Talk:2006 United States gubernatorial elections

message: Should an article listing states which hold Governors' and other state elections that don't fall on the same day as Federal elections be created? JMurphy 17:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Massachusetts Gov. Romney is retiring, he said today. Please put it in pink, as is the case for other open Republican seats (New York, Idaho, Florida, Nevada, etc.)
:The map has been updated. Next time, start a new subject, don't reword an old one. --JMurphy 23:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massachusetts needs to be changed to pink on map 

message: The Washington State Governor is not up for elecetion it should be dark blue on the map. --kralahome 01:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Washington

message: I just noticed a "minor edit" on this article that the user Deville removed the name of a candidate for governor of Florida, "Atlee Yarrow (SPF)", from the list under the justification "we're not putting every possible micro-party candidate here". I feel this was a unfair and arbitrary exclusion, and creates a partisan POV problem, and upon looking at the page for the Florida race I was more shocked that the other third party candidates had been excluded (especially a semi-major figure like the Constitution Party's 2004 VP candidate Chuck Baldwin) and that only two each of the Democrats and Republican candidates are listed.
This leads me to the hink to there are two things in need of discussion: first, what is the purpose of this list? To display a complete list of candidates running in the elections (as is the case with some, I know the Massachusetts list is complete) or just to show a short summary of some of the candidates (as perhaps teh way some of the lists were intended)? Secondly, where does one draw the line for being a relevent canadidate? I personally would consider any candidate on the ballot with a recognized state party or as ana independent to definitely need to be included, and possibly candidates carrying out write-in campaigns that could significantly affect the election.
I'm going to undo the previous edit, and add some candidates to that list, for completeness, but I think it would also be good for people with knowledge of the state elections to reconcile differences between this page and the state pages. --Alex 21:01, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Candidates 

message: I just tried to go to the Mass. page, and it's not there. What's up with that? Johnny longtorso 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was adding the Massachusetts General Election, 2006 page and some redirect pages, so things might have got mixed up, but it seems to work now. Alex 17:35, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Massachusetts is missing

message: This article was obviously written by a Democrat. Far too many sentences include uneccessary adjectives that negatively describe GOP candidates. Republican approval ratings aren't just listed as percentages, they are described as 'measly', or 'poor'. Someone should change this. Wikipedia is supposed to be an objective source, not a political forum.
:If you don't like it, then change it. --JMurphy 22:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obvious Liberal Slant 

message: User:Cmc0 suggested harmonizing the color scheme on the competitiveness index with that on Talk:United States Senate elections, 2006.  That seems like a good idea.  Currently, that color scheme and criteria are 
: 95% or better chance of winning SAFE            (BLUE or RED if party control would switch, no color otherwise)
: 67% or better chance of winning FAVORED     (BLUE or RED if party control would switch, no color otherwise)
: 55% or better chance of winning LEANS          (BLUE or RED if party control would switch, no color otherwise)
: less than 55% for one candidate TOSSUP        (PURPLE, irrespective of current party control or who is slightly ahead)
Next time I get some time, I'll convert this table to conform as indicated above. Thesmothete 05:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color scheme on list of candidates 

message: What do the different colours in the "Market Predicted Outcome" column mean? Johnleemk | Talk 14:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blue indicates a Democratic party takeover is likely, Red indicates a Republican party takeover is likely.   Those colors were adapted from United States Senate elections, 2006, which has since adopted a different color scheme. Thesmothete 21:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Shouldn't we make it more obvious then? I can't be the only one puzzled by this. Johnleemk | Talk 18:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The list of elections 

message: a recent poll show Mike Hatch leading Tim Pawlenty yet the market predicted outcome is Republican 82%. Could somebody change that? I would, but I don't really get how the market thing works -Rhelmerichs 23:06, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota 

message: For some reason this part was taken out by User:Vic Troy, I reinstated this column in the List of elections section.  It is the outdated version that was deleted, so it needs to be updated.  From what I've read on this talk page, consensus was it was useful.  --  Wikipedical 00:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market predictions 

message: I removed the neutrality tag since the last complaint was in June and it seems to have been resolved. If someone disagrees, however, feel free to put it up again. Bridge Partner 13:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Should California Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger be listed under notable Republicans? 67.188.172.165 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: California

message: I guess it's just my narrow vision of the US, but until the recent edits inserting Guam into this article, I had completely forgotten about the politics of US territories. My question is, then, should seperate pages be established (under something like United States territoies gubernatorial elections, xxxx, but probably something more workable), or just be added to the list of US gubernatorial elections? Either way would work, as the current title scheme doesn't make "states only" clear. --JMurphy 03:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US Territories

message: This map needs changed to somehow indicate the Governor's races that aren't called yet. Maybe add stripes like the Senate map has. Thanks. 168.166.196.40 16:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uncalled states need indicated on the map 

message: So far I haven't seen any major news site that's called this. As a Republican, I'd like to think we've won it, but still quite a bit premature. It's listed at 100% of the vote but the margin looks close enough for the Dem candidate to seek a recount if he desires. 168.166.196.40 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Holy cow, it got worse with an unsourced section that calls MN that no one has called and declares uncalled two races that are. Rolling back. Jon 19:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minnesota 

message: Should we include the results of the 2006 Washington, D.C. mayoral election in the table, perhaps with Guam and the US VI?  I'm of the opinion that we should; however, if we don't, we should remove the mention of the race from the fourth paragraph. --Jfruh (talk) 04:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DC? 

message: Can we get some party info on John de Jongh, the new governor of the US Virgin Islands?  This page says he's a Democrat; his bio page says that he ran (unsuccessfully) as a governor in 2002 as an independent, but is mum on his current affiliation. --Jfruh (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John de Jongh 

message: No source is cited for this data - does anyone know where it came from?
Danlee1001 (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States gubernatorial 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 https://web.archive.org/20090107143027/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/NevadaGovernor.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/NevadaGovernor.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061020003643/https://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/IllinoisGovernor.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/IllinoisGovernor.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081006164828/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/OregonGovernor.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/OregonGovernor.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070311151250/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/wisconsinGovernor.htm to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/2006/State%20Polls/October%202006/wisconsinGovernor.htm
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) 14:34, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified