Talk:2006 United States Senate elections/Archive 1

message: New Mexico should be blue. We ahve a race too, you know! Forget this state again, and I'll hurt someone. But seriously, someone needs to edit that. I would, btu I'm too lazy YourNickname 23:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New Mexico on Map

message: shouldn't it be "Senatorial" election? --Revolución (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senate election or ''senatorial'' election 

message: I'm wondering if at some point individual pages will be created for these races in each state. Would the names be along the lines of: Minnesota U.S. Senate election, 2006 (using the greatest state in the union as an example)? The 2006 Gubernatorial elections all have individual state election pages. Let me know what other people think. -- MicahMN | Talk 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I asked this awhile back and got no response. Id like to see individual pages with more information on them.  -- User:Charmed88 | Talk 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I think it's a good idea, especially for the major races, like Clinton's one in New York.--Revas 18:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I really like the idea. --Lst27 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I'll start working on one tonight. I don't know if there is a template that I should follow (or if I should create one for others to use in other states). As for the naming, I'm going to create one at Minnesota U.S. Senate election, 2006. I think that if there are going to be different ones for different states they should all at least be named in the same convention. Let me know what you think. -- MicahMN | Talk 00:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: I created the New York Senate race page and I'm not sure if creating individual pages is a good idea since some races - like the Schumer blowout that was the 2004 Senate race in New York - was not worth writing about. Anyway, I have ideas for naming: "Senate election in New York, 2006" or "U.S. Senate election, 2006, in New York". Thanks. --Blue387 07:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia style would suggest that the correct format would be (Name of State) U.S. Senate election, 2006 - Jord 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating individual election pages 

message: Should they be marked "running for nth term"? --Lst27 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Senators who haven't announced that they're running for reelection 

message: The color of New Jersey on the map is light blue, suggesting that the seat will be open. Since Senator Jon Corzine won the race for governor on November 8, 2005, he will have to select a replacement for his seat. I would think that Governor-elect Corzine would choose a replacement who will run for a full term. I realize this map is from the DSCC's website, but the color should be changed.
:Agreed, someone with more skills than I at image editing should make the change. Bob Menendez will be a sitting Senator by the time of the election. - Cuivienen 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I created my own picture and posted it. If the originial author of the other picture has a problem with my version, please feel free to change it.Byrdin2006 19:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color of New Jersey on Map 

message: I would like to know why some of the challengers to both incumbent and retiring senators have been deleted? I re-added the challengers to Senator Byrd, but I would still like to know why they were deleted for the other senators. Byrdin2006 23:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of Challengers 

message: Is the column which contains the 2000 Senate results necessary? It really crowds the page, which already has many columns. Byrdin2006 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's necessary, but it is certainly more relevant than the giant "Control of Congress" section that no one will defend above.  Of all the columns, it is the one that most belongs in individual articles.   Regardless, bold is very distracting, especially since the winner is obvious. --Ajdz 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody has even defended the existence of this column yet. --Ajdz 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2000 Election Results 

message: Strategic Vision is a Republican polling firm. The Washington State Democratic Party considers this firm a biased source aligned with the Republican Party in order to shape media perceptions.
--8bitJake 20:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting concern since the poll numbers that appear to have been up there since December have been from Strategic Vision (but misidentified in the text as Rasmussen) and the most recent change was VERY small (11 point lead to 8 point lead).  But if poll numbers are going to be heavily disputed, they probably shouldn't even be mentioned in this article. --Ajdz 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

text: They are very consistent with other polls in the Washington United States Senate election, 2006 article.  All listed polls have fit within a 49-38 race, plus or minus 3 or 2 points since August 2005.  (Amazing stability, I might add.)  If this is some kind of Republican scheme, it isn't working very well. --Ajdz 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strategic Vision 

message: Judging by the red text in the table at the bottom of the article, there are eight Senate races where no article has yet been created.  If someone would build a skeleton for these, I'll be happy to add details from politics1.com and from the pages of individual candidates (as well as linking candidates to the new eight articles).  John Broughton 00:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, that's taken care.  But a tiny bit of housework is still needed. Folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress decided that the titles should be "StateName United States Senate election, 2006" rather than "StateName U.S. Senate election, 2006".  25 of the 34 articles have been moved, and redirects from old names set up.  Eight of the articles have NOT been moved: Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.  (Indiana is a very special case; I'm working on that.)  John Broughton 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing eight articles on Senate races

message: Is Robert C. Byrd really considered vulnerable at the present time? Any incumbent would love to have a 57-34 margin in an opinion poll. I changed some of the information, but I do not think it should be considered notable at the present time. Byrdin2006 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: West Virginia as a Notable Democratic Race

message: The source indicated is not infallible, of course, but has the benefits of being both neutral and fairly reliable (after all, people are putting actual money where their mouths are, so to speak).  For those who may not be able to interpret approval ratings, state voting history, strength of opponent, etc., this rough-and-ready indicator does a good job of showing which races to watch.  The dividing lines between "safe", "favored", "leans" and "tossup" are somewhat arbitrary, but I used the following thresholds, which I can offer some minimal defense to if called upon: 95% or better, safe; 67% or better, favored; 55% or better, leans, and less than 55%, tossup (with leader indicated).  Like everything else, this will have to be updated periodically. Thesmothete 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know how useful this addition is, and it also makes the table kind of crowded. Having the 2000 results and a current incumbent approval rating seems sufficient to me. Alex 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, why would we want to include just those two factors and not any others (like the strength of the challenger, shifts in demographics, party allignment of the state, etc.  The approval rating alone doesn't tell you much in, say Hawaii or Utah, where relatively low approval ratings are balanced by near lock-step party identification.  Likewise, 2000 voting histroy doesn't tell you much in Delaware or Ohio, where the races are much less and more (respectively) competitive this year.  If chart-clutter is the issue, then if anything I'd remove the 2000 results and approval ratings and keep the competitiveness analysis. Thesmothete 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But how accurate is Tradesports.com?  Let's not forget they picked Bo Bice at 65% to win AI last year and didn't pick Taylor until there were only 2 this year. Not to mention it pegged Kerry to win by almost 70 electoral votes in the 2004 election.  Tradesports just is not an accurate indicator for predicting elections. --Bobblehead 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If there were a truly accurate indicator, we wouldn't need to hold the elections.  However, in general, the market-based approach of trading exchanges have proven more accurate than "experts" in determining the outome of elections.  Mind you, a 95% chance to win doesn't mean the person will get 95% of the vote, just that in 19 out of 20 of such races, the indicated person will win.  That means that in 1 out of 20 of those races, the indicated person will NOT win.  That doesn't make tradesports innacurate, it merely confirms that  even the market doesn't have perfect information (such as, for example, whether a Senator will be in a plane accident).  With different weather in Ohio, Kerry could have won the election by 70 electoral votes. I don't think the test is "is tradesports going to predict every outcome?" which it doesn't even purport to do, or even "are its analysis of the chances always correct?" which they may not be, but rather "is this a better indicator of the chances than anything else we have?" and I humbly suggest that the answer to the third question is "yes". No other single measure, including 2000 election results, or polls about the incumbent, is going to be more accurate. And even better, tradesports is open to anyone, so it's guaranteed NPOV. Thesmothete 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

text:  Here is a link that shows the relative accuracy of polls to market data for a similar market, the Iowa Political Furtures Market.  It show that the market was generally as accurate or more accurate than polling was (and those were polls that actually asked how people were going to vote, as opposed to "approval"). Thesmothete 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Added Competitiveness Indicator

message: The poll numbers are too close to call according to recent polls.  Any Objections? --Bearly541 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the polls are close, then it's a race to watch. Go crazy. --Bobblehead 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Adding Tennessee as "Senate Races to Watch"

message: The latest poll on Rasmussen Has (D) McCaskill leading (R) Talent 45%-42%... I think this should be moved into her column... or at the very least a toss up. However I'm not entirely familiar with the table at the end of this article, so I'll wait for someone who is to agree with me and change it.--Cms479 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The column you are referring to doesn't use polling results such as Rasmussen, but rather uses a market-based approach from TradeSports.com.  Basically online betting. See the discussion here.  If the latest poll results influence a change towards a tossup then the column can be updated. Hopefully this helps. --Bobblehead 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missouri Senate Race

message: Just wondering what the criteria is for notable races. They should all get at least some play in the local media, but are we saying it has to be notable at a national level to be included? Or are we also including competiveness in this measure? As an example, Florida's seat is notable because Katherine Harris is in the race and has made national headlines for refusing to leave the race, but all indications are that the race won't be competitive due to Harris's negative name recognition. --Bobblehead 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be that both competitiveness and national attention are good enough reasons for a race to be included as notable. Usually the two are linked, but they don't always need to be. modargo 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then perhaps Hawaii, Michigan, and Arizona should be removed? None are what you'd call competitive and the national media hasn't paid any attention to them. So perhaps a better question would be what makes these races worthy of mentioning? --Bobblehead 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, I don't see any reason to include "notable" in the title at all.  Senate elections, unless they are completely uncontested, are always notable (though a completely uncontested Senate election would probably be an oddity, and thus notable as well).  Regarding Hawaii specifically, isn't the incumbent only leading his challenger by something like 10%?  That's barely outside the margin of error.  In any event, I think this page should include more blurbs on 2006 Senate races, not less, though perhaps some of them should be edited down a bit. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, Hawaii is on there because it has a competitive primary challenge to an incumbent, which if successful could also make the general election competitive. That seems worthy of note. Michigan and Arizona are both on the trailing edge of competitiveness. The incumbents aren't particularly strong, distinctive, or accomplished, and their challengers are credible. Both states lean slightly in favor of the incumbent, but not so much as to make a loss impossible. The challengers are polling behind the incumbents, but the incumbents never get much higher than 50% in polls of vote preference or approval rating. That all separates them from the many races that do not have a writeup in this article, most of which have an incumbent polling around 60% or higher. All in all, Michigan and Arizona aren't that far from Virginia, Nevada, or Washington. modargo 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! Although, I do agree with Jersyko that we should probably have something about the others listed to. Even if they aren't competitive, they are probably worthy of mention more than just a single line on a table. --Bobblehead 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, each of them does have an article of it's own, linked to in the table. And I think that it is appropriate to provide longer descriptions in this article for the more notable races than for the less notable races - they're not only more interesting, they're also more important. But I wouldn't be opposed to adding another section to the descriptions, something like "Other Races", and giving each race a few sentences. Enough to talk about the incumbent, the challenger, any interesting issues that have been raised in the race, and why the race is considered noncompetitive. No more than a couple sentences. I don't see any harm to it, at least. modargo 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable races

message: I understand he has registered as and is contesting the race as a Democrat. - Jord 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First I've heard it. Do you have a source? All the ones I've seen have him Indy. --Bobblehead 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He was just changed from Ind to Dem on an election projection site ... will look for a more solid source - Jord 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seems he is on the ballot for the VT Democratic Primary  - Jord 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like it is campaign jockeying.. Well, according to this source. Basically on the Democrat primary ballot in order to stop a Dem from running against him and stealing some of his vote.  According to the source he'll reject the nomination and run in the general as an independent. *shrug* --Bobblehead 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sanders in VT 

message: This categoy has now been the subject of repeated anonymous changes to the Sabato rankings, without further discussion here. In an effort to be clearer about the NPOV nature of the market approach, I have changed the title.  Hopefully, that will help. Thesmothete 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The NJ race is not currently stable on tradesports.  The Republican's last trade was at 40, and the Democrat's bids and offers are all between 55 and 65, so this was not a good moment to change the designation here to 50, which just happened to be the last trade.  As a compromise, I'm putting the value at 60, the recprocal of 40 and the halfway point between the bids and offers.  In the future, I recommend not changing the figures when there is instability like this (it usually goes away within a day or two). Thesmothete 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market approach - more comments 

message: The ratings used for the senate races arent credible and is a really stupid source to use. They will be Sabato for now on. no more garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.115.41.168 (talk • contribs) 13:05, July 23, 2006 (UTC).
:It's great that you're being bold, but the switch from Tradesports to Sabato has been controversial. So, how about discussing it on the talk page and providing some evidence as to why Sabato is more accurate than Tradesports. If we're going to analysts instead of TradeSports.. Why Sabato over the others? Cook Report is popular as well. Also, don't forget to sign your comments by puting --~~~~ after it. --Bobblehead 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Race ratings Sabato not "tradesports"

message: Please let's not treat "market analysis" as some sort of credible science. Can we remove the "market" percentages from the chart or at least add some other measures so as not to give this pseudoscience some sort of undeserved credibility or authority?HieronyMouse 01:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think anyone is saying it is a science. We're just using it as an indicator for the trend, which is about as accurate as any poll or analysis is. If you want to propose an alternative to what we're using, then you're more than welcome to do so. Just have to build community support to switch to a different one. On a side note, glad to see you finally made an account. --Bobblehead 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a much more accurate proposal is to have the most recent media poll.Alex 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WHY do you think it is more accurate to have the most recent media poll? (I presume you think it is more accurate in predicting the election outcome than the expert OR market analysis.)  So, for example, take two states, in one state the incumbent has $10,000,000 in campaign money available and the challenger $50,000; in the other, they both have $2m.  In both states the latest poll says that the incumbent is behind by 4 points.  Do think that means that each incumbent has an equal chance of winning his/her election? Or shouldn't money on hand be taken into account?  Or any other factor?  Also, why is the most recent poll better than, say, the poll with the largest sample, or the one conducted over more days, or that had trained human interviewers vs. an automated phone-button system? Thesmothete 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Market" 

message: I congratulate Sholom in providing two alternate sources of non-partisan analysis.  I think this might help us out of our dilemma in terms of describing which races are the most notable.  One nit-pick is that I think all of the races (except maybe the "safe" races) should be listed specifically in that section (e.g. which states, exactly, are the ones that "lean"?). But other than that, I would suggest that we merge this section with the "Races to Watch" section, into a section entitled "Races Deemed to be Competitve".  Likewise, I would recommend dropping the 2000 vote total from the table at the bottom and replacing it with columns for **all three** of the rankings from Tradesports with percentage, CQ and Sabato.  That should keep everyone happy, and provide a balanced perspective on the various races.  I have modified the table formatting to show how it could fit (I'd recommend that we shorten "Republican" and "Democrat" to "(R)" and "(D)" in the Market-analysis column to make it fit more easily.  What do people think about this proposal? Thesmothete 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the other 2 projections to the table here which lasted all of about an hour and a half before being reverted if you want to see what it looks like. ;) Have to agree with the person that reverted it in saying it made the table look a bit sloppy. Too many dueling colors. Shortening to D and R doesn't really save that much space since the headers are rather long as well. --Bobblehead 00:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-partisan analysis 

message: I have made a change I think is very useful. I added a wide blue right border to the four contest where a Democratic pickup is expected. (There are no Republican pickups yet expected.) I think that this is much easier to see than the small asterisk that is currently in use. If the creator of this article does not like my addition, please feel to revert and I am sorry for any incovenience. Otherwise, I think this will allow us to keep track of the race as time progresses. Today polls point to a possible four seat pickup for the Democrats. user:mnw2000 13:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not bad, but you forgot to change the explanation of the chart. I've done so, however you may want to streamline the langauge. 68.39.174.238 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If the bar is based on Tradesports, don't we already have an indicator that the party is likely to switch for that seat? The fact that the column next to the incumbent is one color while the color next to the tradesports column is another is a good indicator. Just need to include a legend saying what each color means.--Bobblehead 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you may recall that we once had color indicated ONLY for party switches, but for some reason we moved away from that.  I tend to agree with user:mnw2000 that we should make it a little more obvious somehow.  Perhaps by shadowing turnovers and tossups (differently?). Thesmothete 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text:  From the above discussion, I believe it was 3-1 in favor of the bars.  That's a vote, not consensus -- Bobblehead is a respected editor on this page, so if he/she has continuing concerns about the bars, I'd want to hear them.  Otherwise, let's go with the bars.  (Although I think they should go on the right-hand side of the Tradesports column, rather than the far right of the table). Thesmothete 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just unclear as for the need since we had the color for the incumbent and the color for the tradesports and if the two don't match that indicates a party switch, but if y'all feel it isn't clear enough, then I don't have any real opposition to another bar to the far right.--Bobblehead 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Replace asterisk (for likely pickup) with colored end border 

message: "To control 51 seats, a majority in the Senate, Democrats would need a net gain of 6 seats (presuming that independent candidate Bernie Sanders wins Jim Jeffords' seat in Vermont and continues to caucus with the Democrats as he does in the House)."
So do they need to gain five seats+ for Sanders to win? 132.241.246.111 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Dems need to get 6 Republican seats. Including Jeffords the Dems only control 45 seats while the Republicans control 55. So the republicans have to lose 6 seats and the Dems have to pick up 6, not including Jeffords's seat. --Bobblehead 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Heh. If Lieberman switches to the Republican caucaus and the Dems get the 6 republican seats that leave the two caucauses with a 50/50 split. I'm not sure how that would work as far as who controls the Senate.--Bobblehead 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: I recently mischaracterized this edit as "blanking" after a cursory look at the amount of text removed.  Rob van Stee explained, however, that he was merely excising unnecessary detail to summarize the article because he believed it has grown too long.  I thought his comment warranted discussion here.
Personally, I don't think the article is too long, especially given the extremely broad subject.  There are certainly quite a few Wikipedia aritlces, even featured articles, that are much longer (I know, I should refer to policy, not precedent).  I am not opposed to trimming the fat here, but I like the brief summaries of some of the races that are described in the article.  I think Rob van Stee's edit, which removed all of the summaries, is too much. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If size is an issue, could always just move the table off to a template page and link the template back to here. *shrug* That method is used on several of the WP: pages. --Bobblehead 16:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summarization by Rob van Stee 

message: What do the percentages mean in "market predicted outcome?" Why are all the percentages in the 80's and 90's? I dont think any candidate is going to get 80 or 90 percent of the vote! So if they arent what the poll numbers are, then what are they?
-crd721
:: Please see the entire discussion, above. The market predicted outcome is not the predicted vote totals but the chance that the party indicated will win the seat. If you click the link for the reference you can find out more information. Thesmothete 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  market predicted outcome 

message: Is anyone else getting the messed up references?  I've got them all doubling up. When I view it in 'preview' it looks fine, but as soon as I save it the reference count doubles. I've been eyeballing the reference links and can't find anything wrong with them, so hopefully someone can ID where it goes wrong. --Bobblehead 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apparently saving a section without any references fixed the problem for now. We'll see what happens when someone else edits a section with references.--Bobblehead 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I changed the color for a TOSSUP contest from purple to black. My reasoning is that the purple color is difficult to see for some reason. I know that some colors are more difficult for some to read. The black is very similar to the dark purple color, but seems to be easier on the eyes and not bleed into the blue or red. Also, froma political point of view, purple seems to imply that the winner will be a Democrat or Republican (which is probably true in reality), but we must always be open that someone other than a Democrat or Republican can win any contest. user:mnw2000 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing Tossup Purple to Black  

message: I dont think its 75% I think its alot closer than that personally i know its closer than the Tennessee race anyways and Tennessee is like 66% or somthing like that
:The number is from Tradesports. There has been some discussion about this before, see above. --KarlFrei 10:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Virgina percentage 

message: Why is it that the market predicted outcome is 90% Republican Favored when Ensign leads Carter by 3%? Rhelmerichs 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nevada Race 

message: Does anyone have a Rasmussen Reports premium account?  I'm dying to know what the most recent Tennessee poll says, exactly. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rasmussen premium