Talk:2006 United States Senate elections/Archive 2

message: Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the new summary table redundant to the text that is in that section? So basically we're providing a summary of a summary.  Realistically, either the table or the text should go, there is no reason to have both. --Bobblehead 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm biased, of course, but I'd rather keep the table than the text (perhaps some text is needed to provide links, terminology, etc.  The reason I created the table is that I found the text not to be very helpful for comparison purposes.  We could also move the tradesports text into the same section. Thesmothete 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oddly enough, I'm the other direction. I find the table to be too much detail. I don't think the Safe and Favor columns aren't really necessary as those races aren't really the important ones for control of the Senate, especially to the detail of listing every state in those columns. That sort of detail is why we have links to the sites. If someone wants more information, they can follow the links and get the detail of exactly which states are Safe and Favored. I also find tables to be an eye sore in an article and prefer the use of text when it can be done effectively and the existing text does that. --Bobblehead 16:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just musing out loud: perhaps you both have demonstrated why text and tables are a good idea?  One of you prefers one, one prefers the other.  (FWIW, I think the table should go right _under_ that section).  I'm happy to have the table included. -- Sholom 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need both. The article is already rather lengthy, no sense in making it longer with redundant information in the form of the text and the table. I'm definitely against having both, my preference is to have only the text, but I won't lose any sleep over just having the table. --Bobblehead 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the table makes it easier to see at a glance how the different commentators rate the races, and compare among them -- for example some seem to be more cautious in calling races "tossup" than others, which is something you can pick up in a second or two, but otherwise have to carefully read and compare all that text.  Since the "safe" races are quite similar (though not identical) for each rater.  Because there is a meaningful difference in notability between "favored" and "safe" I would oppose deleting the "favored" information. ("Safe" generally means that you don't even have to bother later in the election to see if it's changed status -- there is no chance it could become competitive.  Whereas "favored" means it could become more competitive at any time.) Based on this discussion, I will try to cut down the size of the table and reduce the text to make it all smaller. Thesmothete 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I like the color coding, especially for the "no clear favorite" column, but I'm left thinking that the asterisks to show possible seat flip are redundant now. --StuffOfInterest 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A good suggestion. Could put the color legend down below and remove the single asterisk. I'll go ahead and do that.--Bobblehead 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

text: The font colors are a big improvement.  They make the table even more effective and useful. Thesmothete 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New summary table

message: I went ahead and transcluded the Complete list table.  Editting works the same, just click on the edit link in the section header, but instead of editting the main page, all changes are made on United States Senate elections, 2006/Complete list. Knocked 13k off the article size with the move. --Bobblehead 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is _that_ the table you were talking about above?  Or is this a separate issue? -- Sholom 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Separate. The table I'm talking about above is this one: United_States_Senate_elections%2C_2006#Non-partisan_election_analyses. The complete list I don't have an issue with as it has a lot of information in it that is not in the article itself. --Bobblehead 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Transcluded complete list table

message: Seeing as how Lieberman and Lamont are both considered to be Democrats for the purposes of the table, in rankings where those two are considered to be the only two with a chance, should the race be listed as safe? I ask because Election Projection's listing had CT moved to "Favored", but it's essentially Lieberman 50-ish, Lamont 40-ish, Schlesinger negligible, so it's certain to be some shade of blue. Jonpin 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The catch is that Lieberman is not "safe" for the Democrats. He threatens to bolt to the GOP is he wins but is mistreated (eg loses chairmanship). Rjensen 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be true, but Cook, Sabato, and Rasmussen all say that it's safe Dem. Sabato in fact says that Lieberman says he'll caucus with the Democrats. Jonpin 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's safe Dem on election night--but Lieberman has threatened this week to switch parties if Lautenberg is given his seniority. Of course, Lieberman is getting the GOP vote on election day. The Hill   Tuesday 03 October 2006: "Lieberman said he would keep his senior position in the caucus, even though he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, and is running against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, whom the Senate Democratic leadership has endorsed. "That's what I've been told," said Lieberman in an interview Friday, before Congress recessed for the election. "Caucuses like to keep as many members as they can, not discourage membership," implying that leaders risk his defection to the GOP if they strip him of seniority."  Rjensen 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Connecticut race ratings

message: How about including the 14 races that are super safe for Democrats or Republicans? These would include California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, and Wisconsin for the Democrats and Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming for the Republicans. It might look like this. 
Doing this will give a better overall picture and it is possible that a state in the "Safe" column in most of the 7 reporting sources may actually move into the "Super Safe" when it is in all of the 7 reporting sources. Likewise, something could happen (say another scandal) where a "Super Safe" candidate could find themselves in a race.
<chart removed> user:mnw2000 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First problem is that there isn't a difference between "Safe" and "Super safe" on your chart. The only reason we have some of the safe listed below rather than in the fields themselves is space issues and Safe really isn't that important so doesn't need the detail of having every state listed. If one of the Safe states suddenly becomes competitive, or one of the analysis sites changes it from Safe to something else, we can handle it the same way we did Nevada. Remove the state from the summary section at the bottom and put the state into the table itself. --Bobblehead 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Super-safe isn't a category that exists in any of the underlying sources of information.  It is a category we would be creating based on our own survey about whether there is consensus that the seat is safe.  I believe this would violate WP:NOR. I'm not sure such a category even has any validity.  FOr example, if we asked a bunch of parents which kids are "in" or "out" of the community pool, and there was some disagreement among the parents because a few of the kids were sitting on the edge with their toes in (and whether that qualified as "in" or "out" of the pool) nonetheless we would not create a new category of "super-out" of the pool merely to describe those kids about whom there was not disagreement. Thesmothete 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm. How about moving the blurb about the 15 states to the top of the table instead of having it at the top? Something along the lines of "This table only includes races where at least one analysis has the race list as not being "Safe". <state list> are rated as "Safe Democratic" and <state list> are rated as "Safe Republican" by all analyses". --Bobblehead 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  14 Super Safe Races 

message: This article has been changed quite extensively. The polling information has been removed. The key races analysis has been removed. What is the story? user:mnw2000 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's called vandalism. If you see mass deletions without explanation either in the edit summary or on the talk page, it's generally safe to assume the page has been vandalized. Just revert the changes and leave a warning message on the editors talk page. --Bobblehead 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  74.34.134.178  changes 

message: Considering the referenced policy of Cook Political Reports to not list an unindicted incumbent's race as worse than a toss-up, and considering that this reference is not immediately visible to the reader, how can we justify putting their admittedly inaccurate information first in the list of unbiased sources?  CPR may be unbiased with regard to party, but they are by their own admission biased in favor of incumbents.  There is no other way of reading this policy, and it is rather misleading to prominently display a number of races rated as tossups by supposedly unbiased sources when such ratings are really just deferential measures and do not represent real predictions at all.  172.153.204.41 07:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cook Political Reports

message: While it may seem that both Arizona and Washington are no longer competetive, the average results from recent non-partisan polls show a closer race in these states than in Maryland, which is still included in the list of notable races. As it is also difficult to show notability, I believe that the course of inclusionism is wise in this case. I am adding both states back to the article. Stealthound 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Notable Races"

message: Both of these races are deemed other than "safe" by most of the commentators we have cited in our own table. Removing them was inappropriate.  I intend to re-ad them.  But to avoid a revert war, I am mentioning it here, first, in case it would benefit from discussion. Thesmothete 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Stealthound and Thesmothete.  If anything needs to be done to the list of races, Michigan should be added back.  Removing Washington, which is by most accounts less than a 10 point race at this point, is difficult to justify other than by reference to subjective notability concerns.  We should be less concerned with notability in determining what races to include here, but even so, Washington, at least, meets any reasonable standard. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Washington and Arizona 

message: Why not list them all, in alphabetical order.  (I agree it is useful to know which one's are currently D or R, which ones will be open, etc., but that can be in a table up top).  For those races which are "safe", just keep the description brief.  Heck, there's only 33 of 'em in total.  Thoughts? -- Sholom 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably enough to link from the list of state names above the table. It would mean we'd have to mask including font; but that's not really a problem. Septentrionalis 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why not put 'em all in? 

message: this article mentions that the house and senate races happen on the same day. is it today? it doesn't say when the voting happens. --75.11.13.72 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Check the article's first sentence ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  what day is the voting happening? 

message: I was going to update some democratic primary result, but I noticed the new results include an "other" category.  The question is, should I still list "other" under the democratic party? Or is there an "other" template??  --Tuvwxyz (T) (C) 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other