.97.255.167 19:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are 100 senators (2 for each state), and, in order to stagger terms, every two years approximately 1/3 are up for re-election (i.e., either 33 or 34).  Hope that helps.  (And, yes, a sentence like this ought to be included if it isn't already in the article) -- Sholom 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: See information based on the senate classes. they each have 6 year terms, and they rotate each 2 years as to who is up for reelection. this year it's class 1, 2008 will be class 2, 2010 will be class 3, 2012 will be class 1 again, etc. and incumbent means they currently hold the spot, and they're up for reelection. this is usually denoted by a star beside their name. 68.35.201.102 06:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A confused non-American 

message: Assuming Joe Lieberman wins re-election on Tuesday, I was wondering what color Connecticut should be on the election results map. Would it be a blue "Democratic hold" or a yellow  "Independent pickup?" Some political prediction sites use the former, others the latter. Would a different color and "Lieberman hold" be more accurate? I know it's a few days away, but I figure we should figure it out beforehand in case there is a disagreement. I'm personally open to whatever the consensus is. Bridge Partner 04:31, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If he wins, he will likely make a victory speech and clearly respond to this very question; the Dems will also either celebrate or annex him. Until then, it is probably moot. Harro5 07:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Technically it'll be an independent pickup, he's run as an independent, so if he wins, then its an independent seat. Whether or not he "crosses the floor" back to Democrat(well, if he's accepted back in) will change the seat after the seat has been won as an independent. Mikebloke 00:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: This article makes it even more confusing. Lieberman says to just call him a Democrat. Even though Lieberman won re-election as an indpendent, I think we should list him in the party balance as a Democrat to reduce confusion, especially if C-SPAN and other organizations continue to refer to him as (D-CT). Remember, just because Jeffords was never elected as an independent he was still referred to as (I-VT). In addition, Lieberman never changed his personal voter registration from Democratic. Bridge Partner 19:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  We should refer to him as an independent or 3rd Party caucausing with the Democrats (well, promising too anyway).  Wiki cannot simplify reality to make it more easily understood where that would lead to propogating an error.  Lieberman lost the CT Democratic Primary, which means the Democrats of CT have rejected him as their Senator.  Even if the Senate Democrats welcome him back into caucus (highly likely) the Democratic Voters of Ct made their choice, one Lieberman himself cannot overcome merely by saying "Call me a Democrat."--FNV 23:02, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: At some point, I expect the Democrats will officially welcome him back into the fold, and then it will be official and he can be posted as a Democrat here. However, if "the Democrats of Connecticut" have truly "rejected" him, there must be damn few Democrats in that state, given the general election results. Wahkeenah 23:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CT (Lieberman) 

message: Since this page contains a variety of material it may be useful to also have a brief paragraph on "October surprise" incidents in the run-up to the election, including of course the Foley and Haggard sex scandals, as well as the 11/5 announcement of the verdict against Saddam, and its possibly political timing. Comments? Haiduc 21:16, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The same suggestion was made at Talk:United States House elections, 2006#Cursory discussion of "October surprises"? - those interested may want to look at the responses there.  John Broughton  |  Talk 13:40, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "October surprise" discussion 

message: It seems to me that future election is more specific than current event and therefore we don't need current event.
(Ditto on House & Governors pages) 168.166.196.40 22:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the tag from the House, general, Senate and governors pages. Nishkid64 01:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Do we really need a "current event" tag in addition to the "future election" one?

message: See anything familiar?. Amusingly, it credits the entire thing to "WN". WN? 68.39.174.238 07:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image plagairizm! 

message: Now that Election Day is past, do we still need to have the page under the category of "Future Elections"? I would change it, but I can't figure out how to do it. Stealthound 15:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I'm not mistaken, I believe the "upcoming/ongoing election" template at the top of the page includes the category.  Since the election is still dragging on, perhaps it's best to leave the template for now, though. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:37, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, the future election category includes until the election results are certified. Even in the landslide races, that's still a few days away. 168.166.196.40 16:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The approval ratings and 2000 election results were a good reference before we had results from 2006, so they are no longer necessary. As for the rest of the information, I will work on reformatting it to match with the other Senate election tables. Bridger 19:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Ok, I added a column for the 2006 election results.  I'm curious if we should wait for certification before adding in the numbers.  I'm going to put the color on the pickups.  Chadlupkes 20:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've of the opinion that as soon as all US Senate have been called by most of the major news sites, then the totals could be added here. That could still take a while. 168.166.196.40 22:59, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers 

message: Vote counts for Virginia have been pretty much static for nearly 18 hours now, and precincts reporting is stuck at like 99.45% or something. Has anyone seen anything in the news that explains what the holdup is? E.g. are some counties having recount problems, lost ballots, just slow, etc.? If anyone finds an article that mentions anything, it would probably be advisable to link to that from here. Tuckdogg 00:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ongoing canvassing is mostly likely mixtures are rechecking the totals, combined with looking over the provisional ballots and seeing if their valid and if so counting them, and counting overseas military ballots postmarked before election day that's slightly tardy arriving. I'm not expecting major changes either, but so far only the AP has called this race so this may be premature. Fox & CNN are reporting that AP has called it but both of their elections center leaves the race as uncalled.) (This will probably change by this afternoon US time, most people are expecting Allen to concede as soon as the canvassing is over which as of yesterday evening according to CNN was expected some time today; Fox also has printed this same story.) 168.166.196.40 15:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virginia 

message: Standard practice in the reporting of election results in the UK is to show gains/losses compared to when those seats were last fought rather than to the situation immediately before the election (which may have changed due to defections or by-elections). Thus, these elections would be shown as 7 losses for the Republicans and 2 gains for Independents as Jeffords in Vermont was elected as a Republican in 2000. In other words, compared to the 2000 elections, the Republicans have won 7 fewer contests. The situation in the US is obviously different, in particular because only a third of the Senate seats were up for election, but I wonder whether the article can be tweaked to better reflect that Vermont is, in some sense, a Republican loss rather than an Independent hold...? Bondegezou 11:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How gains are shown

message: I updated the chart with color to make it easier to read. I gave both Lieberman and Saunders a color of yellow to reflect thier election status as neither a Democrat or Republican. It is understood that Lieberman will remain a Democrat in when the next Senate is seated in January. (At that time, the page for the Senate should reflect that.) However, Saunders has stated his desire to be Independent in the new Senate though he will caucus with the Democrats. 
There are many different ways to reflect this on the internet. 
We should separate the election results, 49 Dems, 49 Reps, 2 Inds and the next Senate makeup of 50 Dems, 49 Reps, 1 Ind. user:mnw2000 01:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite often; especially in votes on organizing the Senate, by choosing the President pro-tem and the committee chairs; all of which switched with Jeffords. I agree that Lieberman, and probably Sanders, should count as elected as Independents. Septentrionalis 01:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is that Jeffords essentially bolted from the Republicans and gave up his party affiliation. The Democrats (or an element of them) bolted from Lieberman. The practical effect will likely be nill. But we'll see. Wahkeenah 01:41, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

text: The claim that someone who bolted the party primary is a "good Democrat" is novel, to say the least. Have you a source other than campaign literature? The rest of this is off-topic. Septentrionalis 06:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He didn't bolt the party, the extremists in the party bolted from him and tried to push their own candidate. The majority of the general public saw through it and rejected the official party choice. That kind of thing happens now and then. If the Democrats value their situation in the Senate, they had best kiss up to Lieberman a bit. Wahkeenah 07:06, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to handle Lieberman and Sanders 

message: Some of the Senate races are spoken of as if the midterm elections have not occurred.  For example, in the "Jim Jeffords" section, it says that "Sanders is expected to easily win the election".  However, he has won it.  Should the language be reworded to show that the elections have taken place?  - PoliticalJunkie 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Qqqqqq 00:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate regarding a merger proposal. Please do not modify it.  Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any).  No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was  delete. Bridger 19:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Tense 

message: I'm surprised to see the voter turnout (as a percentage of the electorate) is not given. Isn't that a standard bit of info for any elections? All I see here is that just over 60 million people voted. A rough guess is that the electorate is about 170 million. So would the turnout then be 30%? That's pretty low, to put it mildly. Do I make some serious calculating error here? If not, this is a very essential bit of info, that should be included in the article. Oddly, I can hardly find anything on this elsewhere on the internet either. All I can find is http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=The%20USA%20is%20not%20a%20democracy, where it says the turnout during the last elections was 36%. Alas, it doesn't say which elections those were. From http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/ms/usa/reference/people/voting.shtml (a children's page, for lack of anything better) I understand that an extra possible complication is that people have to register first, so one has to know whether a percentage is for the registered voters or the eligible population. http://fairvote.org/e_news/election2002.htm speaks of roughly 39% in 2002. Roughly?? Is this not known? That would be weird indeed. Or am I missing something? DirkvdM 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Voter turnout 

message: I deleted "[a] notable fact about the 2006 Senate elections is that they were the first since 1986 where the chamber changed hands in midterm occurring during the president's second term." Given that the potential situation for this to happen has only occurred once in the interim since 1986 (1998 Senate election), I didn't see the 1 out of 2 times incidence as particularly notable. SS451 07:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable fact 

message: :Image:LIEBERMANWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:LIEBERMANWIN.jpg

message: :Image:MCCASKILLWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 22:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MCCASKILLWIN.jpg

message: :Image:WHITEHOUSEWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 08:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:WHITEHOUSEWIN.jpg

message: :Image:SANDERSWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:SANDERSWIN.jpg

message: :Image:CARDINWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CARDINWIN.jpg

message: :Image:CASEYWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 19:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:CASEYWIN.jpg

message: :Image:MENENWIN.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:MENENWIN.jpg

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States Senate elections, 2006. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20070224182734/http://elections.us.reuters.com:80/top/news/usnN01194336.html to http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN01194336.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070224182734/http://elections.us.reuters.com:80/top/news/usnN01194336.html to http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN01194336.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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 . —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion