Jump to content

Talk:2010 United States Senate elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Automate archiving?

[edit]

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 14 days and keep at least five threads.--Oneiros (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done--Oneiros (talk) 01:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted 11:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC) to eliminate arvhiving. —GoldRingChip 11:25, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Senate election map

[edit]

In the 2010 Senate election map it seems that Connecticut is marked as having no election... this is incorrect as Chris Dodd's seat is up for election. Wether Dodd will run is an other question as he formally announced his intention not to run but his spokesperson said this was merely a technicallity in order to be able to transfer funds to his presidential campaign. -- fdewaele, 17 October 2007, 9:06 CET. —Preceding comment was added at 07:07, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Map should also have Deleware colored in; Joe Biden will resign to become Vice-President. There will have to be a special election to finish his new term (He was re-elected in 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.126.156 (talk) 19:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And when he resigns, and when the election is announced, and when these things are able to be properly cited, then the change should be made.  Frank  |  talk  20:34, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone want to change the color for Florida from dark red to light since Mel Martinez is now retiring and not running for re-election?69.86.239.222 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone want to change the color for Illinois from dark blue to light since Roland Burris is now retiring and not running for re-election?69.86.239.222 (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does someone want to change the color for Kentucky from dark red to light since Jim Bunning is now retiring and not running for re-election?Naraht (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody needs to change the map to reflect the open seat in Texas.... 76.230.57.176 (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not open until she resigns, and she's already backtracking on her statement. We shouldn't assume an open seat until she actually resigns - or at least gives a firm date for her future resignation. Simon12 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama

[edit]

One-term Senator Barack Obama has emerged as a potential presidential candidate in 2008. If he becomes President or Vice President, his seat will become open and thus result in an all-out primary for both parties.

Excuse me but wouldn't Gov. Blagojevic simply appoint a Democrat as the new senator to replace (Vice) President Obama? This would preclude two all-out primaries as the appointed senator would have more than a leg up when he runs for a full term in 2010. -- user:fdewaele, 4 January 2008, 16:30.

You are correct. Open seat races only happen during house vacancies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.180.39.199 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Potential candidates

[edit]

Is there any basis for having some of these names listed as potential Senate candidates? I think there should be at least one source that mentions that the person is considering running and not just rely on speculaiton.SSouthern (talk) 07:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Senate contests in 2010

[edit]

I made the table sortable and added the party affiliation as a column, since it was the only way to make that sortable. Plonker Bonker (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas isn't colored dark or light red...

[edit]

And yet Kay Bailey Hutchison is up for re-election in 2010. Anybody with crayons want to color in Texas? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talk • contribs) 14:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Sen. Hutchison isn't technically up for re-election until 2012 since she was re-elected to a 6 year term in 2006. There is some speculation that she may retire prior to the 2010 election, but nothing is formal at this point. 16:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Obama and McCain

[edit]

In the passage about Barack Obama it states: If he becomes president, Governor Rod Blagojevich will appoint Obama's successor in the Senate who will serve the remainder of Obama's term.

In the passage about John McCain it states: McCain will be 74 in 2010 and has previously struggled with cancer. It is likely that 2008 will be his last chance to become president. Should he fail to do so, he may choose to retire from politics at the end of his current Senate term

The reason I have issue with this is because it would appear that the author is assuming Obama will become the president and McCain won't. You could almost replace "if" with "when" in the Obama passage and it would mean the same thing. Second, there is no mention of the process to replace McCain should he be elected. These passages need to be written with some impartiality; for example, including explaining Arizona's process to replace McCain should he be elected. Before someone jumps all over me saying that I am politicizing this article, I would like to point out that I am an Obama supporter, but I still feel that impartiallity for both candidates should be respected.Jzcrandall (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moot point now. Just update the McCain entry in a neutral tone. Blueboar (talk) 20:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would, may, and might.

[edit]

This article contains a lot of news. See WP:NOT It also contains a lot of weak statements about possibilities in the future that aren't reliable. If a politician says he won't do something three times, then he will do it, because he's being asked. Please consider moving it to a more volatile venue like USENET, or at least taking out the uncertain stuff. BrewJay (talk) 07:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken on this cleanup effort and would appreciate any help. It was a mess and still requires a bunch of work.  Frank  |  talk  21:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware Special Election?

[edit]

Since Joe Biden has been elected Vice President, won't the newly appointed Senator from Delaware need to run for reelection, thus prompting a special Election in 2010? 16:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely correct. While we don't yet know the senator who will replace Biden [a Dem, possibly his son], we *do* know that there will be a 2010 special election in Delaware, similar to the special elections held in Mississippi and Wyoming in 2008. It would be nice to bring this page up to date *now* and then revisit it once Delaware has chosen it's interim senator. Of course, we ought to color in the map too, although I'm not sure that we should color it blue before the interim senator is chosen... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stomv (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Biden is still the senior senator from Delaware. Nothing should be changed.  Frank  |  talk  19:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, but as he is also Vice President elect, he will not take office for a new term in January, and Millner will appoint a replacement. No news organization is treating this seat (or Obama's) as unknown, so it's pretty clear everyone assumes a Democrat. I've added it, though not to the Democrats list. I should move it, probably. I guess I'll do that. But given that every news organization is treating it as a Democratic seat (along with Illinois), we should go ahead and color it. Phil Sandifer (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The two sources are the same listed under the Oklahoma Senate but they appear as 20 and 21 in the ref category. Anybody know how to fix that or is that normal? BrianY (talk) 04:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delaware

[edit]

Why isn't Deleware colored in as "Retiring Democrat?" A bunch of people have been making edits to remove that. I don't understand. BrianY (talk) 15:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will likely be a "retiring Democrat" seat when the time comes, but until the 2010 campaign starts, it's always possible Kaufman could change his mind and decide to run for a full term. Unlikely, but not impossible. Muboshgu (talk) 14:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Kaufman isn't even the senator yet, so who knows what can happen. The state should probably be colored as a "retiring Democrat" when he's sworn in. Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Texas

[edit]

Kay Bailey Hutchinson may vacate her senate seat to run for Governor against Rick Perry. If she resigns her seat, there will be a special election in 2010. Even though it's not official, there are politicians jockeying for such a possibility. Should a page be created? Muboshgu (talk) 14:27, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait until it's official even though she has an exploratory committee going for Governor. Look here, typing in Hutchinson and looking for "Statement of Candidacy" to see if it is official. BrianY (talk) 00:27, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, Texas Law on special elections is different. I think the election is held within 180 days of the vacancy, so it might not coincide with the next general election. Moodyfloydwhofan (talk) 19:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The Senate page - United States Senate election in Texas, 2012 - is coming along well, and much of that info can simply be moved to a special election page if necessary. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:08, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Bailey Hutchison announced on 29 July 2009 that she would retire from the Senate in October or November 2009.Operaman215 (talk) 14:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And on 30 July 2009 she backtracked on that announcement. I wouldn't assume anything at this point. Simon12 (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois and Colorado

[edit]

Under current law, Illinois will have a special election in November 2010 to fill the remainder of Barack Obama's term. Since there is nothing else to go on, I am going to assume that Illinois law will not change between now and November 2010. So, if Roland Burris is eventually seated, his appointment will not be through January 3, 2011, but until someone is elected in November 2010. The person elected will serve the last two months of the current term. In all likelihood, that person will be the same person elected to fill the full term beginning January 3, 2011. Of course we won't know that until after the 2010 Illinois primary at the earliest, and even then it will be theoretically possible for one candidate to win the special and the other the regular election. In other words, there will be one Republican nominated for both the special and the regular election, and one Democrat for both the special and the regular election. At that point, it is almost certain that one of those candidates will win both elections, but it remains possible that they could split, with, say, the Republican winning the special and the Democrat winning the regular. How then should we treat this? Should the special get its own section or should it be dealt with under the regular election and only separated if different people get nominated?

The question is also relevant for Colorado. Ken Salazar's seat is a Class III seat, and Colorado law creates the same situation as Illinois law. Bennet will serve until November 2010 unless he is elected to serve the last two months of the term. Again, the winner of the special election will almost certainly be the same person as the winner of the general election. -Rrius (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I thought there wouldn't be special election. That seems like a weird situation, but now I've looked around and it's happened before in other states, (Minnesota long ago, I think). Can you give us a source for both states? Let's take the lead of United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 and put them together. Unlike the Mississippi article, even, I suspect the Special Elections will not be very notable independent of the regular elections.—Markles 13:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Refs are in the article, but here are the quotes—
      • Illinois: When a vacancy shall occur in the office of United States Senator from this state, the Governor shall make temporary appointment to fill such vacancy until the next election of representatives in Congress, at which time such vacancy shall be filled by election, and the senator so elected shall take office as soon thereafter as he shall receive his certificate of election.
      • Colorado:
  1. When a vacancy occurs in the office of United States senator from this state, the governor shall make a temporary appointment to fill the vacancy until it is filled by election.
  2. When a vacancy occurs, the governor shall direct the secretary of state to include in the general election notice for the next general election a notice of the filling of the vacancy. The secretary of state shall give notice accordingly. At the election, the vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired term. If, for any reason, no United States senator is elected at the next general election, the person temporarily appointed by the governor shall hold the office until a United States senator is elected at a succeeding general election.

Voinovich

[edit]

Has precedent been to wait for an official announcement, or is this source enough to move Voinovich to the section for retiring Republicans? -Rrius (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's enough. It's his people letting us know the official announcement is coming tomorrow.--Muboshgu (talk) 22:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in United States Senate elections, 2010

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Senate elections, 2010's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "wp":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ages

[edit]

It appears that ages for each of the incumbents in 2010 has been added. Is this notable enough to be included for all of them? If not, do we have a minimum age that is worth commenting. Being 90 seems worthwhile, being 65 does not seem so to me.Naraht (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability

[edit]

It appears that someone has taken the liberty of adding in "blank should easily win reelection in this reliably red/blue state." Is this necessary? We don't even know who the opposing candidate(s) is yet. Can we refrain from making outcome judgements for the time being? Acehawthorne (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg

[edit]

In Gregg's press conference less than an hour ago announcing the withdrawal of his nomination, he said he would "probably not" run for re-election. Does some have a source for the absolute certainty now expressed in this article? -Rrius (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since the reference sited in the article was a Union Leader article that overstated what Gregg said at the press conference, I moved Gregg back to "Republican incumbents", corrected the section to say "probably not", and replaced the reference with one from TheHill.com. -Rrius (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than likely a safe bet we won't run. It's rare for a Senator to say that then end up running. It's a risky move and if he was really running he wouldn't of said that, especially not at a press breifing that will be on every major newspaper tomorrow and will surely state that he is against running for another term

Kingzjester (talk) 00:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The point is he didn't say he won't run. He said "probably not" in answer to the question. That does not sound final enough for us to use as a basis for saying he will retire. -Rrius (talk) 01:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is. Certainly if he didn't say one way or the other, he'd be presumed running, but by saying "probably not", I believe he's presumed retired unless he says otherwise.--Muboshgu (talk) 02:11, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He was even more definite in an interview he gave to the Concord Monitor after that press conference.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.218.214 (talk • contribs)

Including people who aren't running

[edit]

At the moment, several politicians who aren't running for Senate seats (such as Jeb Bush, Allan Boyd, Jim Naugle, ect.) are included in the write ups. I think this clutters the article a bit: we don't need to mention every congressman and mayor who could run for the Senate but isn't. If someone started running but drops out then they should be included, but including everyone who has announced that they are not running just seems a waste of space. On this page, I think we should only include people who are running or are considering running, not people who aren't running. What does everyone else think? -CylonCAG (talk) 16:45, 13 February 2009 (CST)

I agree that we should not write everyone who is not running, but perhaps we could make an exception for really big names who were rumored to be looking at it and ended up passing on the race. Jeb Bush would be such a person, I believe, and perhaps Alex Sink. (I agree that Jim Naugle and Allen Boyd have no business being on this page.)
That sounds fair. The one problem I see is how do we define "big names". I think current and former governors definitely count, as well as any former senators (such as Jim Talent). Alex Sink I agree is a big name, but that leads to the question of whether we should include any statewide figure (such as John Suthers for example). Though I think fairly well known people like Chris Matthews definitely count. -CylonCAG (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2009 (CST)
There was a lot of talk about Sink in the media, and not much about Suthers. I guess that because Florida's race is an open seat. Right, now the article looks fine with I think only Bush, Talent, Matthews and maybe a couple I missed on it. BrianY (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. I think we should get rid of Napolitano and Shadegg as well. Napolitano took herself out of the running so early that speculation she'd run became nothing more than that (unlike Jeb Bush, who was actively considering it), and Shadegg might have only run under conditions that don't apply anymore (McCain being President). -CylonCAG (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2009 (CST)
Agreed!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.218.214 (talk • contribs)

Polls

[edit]

I don't think polls of approval ratings or potential match-ups should be included here, and instead saved for the election article. Any thoughts? Eaglesfan619 (talk) 03:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Robert Bennett (Utah)

[edit]

I think it unwise to dismiss an in party fight for Senator Bennett's Utah seat. Out of the 4 potential GOP candidates that have announced they are gathering support to for a "possible" run the list includes the State Attorney General. The AG has admitted publicly to polling past state GOP delegates, even though Senator Bennett has announced he is running for 2010. Rep. Jason Chaffetz defeated Chris Cannon after 12 years in office. Whether any of the 4 GOP currently seeking support to run against Senator Bennett will win, they have all gone public with their status. --Archf 1 (talk) 16:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We shouldn't assume anything. For example: In Vermont, there might be a close race if in the Dem. Primary it was Howard Dean vs Pat Leahy. BrianY (talk) 04:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent formatting changes

[edit]

The many recent edits by Semocrat08 introduced, in my mind, a lot of formatting and POV issues. In a newspaper, an officeholder might be called Sen. Joe Smith (D-Ark.), but in an encyclopedia article, wouldn't we be better off with Democratic Senator Joe Smith of Arkansas? Second, to call states "deeply red" or "strongly blue" has no place here, in my opinion. Qqqqqq (talk) 15:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We should write the entire party and state names. Also, I think we should include the Obama/ McCain %s in each state, to let them speak for themselves on whether a state is blue, red, or purple. CylonCAG (talk) 01:13, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The top-of-ticket results are not always a true indication of which way a down-ticket race will go...especially considering this will be an off-year election. Somme states may be more driven by a 2010 gubernatorial race or perhaps even a ballot initiative or proposed constitutional amendment or burning issue. I have a feeling things here in Iowa are going to be interesting due to several of these factors (and more). Just something to consider.--averagejoe (talk) 01:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. As the election becomes closer we can include those factors. But while the state's presidential % isn't the only factor, it is still a very important one. By presenting the numbers, we're simply reporting it in an unbiased way. CylonCAG (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that at this time. Cheers! --averagejoe (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that's in agreement, but I have another issue, this time with the summary table. I contend that the candidates of the incumbent party should be listed first, followed by those of the other party/ies, rather than as a jumble of all candidates from all parties. It's rather confusing as it stands. The narratives up top use the format of incumbent party first; why not the table as well? Qqqqqq (talk) 06:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It is a bit messy how it is now. I'll make the changes in a little bit. CylonCAG (talk) 02:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. While we're on this subject, should we include candidates who have filed exploratory committees but haven't announced they will run yet? CylonCAG (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice work! I was going to do it, but I thought I'd ask first, because I had already made this change once before, and somehow we got back to where we were before. I think it would be good to have candidates with exploratory committees as well, perhaps denoted, say, in italics or something, to distinguish them from announced candidates. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I also like the italics idea. I'd like to wait a day and see if anyone has any objections (since it's slightly more controversial than fixing the order) but I think it's a great idea. CylonCAG (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Including Swing State Project in race ratings

[edit]

I think SSPs a great website, but I'm not sure we should include their race ratings. Because they are a Democratic blog, I'm afraid we're violating NPOV by including them. Maybe if we included a well known conservative site's rankings this would be better, (though to my knowledge there is no conservative blog like SSP) but I think it would be better to limit ourselves to non-partisan websites like Cook, Rothenberg, and CQ. What does everyone think? CylonCAG (talk) 03:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RCP is a conservative website, and they will at some point have a rating system. That could balance things out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.218.214 (talk) 02:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That may work. My fear if we did that is we could open the door to any well known liberal/ conservative website to post ratings. Even if for every Daily Kos we had a Free Republic, we might end up with too many predictors and it could be confusing as to who's openly partisan and who isn't. Maybe if we seperated non-partisan, liberal, and conservative websites into different catagories this may work. CylonCAG (talk) 19:55, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do the partisans add anything worthwhile? -Rrius (talk) 20:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is RCP Real Clear Politics? How is that a conservative website? All they do is find all the polls that have come out in the last week and average them together. They don't purposely exclude PPP or any other liberal polls. The partisans don't add anything... There's nothing wrong with the ratings right now, but they are assuming the best Democratic candidate wins (not Burris in Illinois as evidenced with the Illinois in the Likely Democratic category). Also Connecticut is the in Likely Democrat category after the latest poll showed Dodd down by 19 points against Simmons, and down by about 5 points against Foley. I don't know of any Republican pollsters releasing this information right now. BrianY (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Real Clear Politics (RCP) usually has conservative commentary. I know Nate Silver (who leans to the left) accused them of cherry picking polls in a way that was biased to McCain, though Silver backed off from that accusation somewhat. (Silvers accusation is here and his follow up is here for anyone interested.) Also, for what it's worth, Wikipedia calls it a conservative website. To my knowledge no well- known liberal or conservative websites besides SSP are releasing ratings, which I believe causes POV problems if we include just SSP. CylonCAG (talk) 03:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if there is nothing to balance SSP on the right, then we don't need to include it. BrianY (talk) 22:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean we don't need to include SSP or we don't need to include something else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.165.218.214 (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
SSP. BrianY (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions

[edit]

It's kind of confusing to look at the prediction section and see Connecticut in the Likely Democrat section for some pollsters and in the Tossup section for others. I would suggest eliminating or removing for the time polls that have not been updated in two months so people aren't getting confused about races that have changed rankings. You can always look at the date ... but its much less confusing if you just look at the graphs and see Connecticut listed under tossup right now for every pollster. BrianY (talk) 23:35, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: do you mean remove old polls after two months (such as a February Quinnipiac Poll) or old predictions (such as Cook predictions that haven't been updated since February)? CylonCAG (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any polls on the main page? I meant the predictions. BrianY (talk) 22:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specter in Pennsylvania

[edit]

Given that Arlen Specter announced he will run for reelection as a Democrat, Pennsylvania should be colored dark blue as it now has a Democratic incumbent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 (talk) 01:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Texas special election

[edit]

Kay Bailey Hutchison has already sent out mailers saying she is running, and Sen. Cornyn believes she will resign from the Senate in the fall so as to trigger a special election in May 2010 rather than November 2009. Assuming for the moment that is how it will happen, what will we deal with that here? Will we put just that special election in a separate section, or will the all the special elections go in that section? I presume that the Texas special would be handled here just as special elections are dealt with in the House election articles in even years, but perhaps I shouldn't. At any rate, I was just looking to get this nailed down so that we know how to handle it when Sen. Hutchison announces she will be resigning. -Rrius (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"or will the all the special elections go in that section?" Who else is resigning in 2009 or 2010? Maybe, going to here and under governors, creating a new column called "special elections" and then linking to United States special election in Texas, 2010. Will the person who wins the May election have to go on to win again in November like some states? I'm not sure. BrianY (talk) 16:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the New York (Gillibrand) and Delaware (Kaufman) special elections, which will take place on the regular November election date. The winner of the May election in Texas, again assuming there is one, would not face election again until 2012. What do you mean by "new column"? Do you mean a new section? -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I most certainly mean section. (I wasn't fully awake when I wrote the first comment). The Gillibrand, Kaufman, Bennet and so forth elections will take place exactly where they are now. Hutchinson might be need to be in a different area because a) the election wouldn't take place in November 2010, b) There will be no incumbent running in the seat BrianY (talk)

Predictions: Massachusetts

[edit]

Massachusetts got added to the "safe for democrats" entry. Should that be done before there are actually any predictions from any of the sites used?Naraht (talk) 15:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. BrianY (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kennedy

[edit]

Should we be including Ted Kennedy's senate seat in this article? Isn't this election supposed to be about elections in November 2010? Kennedy isn't running to fill a Class Two seat. Because by the time November comes around, Kennedy's successor will be in office and won't be running for an election then. Also, would we "remove" Kennedy's safe democratic seat from the ratings (or whatever the rating is) after the election because the successor won't be running later that year? (We certainly shouldn't have ratings not affecting the 2010 cycle on this article in Nov. 2010) Will we also include KBH's seat just because there might be a special election triggered in February or March or whenever? I would suggest moving these two elections to a new heading here. The new heading could be called "Special elections" or something. BrianY (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the US House elections, even-year elections are placed in a special section at the top of the article. See, e.g., United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. That is what I was trying to get at in my discussion of the potential Texas vacancy above. -Rrius (talk) 23:44, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All right. Thanks for showing me that. (And making it clearer than you did above with KBH) Would Massachusetts still be in the "race ratings" come election day? And, the map, presumably would not need to be changed to include his race? BrianY (talk) 23:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I assumed a familiarity with the House articles, but I shouldn't have. I don't think it makes sense to include race ratings or change the map. I also think we could do a better job separating the Massachusetts race from the others. I'm not sure exactly how to word the section. "Special elections held before November 2"? -Rrius (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As it says on the House 2008 page, Special elections in 2010 for the 111th Congress. But on the other hand, I like your idea better. BrianY (talk) 02:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with "Special elections in 2010 for the 111th Congress" is that several seats will have special elections for the 111th on Nov. 2. Logically, New York (Gillibrand) and Delaware (as well as Illinois and Colorado if those states follow their own law) would need to be included there, too. If Gillibrand loses, her replacement would be entitled to be sworn in during the 111th, and whoever wins in Delaware will be entitled to be seated in the 111th. That's why I figure something like what I suggested ought to be used. I don't really like my suggested language, but I haven't thought of anything better yet. -Rrius (talk) 03:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I realized that would be a problem, so that's why I said I liked your idea better in my previous comment. Has anything liked this happen in the past where we could use that title as a reference? (I can't remember it from '04 or '06, '08) BrianY (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The last one I can recall is Ron Wyden in 1996. The 1996 article doesn't include him, but that article was obviously created differently from this one. Perhaps once we've lived through this, we can go back and re-do that one and any others like it. -Rrius (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Updating

[edit]

This page is in a serious need of update. If you look at the bottom chart, and at the individual paragraphs for each race, you will see that many names are included in one of the two, zero, or names are included that aren't running. I did a major update to Nevada and Arkansas yesterday. I would suggest looking at individual race pages, such as this and making sure all candidate information is up to date. BrianY (talk) 01:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Independents and Third Parties

[edit]

A new user named User:Bstrent2009 has been adding (mostly without citing any sources whatsoever) the names of minor independent and third party candidates to various sections of this article (see these edits, these edits, and these edits). It's not that I think these are necessarily inaccurate; it's just that I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources for all this information. Help would be appreciated with that. Also, some of Bstrent2009's refer to these independent candidates already being "on the ballot." Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there a long while before anyone is technically "on the ballot" for 2010 due to filing deadlines etc.? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the New York Times a credible source anymore? (seriously)

[edit]

The New York Times is cited as calling the Massachusetts Senate seat "Safe Democratic" and they are also saying the Nevada "Leans Democratic". Can they be more wrong?

Health care bill

[edit]

The article should maybe mention the potential effects of the 2010 elections on Obama's health care legislation, if it is not adopted in January and people like Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson hold out until that period. For instance, Louisiana is currently held by Democrat Mary Landrieu, but certain polls have predicted that it will go to a Republican. This would probably give Republicans a slight edge needed to finally defeat the bill. ADM (talk) 10:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not that the bill's defeat is particularly probable anymore, but Mary Landrieu isn't even up for re-election this year.
I made a mistake, I was likely refering to the Massachusetts senatorial election on my December 15, 2009 comment. It appears, as of January 19, 2010, that Republican Scott Brown will defeat Democrat Martha Coakley in that state, something which opens up new negotiations for the health care bill, which now has more chances of being defeated. ADM (talk) 02:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we should really talk about the effects of the bill unless we have verified sources. Even then, the information should only be added on a race-by-race basis until the election is either over, or it is clear that the bill is driving the election. -Rrius (talk) 02:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Massachussets election has just finished, and many sources have already analyzed its impact on the bill. I just wanted to say that I find it curious that my December 15 comment was able to predict the outcome of such an election over one month before it occured, at a time when everyone thought Coakley would win. [1][2][3] ADM (talk) 03:22, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I actually read your initial post backwards; I thought you were saying we should talk about the bill;s impact on the elections. Now that I understand, my answer is no. The special election might make sense as a place to discuss it, but otherwise, that information should be at the articles about the bills and about healthcare reform. Also, please don't copy whole threads and add them to my talk page. I'll either see that you said something and respond, or not. If you really want my input, just leave a note at my talk page saying you've said something here. -Rrius (talk) 03:30, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't looking for your imput, I was just replying to the second comment in this thread that was left by an anonymous user. But perhaps that anonymous user was you, I haven't got a clue about that. ADM (talk) 03:38, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, wasn't me. I still don't understand why the thread ended up on my talk page, though. -Rrius (talk) 03:47, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it shouldn't of, just a minor error, and I think that's about it for this conversation. ADM (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of a weird one, but sure, I guess it is. -Rrius (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List needs updating

[edit]

someone please add chris dodd to senators retiring, politico msnbc and huffingtonpost reporting he will not seek reelection. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/senate/chris-dodd-to-step-aside.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midgetman433 (talk • contribs) 05:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done awhile ago. Metallurgist (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add that former Gov. Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin is considering a challege to Russ Feingold and as Rasmussen poll issued in mid-February showed him leading Feingold 48%-43%, per Newsmax e.mail bulleting of March 7, 2010. Okie Kid (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC) OkieKid[reply]

Paul Kirk

[edit]

If Scott Brown has already one the seat, should it still be considered "up for grabs"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.166.137.11 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That was the rating at the time of the election. -Rrius (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swing State Project

[edit]

Why are we using a self-proclaimed Democratic website for ratings? Their ratings seem fine ... but if you go to their website, they just did an update and have little lines that suggest they are more inclined to keep it at pro-DEM if a certain pollster polls etc. BrianY (talk) 03:52, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying it should be removed just because of their commentary? You yourself just said their rating were fine, and presumably by that you meant unbiased, so what are you trying to argue here? Nevermore | Talk 17:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When most rating sites had moved CT-SEN to Leans Takeover (Republican) when Dodd was still running, SSP was way behind. BrianY (talk) 02:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And that means...? They had a difference of opinion. CT is a very Democratic state and while Dodd was in a tough place SSP probably believed it would come back to its roots eventually. Which is a logical thing to think. Doesn't show bias. Nevermore | Talk 08:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dead references

[edit]

Almost all of the reference (external) links I have clicked on are dead. I suggest that whoever is sourcing this article should make sure they are using more stable links. Bro2baseball (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LeMieux vs. Martinez

[edit]

Why does this list Mel Martinez as the retiring incumbent? He's long out of office. The seatholder is currently George LeMieux, who will not be running for re-election. I would fix it myself, but it will take a bit of work to rewrite the paragraph and I dont have that time at the moment.--Metallurgist (talk) 06:50, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to believe I missed that; Florida race is now updated.~BLM Platinum (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pryce is Running for the Senate in Ohio

[edit]

He is not a well known person but I do believe he is running for George V. Voinovich's seat in Ohio. He, however, is not listed on the page.

Sources: http://www.hudsonhubtimes.com/news/simple_article/4781723?page=0 http://www.michaelpryce.com/ http://www.bignews.biz/?id=849056&keys=Senator-Ohio-MD-Author http://www.pr-inside.com/michael-l-pryce-md-announces-candidacy-r1762674.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.163.60 (talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Polling section??

[edit]

On March 12, I noticed the following comment (invisible to normal readers of the article) as follows, by an anonymous user:
(comment:)--All of this is subjective at best, and partisan at worst. It provides no factual, verifiable knowledge to the community, and would be more appropriate in an up-to-date news location, such as WikiNews. I recommend deleting the entire thing, which I will attempt to do in 48 hours, unless someone tells me to do otherwise.--
I replied:
(comment:)!--I would strongly disagree. Also, please also post such discussion on the "Discussion" page (the tab at the top of the page) for everyone to see--I'll comment there--Dwight666 Mar 12 2010.--(/comment) May I further say: This page gets 7,000 hits a day so there must be something attractive about this article. Contributors keep the table up-to-date, even tho it takes a bit of non-user-friendly editing. The pollsters that are listed in the table use very valid statistical methods in a very professional manner; these are not NEWS but POLLING RESULTS. Wikipedia is well-known in the US, and search engines often sort Wikipedia's results to the top--which reflects not only their utility but their popularity. Wikinews is just not as well known or utilized. Comments anyone? Dwight666 (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely believe it should stay; it's non partisan or POV, and it gives the user a better since of what the election could mean. –BLM Platinum (talk) 19:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MN disputed election and extraconstitutional process

[edit]

My entry clarifying that MN took an extraconstitutional path to seating Al Franken was removed with the statement that there was no need for a special election while the general election was in dispute. I need a source for this as it would constitute original research otherwise. The 17th amendment refers to "vacancy" and every site I have read refers to the vacancy from Minnesota. If vacancy no longer means vacancy I need a source, otherwise my clarification goes back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwbaumann (talk • contribs) 23:30, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Washington state Safe D?

[edit]

How is washington state listed as safely Democratic? Every poll shows a 1-2 point lead for the democrats, except for one, with un officially announced candidate Dino Rossi. Rossi leads by 10. Crd721 (talk) 23:38, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Utah Race

[edit]

The map legend suggests Republican held states where the incumbent is either retiring or has been defeated in the primary phase should be colored a light red. Yet Utah, where the incumbent Republican has already been eliminated, is colored solid red. I'm going to go ahead and fix this inaccuracy, I think no one has any objections? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.50.146 (talk) 16:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. I have no knowledge of SVG editing. If this was bitmap I would have happily done it. Could someone else handle it though? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.50.146 (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Runup to the 2010 election

[edit]

This article is about the 2010 elections, not every change in membership of the past two years, much of which having absolutely nothing to do with these elections. That belongs at 111th United States Congress, not here. This also has POV: "A non-Constitutional process occurred." Reywas92Talk 22:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Bennett's vote on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

[edit]

For some reason, Senator Bennett's vote on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) is being incorrectly stated. He, along with every other Republican at the time besides Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, and Arlen Specter, voted against ARRA.

Here is the vote on the cloture motion for the substitute amendment: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00059

Here is the vote on the passage of the bill: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00061

Here is the vote on the conference report: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00064

He voted No each time. So if "Bennett's vote for the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 incensed the Tea Party enthusiasts," then those Tea Party enthusiasts have no idea what they are talking about. Keep in mind, Republican Bob Bennett of Utah is not the same person as Democrat Michael Bennet of Colorado. Maybe the person was thinking of the TARP vote back in 2008. Please change this immediately! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.10.47 (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Proposal

[edit]

As we have it now, I think the subcategories are a bit clunky looking. I propose tho following:

  • Retiring/Defeated in Primary (Democrats)
  • Retiring/Defeated in Primary (Republicans)
  • Incumbent (Democrats)
  • Incumbent (Republicans)

Theres really no sense in separating the defeated from the retirees since none of them will be on the November ballot. These titles are just suggestions, but the concept is what I support. --Metallurgist (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

West Virginia

[edit]

As far as I can tell it's still not 100 per cent clear when the election to fill Robert Byrd's seat will be held. It might be prudent to mention the situation somewhere on this page until it gets fully resolved. 67.191.251.78 (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is now. So, edit lively.
72.82.166.58 (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updates for fivethrityeight

[edit]

Fivethirtyeight has released new updated predictions, but they are not listed in a safe/likely/lean format. Instead they are give percent chances. In past, fivethirtyeight has given predictions in both forms, stating a mapping for percentage to safe/likely/lean categories. Would it be appropriate to use that previous mapping to post their new results even though they do not explicitly still state that mapping?

Also, fivethirtyeight is now part of the New York Times, but seems to have retained its brand identity. Do we need to put a New York Times label by the predictions also or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.210.61.60 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tags on California race

[edit]

I have concerns about the use of Wikipedia editor opinion and weasel words. Additionally, use of primary race statistics is unbalanced and contains POV such as "only 80 percent." I'm asking for a POV review of the section by an unbiased editor who has not worked on this article. Wikipedia is an academic resource - not a medium to push a particular political viewpoint. A review by an uninterested editor can ensure the quality of this project. - Davodd (talk) 13:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clutter

[edit]

Am I the only one who thinks that the campaign-expenditure figures, among other things, makes the table at the bottom of the article too cluttered? -Rrius (talk) 06:32, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we remove all Daily Kos/Research 2000 polls?

[edit]

The founder of the Daily Kos website has come out and said that he believes that all polls paid for by his website and done by Research 2000 are questionable and that he has no confidence in them. The founder of Daily Kos also said, and I quote, "I ask that all poll tracking sites remove any Research 2000 polls commissioned by us from their databases. I hereby renounce any post we've written based exclusively on Research 2000 polling." http://politicalwire.com/archives/2010/06/29/report_suggests_firm_made_up_polling_results.html

I am writing this to see if we should follow suit. I have taken no action, but I want to see how everyone else feels.

Thanks, America69 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What has happened to the "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" rule? Future events are supposed to focus only on that they are to happen and not get involved in warring factions of people predicting the outcome. This article seems to have gone way over that line.69.37.3.221 (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're misinterpreting WP:CRYSTAL. Reporting on what poll numbers say is not speculation on our part. If we were to say that so-and-so would win based on an analysis of these poll numbers, then we're violating WP:CRYSTAL. No such thing is being done here. --kurykh 05:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senate balance of power

[edit]

Can someone add the senate balance of power as given here? Axxn (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Byron Dorgan

[edit]

Someone should update North Dakota's senate race on this page since Dorgan has said he is not running since January 2010 and Hoeven is leading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.86 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arrangement of Article

[edit]

When this article was originally created separating the races into the various categories such as Retiring Republican Incumbents or Democratic Incumbents Defeated in Primary may have made sense. But at this point I think it makes it difficult for a reader to navigate the article. I would suggest a simple categorization in the Table of Contents by alphabetized State name alone.

If necessary a brief table could be included to summarize the various categories such as Democratic Incumbents, Republican Incumbents, Retiring Democrats, Retiring Republicans, Defeated Democrats, Defeated Republicans. But all the details should be included in the State section.

As this would be a lengthy and time consuming edit, I am hesitant to embark on it without some sort of consensus from the original/main contributors. --NateOceanside (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical arrangement of prediction sources?

[edit]

Were the prediction sources listed arbitrarily or something? Wouldn't it be best of they were arranged alphabetically (i.e. Cook, FiveThirtyEight, Sabato, etc.)?

Thoughts? Phobosphobia (talk) 01:57, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change Chart

[edit]

On the chart, or table, or whatever it is, should we make one of the D's a D+, since Mike Castle lost? I understand that he was just filling in for someone else at the time that he was serving, but still, he was a Republican, and he will be replaced during the 112th congress. So, what do you think? 97.117.12.15 (talk) 05:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's not a D+ because it was never Castle's seat. It was Kaufman's seat, who's a D. Therefore, it goes from D (Kaufman) to D (Coons), thus a D O, because it's a Hold.—Markles 10:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add Rubio

[edit]

'Nuff said. He won his election in Florida. Add on the map that it was a Republican hold. J390 (talk) 14:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm serious. If we have any encyclopedic integrity, we'd add the results of the Florida election. It was one of the most watched races. Don't ignore me, it's better off if we add it. J390 (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find an error, omission, or oversight, feel free to correct the article. That's your job. --NateOceanside (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change in Composition

[edit]
Moved from User talk:Markles#Senate Article Edits

Markles, I appreciate the updates to the Senate Change in Composition, however you may be retracing some of my earlier steps.

(1) I would prefer to restore the "Key:" at the end to a vertical list of the various colors (as I originally designed it). When it is listed horizontally (as you have changed it to) the casual reader can easily mis-interpret this as being another chart listing with some significance attributable to the length of each bar (where none exists). With a vertical listing the reader is immediately alerted to the fact that this is different information (a "Key" and not another chart).

(2) More seriously. This is already a cluttered article, likely with too much content. In fact others have gone thru and done wholesale deletes of entire sections that actually have significance. So I'd suggest that if you are going to introduce the new category of "before the election" and "between the election and the end of the 111th congress" that you need some sort of explanation. As it stands now, you have a differentiation without explanation. I'd suggest a "*" with a quick note right at the chart, then a link to the actual race in the State-by-State section where you can give an explanation of this unique change between the 57-2-41 chart and the 56-2-42 chart.

I would if I could, but I don't *know* what the explanation is or which race triggered this exception.--NateOceanside (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Illinois race, in which Mark Kirk (R) won both the general and the special. He will replace Roland Burris (D) as soon as the election is certified because Burris's position was strictly a temporary appointment.—Markles 18:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took care of it. —Markles 17:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NateOceanside (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why that signature thing isn't automatic, it's too easy to forget.--NateOceanside (talk) 16:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References to 2008

[edit]

Should we remove the 37 references to the results of the 2008 presidential election? They do not seem relevant to this article; perhaps these numbers were more relevant before the election, as a guideline to the winning probabilities of the two parties. Now, I feel they should all be removed. KarlFrei (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Something that was relevant before the election did not lose its relevance just because the election is over. This is an historical article. Perhaps the point of having them is to show that the state voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in 2008 and therefore it's ironic that it voted for a Republican Senator in 2010. However, one could make an argument for removing them if they are already included in the main article on each state's elections.—Markles 15:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking Re-Election vs. Seeking Re-election/Election

[edit]

Since NY/Gillibrand and CO/Bennet were appointed, not elected, it is less accurate to say they were seeking re-election. Should the section heading be changed to reflect this? Or are the details in their section sufficient? 75.204.40.89 (talk) 09:45, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska a "Republican hold" or "Independent gain"?

[edit]

As Lisa Murkowski has won the Alaska Senate race, she did not win it as the Republican nominee. As far as we know she's still registered as a Republican and she will likely caucus with the Republicans, but again she didn't win as the Republican candidate. As she was a write-in, there was no indication of her party affiliation, if any ("independent" might have been the designation), on the ballot. Like Joe Lieberman is considered an Independent Democrat, would Lisa Murkowski perhaps be considered an Independent Republican? --Oakshade (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • She won as a Republican. Compare it to contests without party nominations or to Louisiana's "jungle primary." Lieberman, however, is not a registered Democrat. —Markles 13:52, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's documented fact Murkowski ran as an write-in and not as the Republican nominee in 2010. The elections results for write-ins allow for no partisan affiliation, which makes sense as statewide tally shows Joe Miller as the Republican nominee, not Murkowski.71.110.64.205 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Lieberman ran under a third party label. Bernie Sanders did not. If anything, Lieberman should be shown as a CfL holding, while Sanders and Murkowski should be the independents.71.110.64.205 (talk) 18:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • There were two Republicans in the Alaska race. Miller, the Republican nominee, and Murkowski, the incumbent running as a write-in. The incumbent was a Republican and the successor was a Republican. Thus, a Republican hold. There was only one Republican in the Connecticut race: Lamont. Lieberman, unlike Murkowski, changed his party and was the nominee of a new party, Connecticut for Lieberman — CfL. His party changed only in the last couple of months of his term strictly for the sake of the election affecting the next term. Thus, the seat went from a Democrat to a CfL. Sanders (back in 2006, ran as an Independent, and replaced an Independent, Jim Jeffords. Murkowski has always been a Republican, even though she wasn't the nominee. —Markles 21:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate elections, 2010. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why the big Republican gains?

[edit]

This page could use some discussion of why such huge Republican gains were made that year. It pretty much defined the Obama presidency, and shaped a good part of the history made in the next six years. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 01:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some totals are incorrect

[edit]

Some of the totals in Results summary - Before these elections dont add up. Looks like they've been there since that section got added back around June 2013 by GoldRingChip. I can add ;) but I don't know the correct values to add up. Class 2 adds up to 34 when it should be 33. In Dem column, 16+2+1+2 does not = 19. 19+22 does not = 38. In Rep column, 15+9 does not = 23. Sorry I couldn't help more. Chucknewmanjr (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed the totals for "up" and "not up" added to 104, which was causing me problems as I tried to backtest a poll-based model I've been working on. I reverted the change that introduced the over-count of Senate seats, but obviously there are still problems here. I'm going to put together a spreadsheet with one row for each seat and try to figure out what all the entries in this giant nuisance of a table should be. dreish~talk 16:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have what I believe are the corrected numbers. Interestingly, the ones that were incorrect are, almost without exception, the cells that are white in the summary table. I think the colors were supposed to indicate majorities, but they no longer do that on this page. I'm looking at ways to upload my spreadsheet to something in my userspace so anyone who wants to can check my work. I'll probably get that posted and update the numbers within the next day or two. dreish~talk 18:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just as an aside, part the the problem might be from the seats that had two races, namely the class 3 special + regular. That may lead to double-counting. I'm sorry I'd messed this up. —GoldRingChip 01:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No apology needed; I can see from your edit history that you do a vast breadth of work on this page, and that was obviously a good-faith attempt to fix what looked like it might be a simple problem. I've uploaded my table to User:Dreish/Senate 2010 table and updated the article with the numbers I came up with. For consistency with other years, I didn't break out seats that were up as appointed or not, but only by class. I also didn't make any changes to HTML-style comments within the table, nor to footnotes. I don't know whether any are necessary or appropriate. dreish~talk 21:33, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:53, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping Point State

[edit]

The tipping state (California) wasn't mentioned, because it was won by Barbara Boxer by 10%. I will add it after the closest states table.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_elections&oldid=1243059926"