Talk:2004 United States Senate elections

message: Having "seats up for re-election" is very common: . It used here too: .
:Well it's a stupid usage but I won't argue about it.
If they're going to retire, are they any longer up for re-election?
:Yes. "up for" means "due to stand for." Whether they choose to or not is another matter.
It should be OK to refer to seat being up for election (notice I did not say re-election); this avoids comment on what the incumbent plans to do.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The election cannot be on November 1. The formula is "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November." U.S. presidential election, 2004 says November 2 and I followed that article. Please check this.
Adam 13:48, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

text: Jiang, with all respect, please don't be a pedant about date formats. -- Viajero 14:15, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Initial comments 

message: " Most polls show Bowles leading Burr by eight to 10 points; one Republican source said a GOP poll gave the Democrat an 18-point advantage." . Kingturtle 00:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards' seat is not vulnerable. 

message: What does the "C" stand for here: David Schumann (C) 1% (Nevada's Senate election results)? --Anon
: Constitution Party.  I have added a key to the abbreviations. — DLJessup 15:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Comparing the schematic with the apparent layout of the assembly (United States Senate) doesn't work.  How are member seats allocated in the chamber itself?  Fishhead64 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Seat schematic

message: The government has cocked up their own tables. For the state of Oregon it lists 1,128,728 votes for the Democrats. Yet, the end repcap table lists them as having 2,257,456, which would be quite difficult considering the fact that that there was only 1,780,550 votes cast. Unless theres something I'm missing? Using this, the Democrat total vote count for the 2004 senate elections should be I believe 43,625,890, which is less than the current figure listed which is using the recap table. I've tried to hunt it down, but I can't find where this 2,257,456 figure comes from. Mikebloke 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Government Source Gaff

message: Folks, I've updated a few tables on the "United States Senate elections, XXXX" pages, and want to make sure my edits are acceptable before continuing. The most complete example is at  United States Senate elections, 2004. The main changes are as follows:
* convert from HTML to Wiki table formatting where necessary.
* use class="wikitable" to standardize table formatting, with lighter borders and other characteristics in line with other tables on Wikipedia.
* use  and  to standardize the colored cells on the tables.
* replace candidate names, for the most part, with the names of their Wikipedia articles, under the assumption that is the most widely known name they're known by. Middle initials/names etc. may still be found by clicking into the individual's article.
* reformat the "composition chart" (which is incredibly cool!) to have less obtrusive (narrower) dividing lines (class="wikitable" again) and standardize colors.
Any thoughts before I continue along these lines?
-Pete 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  formatting/table updating