Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Event This article is about one (or many) Event(s).
This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet.
If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having ran and lost, dropped out, etc.

Contents

[edit] CREW

I'll be removing the POV-inducing lists of CREW and Rolling Stone's "worst congressmen" labels unless someone can show me an NPOV reason to keep them. It's totally arbitrary to take these two lists as the only lists for identifying poor congressmen, and it's essentially irrelevant to who's running in the races. Zz414 01:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual and spelling corrections

Made a few minor corrections for spelling and factual corrections on the page through to Colorado. Alaska's Ethan Berkowitz is now the former State House Minority Leader. Under Colorado, slightly modified the entries for the Doug Lamborn and Tancredo districts. Tancredo was not the highest vote getter for a GOP Congressional candidate in Colorado in 2006. According to the CO Secretary of State's office, Tancredo got 59% of the vote and freshman Doug Lamborn got 60%. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2006G/ Also factually incorrect was the claim of narrow reelection for Tancredo in 2000 after Columbine. While Tancredo's performance was (as a percentage) lower than in 1998 (where he scored 56% vs. 54% in '00), he received substantially more votes in 2000 (30k more), ran ahead of Bush's performance, and the Democrats received the exact same percentage in both 1998 and 2000 -- 42% (despite the Democrat being financially competitive in 2000). Columbine had almost no effect in putting a damper on Tancredo's performance. 69.247.131.177 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete list

Last cycle, I copied over the 2004 tables into the 2006 article. I'm planning to do the same with the 2008 election. Thoughts or concerns? Chadlupkes 21:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You created a seperate page I dont see anything wrong with that Gang14 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please make a list of retiring representatives? Star Garnet 3:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of Citations

This page, though well compiled, severely lacks citations. There are more than just "two" themes in the 2008 GOP House Races. Additionally, there are no citations for the impact different presidential candidates could have on the races.


[edit] Thomas M. Davis

So he was going to run for the Senate but changed his mind... are we sure he's not going to run for his house seat again instead?--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on him cites 2 sources saying he's retiring. --W.marsh 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Charts

Charts ought to be avoided. They remove all narrative and boil this historical article down to a check list. All information about who these people are or how the races went would be lost!

I'll repeat the warning from the top of this page:

This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet.
If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having ran and lost, dropped out, etc.

The five states with charts have been reverted/restored. They may need a little touch-up: Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas.

Sorry for the hassle.

—Markles 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please seek consensus before eliminating all the article text and replacing it with a simple check list. If there's a consensus, then that's fine.—Markles 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

If you really want to use charts, use them at United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - complete list.—Markles 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Markles that the chart concept is better suited to the complete list of races rather than this article. The point of this list of November elections in this article is to note potentially competitive races and explain why they might be competitive. Removing the article text for each state and replacing it with a list of all House races in the state completely eliminates that information.
As I said, I am not a big fan of the charts. I don't think we should retain them in this article, but even assuming we are going to have them, it is not clear why the article text is deleted when they are added. Clearly the text regarding who will be the major party nominees is useless after the primary, but that is not the sum total of the information contained in the text. Some of the people discussed are said to be considering either a major party bid or an independent bid. Other people are noted as possible independent candidates and are sometimes linked with specific third parties. All that information is erased even though independents may not have to get on the ballot until much later than the major parties. Finally, interesting information is lost about why a seat is open or why it changed parties last time or the electoral history of the district in congressional and presidential elections.
My suggestion is that the charts not be included, but if people insist on having the charts on this page, that the article text be retained with amendment. It may be that under "Races by State" there should be a link to the complete list. Perhaps that would eliminate the apparent lack of understanding as to what this list is supposed to be. -Rrius (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • My view is that this page should be kept as a summary of competitive races, while the complete list article shows all candidates running in every race, without any commentary. This was how the articles on the 2006 congressional elections were organized, and that seemed to work fine. Using charts in this article would make it essentially a copy of the complete list article. As long as this article is watched for POV pushing, I think it's beneficial to have an article that gives summaries of competitive races.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, I believe that Wikipedia should be a collection of information, not charts. However, I do believe that once a state has held its primary, that state's section on the complete list should be changed to one like that of those that were added on this article. I believe that they were much better made than those on the current complete list. Star Garnet (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii

  • Did I miss the news, or is Hawaii still a state? I lived there until just last July, and I'm pretty sure they are electing representatives, too. Is there some reason they weren't included? subsailor (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • The article doesn't list every single race, it's just a summary of contested or races otherwise of national interest. It doesn't look like Hawaii's are that competitive this year? You could cover both races in depth at United States House of Representatives elections in Hawaii, 2008 though. --Rividian (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And you can list them in less depth at United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - complete list, which still needs a lot of work. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 21:20, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Does it? It seems pretty up-to-date, since filing has not yet closed in most states. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Which races to include?

There need to be criteria on which inclusion is based. The table in the previous section provides a good start, but a number of the races currently listed in this section don't seem to me to warrant inclusion. A consensus-based set of criteria for inclusion would help to weed out those that don't belong. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's include all open seat races and races that are rated as anything other than "safe" by at least one of the groups on the ratings sheet. Primaries will need some criteria set up thought. CylonCAG (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (PST)
I agree with the above. Do any of the sources being used for the ratings sheet have information on incumbents facing significant primary challenges? And should primary dates (and runoffs where applicable) be included in the information presented? JTRH (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Races with no incumbents"

Rather than removing MD 1 and 4 (Gilchrest and Wynn) from the list of races with no incumbents, the section should be renamed either "Open seats" or "General election races with no incumbents." The intent seems to be to list those districts which will definitely elect new members in November, and those two districts qualify and should be included, since the incumbents aren't in the race now. If there's no objection, that's how I'd like to proceed. JTRH (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't see much reason to single out races in which the incumbent lost the primary. After all, some of the races will feature an incumbent who loses the general. Looking back at this article from 5 years in the future, it won't matter which way the incumbent lost. I do think it's worth mentioning that the incumbent lost his/her primary, but i think there's no reason for those people to have their own section in the discussion. Therefore, I advise leaving MD1 & MD4 out of a special section.—Markles 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • I wasn't suggesting including in a special section. I'm saying that they shouldn't be removed from the list of races with no incumbents, since the incumbents are not currently in the race. They're now open seats. I was proposing to re-insert them into the list from which they were removed, and rename the section. JTRH (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Actually, they ARE (or WERE) in the race. They lost. This is a historical article: in 2008 Gilchrest and Wynn ran and lost their seats.—Markles 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I think you and I are trying to describe two different things. I understand your point, and I think I might see it your way if this were an article on a past election. But they are "races without incumbents" as far as the upcoming general election is concerned, i.e., they are NOW races without incumbents. Given that the article describes a current campaign and a future election, leaving those two seats out makes it an incomplete list of seats which will definitely have new occupants in January, and that's what's implied by the phrase "races without incumbents." The most accurate way to do this would be to retitle it as I suggest above ("Open seats" is the generally accepted term), and include those two races with the notation that Wynn and Gilchrest were defeated rather than retiring voluntarily. JTRH (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
          • The election may be present/future but a Wikipedia article must be written with a long-term historical perspective. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an on-going tally sheet to keep people up-to-date. Everything in WP is intended for historical purposes.—Markles 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
            • Then what's historically accurate and what's currently accurate are two different things. JTRH (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Sorry if the above was a bit abrupt. I changed the section heading to "Retirements." That makes the section content accurate as far as I'm concerned. My concern was that a section called "races without incumbents" that didn't include MD 1 and 4 would be inaccurately perceived by some readers to be a list of races which are currently for open seats, in which case the list is inaccurate without those two there. The unusual thing is that once the special is held in MD-4, it will indeed no longer be a race without an incumbent - but for the moment, it is. I think this was simply a difference in semantic interpretation, but I'm fine with it as it is now. JTRH (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
                • That's a good idea.—Markles 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • One of them is resigning, and that would merit a section if that resignation led to a special election BEFORE the November date -- but even that's debatable. (I'm not looking at the article right now so I can't remember.)—Markles 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I think there should be a sub-section in the section for incumbents defeated in primary as they are open seats. Bentley4. 6:57 PM EST. 11 May 2008
    • They're not open seats. The incumbents ran and lost.—Markles 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Thus they are open seats. For an election in the future, an 'open seat' is one in which the incumbent is not currently running. 207.170.238.132 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • That's the point I was trying to make earlier, but apparently there isn't a consensus to accept that terminology on this page. JTRH (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
        • I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If an incumbent loses in November will it be an open seat? No, because the incumbent ran and lost. This article is about ALL elections to the House in 2008. It covers primaries and general elections. In the case of Albert Wynn, however, he lost his primary and is expected to resign in June. His seat still will not be open, but it will be listed as a retirement.—Markles 10:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
          • It depends on which election is being discussed and when. If an incumbent is defeated in the primary, then it is an open seat in the general election, even though it was not before the primary. An incumbent losing in a primary is certainly worth noting, but I'd argue that for most people, and indeed for historical purposes, when discussing an election in the U.S. system the general election is usually regarded as the race of record. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
            • This article discusses THE election. The primary is part of the process. If a candidate wins a primary but drops out of the general, it's not an open seat either. This is a very simple rule to follow: If the candidate does not run, then it's an open seat.—Markles 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
              • Actually, in the case you describe (a candidate wins the primary buts drops out of the general) it would indeed be an open seat for the general election. That is the only election that actually matters. Of course, for some districts, whomever wins the primary for a particular party is usually assured of election in the general -- but it is only the general election that officially determines who is elected to the House. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
                • This article is about the entire process of the election. Of course, the November election is the final decision (except in Louisiana where there are run-offs??). Nevertheless, when an incumbent is a candidate for re-election, it is not an open seat. If the incumbent loses the general, the primary, a caucus or whatever, it's immaterial — it's not an open seat. An open seat is where the incumbent does not run at all. If the incumbent resigns, withdraws, or drops out of a race, then it's open.—Markles 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing (and happy, even) to drop this debate. But let's see if we can find better language or some sort of compromise that will retain the article's purpose while remaining accurate and consistent. That's my real goal, anyway.—Markles 16:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

If we can come up with better language that we agree upon perhaps. I'll reiterate my position: If an incumbent is not running in the general election, then there is an open seat in that election. I don't see how it can possibly be construed any other way. Up until the general election, the parties are merely choosing their candidates. It is possible for there to be an open seat in a primary election, but that is distinct from the status of the general election. older ≠ wiser 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] General election

What if the incumbent is beat in the general election, but there is a run-off between two other candidates? Then the run-off is what will be decisive. Does that mean it's an open seat?—Markles 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My intuition would be no -- at least not until after the general election. You could say the runoff election was for an open seat, but that's not something we'll have to worry about until November, if at all. I doubt there's much chance of anything like this happening in any case. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with David. The incumbent ran in the main election, so the election was not for an open seat. Unlike a primary elections, a run-off is more like a procedural extension or refinement of the general election. You could perhaps describe the run-off as being for an open seat, but not the general election overall. older ≠ wiser 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)