Talk:2006 United States elections

message: Can we rename this page? Give it 2006 United States Election or 2006 United States Mid-term Election? I dont like this one. To long
WHEN YOU START AN ARTICLE, YOU DONT REPEAT INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE TOPIC. EXPLAINIGN WHAT A MID-TERM ELECTION IS NOT NEEDED FOR THIS ARTICLE (HISTORY WRITING 101)
:Not in detail but you need to offer some explaination. The article appears to do that well enough mentioning what is up for election. Note that although this may be obvious to Americans, it is probably not to non-Americans. Also please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and don't type in all caps. Nil Einne 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename the Page

message: Does anyone know of a news site that summarises the results as they are called (via exit polls) on a single page that can be refreshed?
I'm thinking of something along the lines of:
* House:
** Democrat: X seats
** Republican: Y seats
** Too close to call: Z seats
* Senate:
** Democrat: A seats (B not contested)
** Republican: C seats (D not contested)
** Too close to call: E seats
Every site I've found makes you drill down into specific races and add up the results yourself. If anyone can find a summary site it would be ideal for the references list at the bottom of this page.
Ben Arnold 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This sort of thing will probably start to come out around 7 PM EST, as that's when the major networks start their results coverage.  Not enough information yet to make such calls. — ceejayoz talk 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. everyone should feel free to add other summaries on other websites, such as Fox or Washington Post, if the sites have it available, if anybody is concerned CNN might have a Democratic bias and could possibly predict a Democratic victory too early. But please do not remove the CNN link altogether. (Justinboden86 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look at the top of the table, you'll find the number of contests still undecided. Add that number to the sum of decided elections and you get 435. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Results

message: I think the section would be better worded as "Claims of". They need to be investigated and proven before they are accepted as actual Election irregularities. Jeff Carr 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All irregularities have been verified by other sources. Also, I don't think they really appear to be "claims". Nishkid64 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The presentation of this section leaves the impression of invalidation of the general election and seemingly implies that the results themselves are debatable. Based on how large an event this is, it would be wise to have an interpretation of their relevance based on a numerate assessment. Otherwise I think there is a risk of media bias or sensationalism not appropriate for encyclopedic reference. It could be that I just interpret the world "irregularities" as implying too much. Perhaps remove the implication then and just put "Election incidents, scandals and accusations". Or something along those lines? Jeff Carr 06:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the suggestion of election irregularities implies that the results are debatable. Whether or not the results are likely to have been affected, irregularities are still irregularities as in the rest of the world (and most elections, especially large ones have irregularities of some sort. Americans ones probably have more on average then much of the developed world because they use complicated machines which most of the world doesn't). Election monitors do usually comment on whether they think irregularities are enough to potentially invalidate the results. This will probably take a few days of course. Note that given how close some seats are, even relatively minor irregularities could be enough to affect the results. Nil Einne 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, the Oregon 'problem' was simply that there was high voter turnout on the last day.  We do all vote-by-mail, but the ballot has to be in to the county election office by 8 PM on election day, not just postmarked on election day, so there is usually a 'stampede' of ballot turn-ins on election day.  The 'problem' was that so many had come in on election day that it was taking longer than expected to count them.  That's not a 'problem', that's just a delay.  The voters in towns that were flooded by the heavy rains on Monday would qualify as having 'problems'.  (One small town got 13 inches of rain on Monday!)  But heavy voter turnout doesn't qualify to me as a 'problem'.  Ehurtley 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: I think there's a good deal of hyperbole in the 'irregularity' charge, especially by people who were not in polling places.  Consider the moaning and groaning in Maryland: I am a chief judge (head precinct worker) in Maryland.  When we printed off the vote totals at the end of the night in our relatively small precinct (950 out of 1895 registered voters), we were observed by a representative for one of the two parties.  In addition to the machine totals, we had to count the paper "authorization forms" collected at each voting machine -- a way to double-check the count.  Nine machines at a polling place open for 13 hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.).  At each machine, the total registered on the machine matched the total of authorization forms collected at that machine.  Not one number off.  That, of course, doesn't make a compelling headline, and you're not going to read about it in someone's blog.    We had our mistakes and shortcomings, but managed the crucial part of the process with a team of ten election workers, four of whom had never worked an election before.  — 69.138.9.90 03:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of Election irregularities 

message: Just a reminder to those interested, the United States House of Representatives page will need updating once the official results are in. Justinboden86 06:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the Classes of United States Senators article. Please make sure you don't confuse things tho. An anon user updated it to suggest the results were as of 8th November and the last election occured in 2006 with the next in 2012 for Class 1. This was misleading as said anon did not change the actual numbers. I feel the best thing is to leave it as is now that I've changed it, with the table true as of November 6th. Nil Einne 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reminder

message: What about the state referendums that also took place? They should be linked to, if there's a seperate article? 87.78.150.42 10:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  state referendums 

message: Should we bother to mention that if Congress is split, it will be the first time in a long time (I think I heard this on CNN, not sure how long, possibly WW2 or earlier I guess an American will know) Nil Einne 11:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In addition to the first 6 years of the Reagan administration, Congress was also split from mid-2001 through 2002 (after Senator Jeffords became an independent and caucused with the Democrats). NoSeptember 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split congress 

message: The article says that if the Democrats win the last two seats, this will be the end result (51/49). However, there are two independent senators. Why are they being lumped in with the democrats? Trampled - talk 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Both Independents have repeatedly said that they will caucus with the Democrats. Technically, the split would be 49-49-2, but the Independents would be effectively Democrats. Lieberman, at least, might even sit as a Democrat. —Cuiviénen 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Im just curious because I have looked at the results and all of the polls are in.  But they havnt called these two seats, and the democrats leave in both of them.  I mean they can recount the ballots but the likelyhood of it changing is not overly huge.  I think it would be safe to say that both of these seats will probably go democrat.  --Meanie 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally hope so.Cameron Nedland 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably going to be true, but we won't know for sure where the Senate stands if a recount does occur. It's either 51-49, or 50-50, which doesn't look to bad in either case. Nishkid64 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Allen hasn't conceded yet, but according to AP reports, it's over.  One of Allen's campaign staffers (under condition of anonymity, of course,) said that unless there are obvious 'irregularities', he won't ask for a recount.  And as for 50-50 not looking too bad?  Assuming you mean that you would prefer a Democrat controlled Senate, 50-50 would still be a Republican controlled Senate.  (At least until the next Presidential election,) since in the case of a tie, the VIce President casts the tie-breaking vote.  Ehurtley 09:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard that the recount won't be finished for 6 weeks or so. Pyrospirit 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

text: George Allen has now conceded; no one familiar with the voting process in Virginia seriously believed a recount would make up the 7,000+ vote gap with Webb.  In addition, Virginia state law places many controls on recounts, so that the results aren't all that likely to change.  Despite impressions to the contrary that many people have, most of the "recounting" involves someone double-checking the addition of printouts from electronic machines -- it's not as if the electronic voting machine is asked a second time how many votes were cast.  I say this as a chief election judge (one of two head workers in a precinct) in neighboring Maryland, which also uses the electronic machines. — 69.138.9.90 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  51 Democrats / 49 Republicans 

message: Somebody please change the map to reflect a confirmation of the Montana result. It still shows undecided.
Pizzadeliveryboy 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Montana results in 

message: Can we add "Democrats win big" to this?  As much as I love the Democrats, one must admit it's irregular. :-p — ceejayoz talk 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually given what the polling etc had been saying I would argue it would be more of an irregularity if they didn't win big Nil Einne 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irregularities 

message: For instance I heard late last night that the Democrats had taken control of the Indiana state house. It was by a well known Democratic analyst though, so Indiana news paper sites would have to be checked. 168.166.196.40 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Perhaps changes in control of state legislative bodies should be listed here as well?

message: Changed "probable recount" (referring to VA Senate race) in lead paragraph to "possible recount." Per , the Allen campaign has not yet committed to seeking a recount. SS451 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  VA recount 

message: Didn't check to see who added this, but does anyone think this is necessary in the article? I was thinking it would be appropriate in Election Irregularities, but I'm not totally sure. Nishkid64 23:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I merged that section into "Local Elections". It seems like the appropriate place, now that I think about it (and it also expanded the section, so it's not a one-liner anymore). Nishkid64 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable in South Dakota? 

message: I propose that if irregularities have been reported to be only in specific subset/area of the US voting population that this be made clear. For example "Poll workers unable to get a zero count when voting machines were started, meaning officials could not verify that the machines were secure and did not already have votes in them" appears to only be in Pennsylvania. Nil Einne 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just fixed a few of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irregularities - suggestion 

message: Re: "Summary of the 7 November 2006 United States House of Representatives election results"
Why do we list all of the fringe parties in which none of them won a seat. Why not just list GOP/Dems/Indep and lump the rest into Other Parties? Mdelves 09:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be fine with this, but I suspect some will object. — ceejayoz talk 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's useful for other people to know who else was running in the election. It's not that big of a space that we're using up. Nishkid64 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about an "Other" category with a footnote under the table mentioning all the party names?  This would replace several rows of the table with maybe two lines of text. Baccyak4H 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding the summary 

message: Are the closing times really relevant to an encyclopedia article? jaco♫plane 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just saw you removed them.  Thanks, I agree with you.  Baccyak4H 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, particularly since I'm not sure all the times were correct (I'm fairly certain peninsular Florida is that the lines close at 7 PM EST, but whoever is in line by then can vote). The Dark 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That section was useful on Tuesday night; but yup out of date now. Jon 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closing times 

message: Here's it's stating 231 - 196 among called races (8 uncalled), but CNN is stating 229 - 196 among called races [10 uncalled]. I also note that the House page on this site is also using the 229 (along with the template here) so I'm changing it to that. Jon 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  House Seats 

message: What's the criteria for including them here, I don't think the Wine Sells one is of much interest outside that state. MO did have a tobacco tax hike on the ballot (it failed), along with a few other initives not listed there that weren't even of much interest here.
In addition, CNN has not called the AZ ban on gay marriage the last time I checked. Is there a source that has called it? If not, then it that portion such be removed. Jon 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ballot Inititives 

message: The layout of this page is horrendous! I know I'm no one to talk because I haven't contributed and i don't plan to, but please! It's basically just some lists. More on the analysis sections would be nice...and lots of statistics, too. → JARED (t)  21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll particularly agree with you. Layout is definately a mess. I'd recomend starting by striping the list of Senators in the Senate section and replacing that with the 2006 Senate Election Template. The actual list of Senators would be be much better suited for the page about the 2007-8 Senate. I would disagree about posting "lots of statistics" here. Jon 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll have to admit that this page has gotten better, but the problem now is that the "Irregularities" section doesn't explain itself. Maybe put an intro in there and reduce some of the list to only the important ones. → JARED (t)  17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout? 

message: User:24.2.254.27 wrote, " This map is misleading. Lieberman is an Independent, not a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but he also caucuses with the Democrats -- THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SAME !" right above the map. I know nothing about this and this IP user did not use the proper channels to fix it. If someone can look into it and possibly change either Lieberman or add a footnote on Sanders. Thank you. --Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Complaint? 

message: Please see my edit here. As I explained in the edit history, there is no need to mention s/he's the first mayor of that specific city since logicially if s/he's the first mayor of a city of that size then s/he's must be the first mayor of said city Nil Einne 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see this was toned down a bit, and I think that's appropriate.  The mayor's election is a victory for the Green Party, but in terms of population Richmond is not even in the fifty largest cities in California. — OtherDave 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Green mayor 

message: I have been cleaning up the implications and analysis section, especially trying to make clear (verifiable) the connection between the election and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation.  However, I found a noteworthy source which essentially reports that he was due to be terminated right after the election, regardless of its outcome.  The implication would be that it was only the arbitrary timing of the election, and the political calculus to avoid his resignation beforehand actually impacting the elections, that connects the two events.  
Now if this is born out, I would deem any mention of Rumsfeld's departure as irrelevant to this article.  But despite the source appearing reliable, I will wait a few days for more stuff to come out.  Then I'll update (which includes the possibility of deletion) the reference to Rumsfeld to reflect the new information (if any). Baccyak4H 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications ==> Rumsfeld? 

message: The following line in the intro is rather clumsy while South Dakota became the first state to reject a ban on abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger. It reads rather like South Dakota removed the ban except when the mother's life was in danger (in which case the ban is still in effect). Would it not be better to remove the one exemption in South Dakota's now defunct law, or do we need to reword it? Sabine's Sunbird  talk 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I noticed that when I was reading the article as well.  I think the last part of the sentence ("except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger") can just be removed.  --musicpvm 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  wording of intro 

message: Thanks to whoever put up that tag regarding the "States with Voting Problems" section. I noticed myself that it was just a big list, and that expanding it out would be more helpful. I'm planning to do this, but I am still asking for help in finding sources for the two remaining unreferenced states. Nishkid64 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm thinking of just merging this into "Election Irregularities" and separating each incident by state? Anyone agree/disagree? Nishkid64 02:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  States with Voting Problems section 

message: Does anyone have popular vote data, which is a useful comparison point of the swing in terms of actual voters rather than just seats (which can be misleading). Sad mouse 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume that the links to individual state House/Senate races should provide popular vote data. Also, CNN should have exit polls for individual states here. Nishkid64 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular vote 

message: Why no mention of the stem cell initiative in Missouri? 72.161.57.144 09:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reference: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/9F7DE82B974D006D86257220002BEA72?OpenDocument" (Stem cell proponents claim razor-thin victory). 72.161.57.144 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because little impact to the rest of the nation, but if that's the case the Wine Sells failing in Mass. should be removed which has little impact here in Missouri. I'm a bit more suprized that the tobacco tax hike proposal failing isn't listed. Jon 15:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stem Cell Research? 

message: I've noticed that there is lots of vandalism on this page. I believe that this page should be at least semi-protected for the sake of the article. I mean we can't always have one person removing vandalism repeatedly.
:I disagree. Some of the IP's have made great contributions to the article thus far. For example, see Special:Contributions/144.35.254.12. That user alone has made a good deal of additions to the page. Nishkid64 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page has been removed from the limelight, and there is decreasing activity on this page. I think it's fine now, so there's no need for any protection, whatsoever. Nishkid64 22:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I'm a bit concerned that the only three mentions of international reactions all seem slanted towards the idea that the Democratic victories were a bad thing. I'm sure people can find some opinions from overseas that are favorable to balance out the list, or at least include reactions from some more countries that aren't China and Iran.
:That was the reason why the section was removed by a new editor a few days ago. I replaced the section back into the article, as I believe it is an important portion of the article, and could be reworked to get both the positive and negative international response. I'll try to find some quotes, sources, etc. Nishkid64 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh and by the way, the Iran response makes no real mention of the Democrats, but just says that they are happy that Americans finally realize that the current government was too hawkish in its foreign policy, and they believe this change in government is a victory for Iran. Also, the Al-Quaeda response says nothing about Democrats, and just issues another threat, as usual. Nonetheless, we need to expand that section. Nishkid64 17:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I significantly reconstructed and expanded the "International" section of the article. Here's the changes/additions I have made to the page:  . Feel free to add sourced responses from other places such as South America, Africa, Australia, and from other countries in Asia. Nishkid64 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Now you're just POV pushing. If you have a section on Domestic Response, then you should have a section on International Response, since this was a very worldly election and can influence future relations between the US and foreign countries. By the way, read the section. It's all quoted and referenced, so how can that be POV? Also, remarks to the elections were both positive and negative. I incorporated both facets of that view. Nishkid64 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: at the time i had deleted this section, there had been only the three negative references. i'm glad to see that it has been embellished, although its relevance is still dubious. that being said, i think it makes more sense to talk about reaction to a thing after describing the thing first.ctj 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's all a response on Rumsfeld's resignation or the elections itself. What exactly do you have to describe? Nishkid64 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased International Reaction section? 

message: Under the Iran part it says the following: (there should probably be some kind of quotation box around this next paragraph but I don't know the markup for it and can't seem to find it anywhere)
Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran. "This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday. "Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation." "The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration," the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.
The bolded emphasis is mine.  That sentence looks suspiciously like a line from a newspaper or online newspaper article, and the citation listed is to Reuters.  Unfortunately, I can't actually view the article linked to, clicking the link gives me an error that says the article is not currently available.  Anyway, I think this entire paragraph is simply copied from the Reuters article, and only part of it is quoted, the parts that Reuters quoted themselves.  The paragraph should probably be reworded, with the actual quotes intact (if suitable), but I'm not sure how to go about it since I can't view the source cited. NobleHelium 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Copied Text Under Ramificiations/International? 

message: *Heading changed for accuracy
*"In Gateway, Arkansas, a town of 122 people, 199 votes were cast in an uncontested mayoral race. In nearby Pea Ridge, Arkansas, 3,997 votes were cast in a contested mayor's race for the city of 3,344 people" - clarified for accuracy, numbers were esitmated from previous year's census.
*Added non-dead link to Wooten, added more info
*FL CD13 is no longer duplicated and now reflects current information
*"Poll workers struggled with e-ballots in several states" - removed, overly generic and link dead
*dead link
*dead link
*"Programming errors and inexperience dealing with electronic voting machines caused delays in Indiana, Ohio and Florida." duplicative, removed
*dead link
*ars link removed. Doesn't support content, discusses primary.
*"Irregularities with Diebold and other voting machines have been reported in the early elections" - removed, not supported by refs
*does not support content - removed
*deadlink
*deadlink
*deadlink
*"Vote flipping of voting machines in several states." Not supported by refs
*"Demonstration of crackable Diebold Election Systems voting machine in HBO's documentary" is neither an irregularity nor a problem. - removed
*Removed advertising "A database of reported problems can also be found at Voters Unite."
71.178.193.134 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on United States elections, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061113115913/http://www.cnn.com:80/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap/ to http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/ct.senate.ap
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071007161426/http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_4624247 to http://www.ldnews.com/news/ci_4624247
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070103123033/http://elections.us.reuters.com:80/top/news/usnN07421791.html to http://elections.us.reuters.com/top/news/usnN07421791.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States 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  tag to http://137.99.36.203/CFIDE/roper/presidential/webroot/presidential_rating_detail.cfm?allRate=True&presidentName=Bush
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070930015428/http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/statevotemaps2006.htm to http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/statevotemaps2006.htm#
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061129091429/http://pressherald.mainetoday.com:80/news/state/061111greens.html to http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/news/state/061111greens.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061116040533/http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp to http://sos.mt.gov/ELB/archives/2006/elections/general/house/hd12/index.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920023709/http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/09/GREENMAYOR.TMP to http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/09/GREENMAYOR.TMP
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061123011711/http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-mvote2206nov22,0,1913349.story to http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-mvote2206nov22,0,1913349.story
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061108213327/http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/ingraham.mp4 to http://websrvr80il.audiovideoweb.com/il80web20037/ThinkProgress/2006/ingraham.mp4
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070313022836/http://www.computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004591 to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9004591
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061004192141/http://uspolitics.einnews.com:80/2006-midterm-elections to http://uspolitics.einnews.com/2006-midterm-elections
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061111173251/http://www.bluestatesredstates.com:80/BSRS_Special_Elect2006.html to http://www.bluestatesredstates.com/BSRS_Special_Elect2006.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) 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 11 external links on United States 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://archive.is/20070702002412/http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CONGRESS-PROFILE-11-08-06 to http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?action=detail&pk=CONGRESS-PROFILE-11-08-06
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ncsl.org/statevote/statevotemaps2006.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fc%2Fa%2F2006%2F11%2F09%2FGREENMAYOR.TMP
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070113141455/http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=359 to http://www.constitutionparty.com/news.php?aid=359
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070429124908/http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/daysinsession to http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/daysinsession
*Added  tag to http://www.nwaonline.com/articles/2006/11/11/news/111106bzelectioncontinued.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061111011421/http://www.channel3000.com/news/10265056/detail.html to http://www.channel3000.com/news/10265056/detail.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107200615/http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/07/11670.aspx to http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2006/11/07/11670.aspx
*Added  tag to http://www.kpvi.com/index.cfm?page=nbcheadlines.cfm&ID=37581
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061107191922/http://www.kvlytv11.com/artman/publish/article_1409.shtml to http://www.kvlytv11.com/artman/publish/article_1409.shtml
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20061108211842/http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3638/1/2?TopicID= to http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/3638/1/2?TopicID=
*Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20090707002314/http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html to http://www.democrats.org/agenda.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070103223734/http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22 to http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-11-10T140135Z_01_L10266591_RTRUKOC_0_US-USA-ELECTIONS-IRAN.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States 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/web/20061121141928/http://dailynews.muzi.com/news/ll/english/10026302.shtml to http://dailynews.muzi.com/news/ll/english/10026302.shtml
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified