Talk:United States Senate elections, 2006/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

This is an archive of Talk:United States Senate elections, 2006

Contents

Is this article appropriate?

Recall that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. This article is misplaced except to the extent that it reports on preexisting well-known analysts. None of the predictions in this article are source, and as such the entire article is deletable as original research. Kelly Martin 02:51, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's appropriate, as it doesn't actually make any predictions. I don't see anywhere where it says that, eg, Rick Santorum will definitely keep his seat, or that Kweisi Mfume will win his primary. I will further note that the article you link to specifically allows for articles on future elections. Khanartist 03:43, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
Also note that the NOT page specifically identifies U.S. presidential election, 2008 as an acceptable page. MisfitToys 20:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

New Hampshire on Map

New Hampshire should be grey, not white. Perhaps being close to Vermont (yellow for Independent) makes New Hampshire easy to overlook. Can someone fix this? NoSeptember (talk) 13:15, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The map was changed on Feb 6 by User:Neutrality; the previous map didn't have the problem you note, but featured a darker shade of gray. I mentioned the glitch on Neutrality's talk page, but got no response. MisfitToys 22:17, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

New Mexico on Map

New Mexico should be blue. We ahve a race too, you know! Forget this state again, and I'll hurt someone. But seriously, someone needs to edit that. I would, btu I'm too lazy YourNickname 23:30, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

New Hampshire & New Mexico

Both New Hampshire and New Mexico are screwed up on this article's map. New Hampshire is white (?) rather than grey (no race) and New Mexico is grey (no race) rather than blue (Democratic incumbent). Does somebody know how to fix it? I don't think New Mexico political junkies would like being ignored, when they have Jeff Bingaman (D) up for reelection in 2006. Also, the white New Hampshire thing is just weird.

So does somebody know how to fix this?

             New Map posted from Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Website(7/1/2005)

Layout

Hey, Would it not be better to set the page out more like U.S. gubernatorial elections, 2006 With a separate page for each senate race. On each page polls, candidates, news etc. can be included. The current layout is going to get crowded soon as the elections become closer and closer. What do you think?

Neutral point of view?

Under New Jersey: "Republicans are likely to field a strong candidate with a state-wide organization and name recognition."

The one issue I have with that analysis is the word 'strong.' Both Schundler and Forrester have statewide organization and name recognition, but that in no way makes them strong, especially in a Dem-leaning state like New Jersey.

Under Michigan: "...the poor Michigan economy in conjunction with low approval ratings make Stabenow potentially vulnerable..."

The 55% approval rating she got from a recent Detroit Free Press poll isn't exactly low. Couple that with the fact that she led all of her opponents by more than 25% in that poll and consistently got more than 50% in all head-to-head matchups, and I doubt the Michigan race should be listed at this point.

If it does get competitive, we can add it later. EKMichigan 04:36, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

Names in the grid

I changed the names in the grid for a lot of the incumbents. I believe that using their given name can be confusing for a lot of people because politicians usually campaign under their nicknames. That's what they are called in the Senate, and since this page is not the page specifically about them, I think we should use the name that they choose to use. What do other people think? MicahMN | Talk 18:11, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Senate election or senatorial election

shouldn't it be "Senatorial" election? --Revolución (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Creating individual election pages

I'm wondering if at some point individual pages will be created for these races in each state. Would the names be along the lines of: Minnesota U.S. Senate election, 2006 (using the greatest state in the union as an example)? The 2006 Gubernatorial elections all have individual state election pages. Let me know what other people think. -- MicahMN | Talk 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I asked this awhile back and got no response. Id like to see individual pages with more information on them. -- User:Charmed88 | Talk 06:10, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I think it's a good idea, especially for the major races, like Clinton's one in New York.--Revas 18:11, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I really like the idea. --Lst27 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I think I'll start working on one tonight. I don't know if there is a template that I should follow (or if I should create one for others to use in other states). As for the naming, I'm going to create one at Minnesota U.S. Senate election, 2006. I think that if there are going to be different ones for different states they should all at least be named in the same convention. Let me know what you think. -- MicahMN | Talk 00:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I created the New York Senate race page and I'm not sure if creating individual pages is a good idea since some races - like the Schumer blowout that was the 2004 Senate race in New York - was not worth writing about. Anyway, I have ideas for naming: "Senate election in New York, 2006" or "U.S. Senate election, 2006, in New York". Thanks. --Blue387 07:22, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
Wikipedia style would suggest that the correct format would be (Name of State) U.S. Senate election, 2006 - Jord 14:53, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Senators who haven't announced that they're running for reelection

Should they be marked "running for nth term"? --Lst27 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Color of New Jersey on Map

The color of New Jersey on the map is light blue, suggesting that the seat will be open. Since Senator Jon Corzine won the race for governor on November 8, 2005, he will have to select a replacement for his seat. I would think that Governor-elect Corzine would choose a replacement who will run for a full term. I realize this map is from the DSCC's website, but the color should be changed.

Agreed, someone with more skills than I at image editing should make the change. Bob Menendez will be a sitting Senator by the time of the election. - Cuivienen 02:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
I created my own picture and posted it. If the originial author of the other picture has a problem with my version, please feel free to change it.Byrdin2006 19:16, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of Challengers

I would like to know why some of the challengers to both incumbent and retiring senators have been deleted? I re-added the challengers to Senator Byrd, but I would still like to know why they were deleted for the other senators. Byrdin2006 23:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Updated info about the Washington State Senate Race

I added some updated info about the Washington State Senate Race and clean up a few words.

Virginia senate race read like a green party ad

I trimmed it way down and plan on doing the same scouring on Virginia U.S. Senate election, 2006.

Explanation of Changes Concerning Party Control of the Senate

Originally, the "Major Parties" section stated that the Democrats must gain 6 Republican seats while holding all of their own to retake control of the Senate. However, any net gain of 6 seats is sufficient. For instance, if the Democrats win 8 Republican seats but lose 2 of their own, then that would transfer party control. The same netting principle applies to any attempt by Republicans to gain a super-majority of 60 votes.

Old polls, large article

Is it really appropriate/encyclopedic/useful to have the "Approval rating" column under "Complete list of Senate contests in 2006"? The one poll currently being used is two months old and I have seen wildly different numbers for some Senators in other polls.

The new and giant "Control of Congress" poll table also seems of questionable usefulness for the amount of space it takes up and its own disclaimer. --Ajdz 03:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add what you'd see editing the main article now: "This page is 37 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable;" At the very least the "Control of Congress" poll table should be removed to get the page closer to the preferable size. It seems to be the most obvious target for reduction, but I'd like a little bit of feedback before major deletions begin. --Ajdz 04:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

After two weeks, no one supports the "Control of Congress" table at all? It seems misplaced, but I don't know where else it should go. Is there an external link that would provide the same information? --Ajdz 05:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest replacing the table with this external link, which is probably the source the anonymous contributors are using: http://www.pollingreport.com/2006.htm --Ajdz 21:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


Yes the opinion polls take-up too much room and are not approriate to have here. An external link sounds good to me.

Please show your support to do the above: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Yves (talk • contribs)

I support removing the "Approval rating" column. I don't think it's that useful. Someone with a low approval rating can still win against an unpopular opponent; someone with a high rating can still lose against a popular opponent.
I'd also like to see the "Party" column made more narrow, and the "Competing candidates" column widened. This would reduce the amount of space that the table takes up on the screen.
Finally, would there be value in adding a column (sorry) at some point that shows the latest poll results for the general election? By that I mean at the point where the contest has narrowed to one Democrat and one Republican, it could be quite valuable to see, at a glimpse, where incumbents are threatened. [This could probably wait until August, I suppose.] John Broughton 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

2000 Election Results

Is the column which contains the 2000 Senate results necessary? It really crowds the page, which already has many columns. Byrdin2006 23:45, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed Senator Kyl's 2000 Election Results in the Chart. I think the bold should be used, if it is determined that this column should stay. Byrdin2006 00:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary, but it is certainly more relevant than the giant "Control of Congress" section that no one will defend above. Of all the columns, it is the one that most belongs in individual articles. Regardless, bold is very distracting, especially since the winner is obvious. --Ajdz 00:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Nobody has even defended the existence of this column yet. --Ajdz 00:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Vision

Strategic Vision is a Republican polling firm. The Washington State Democratic Party considers this firm a biased source aligned with the Republican Party in order to shape media perceptions. --8bitJake 20:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting concern since the poll numbers that appear to have been up there since December have been from Strategic Vision (but misidentified in the text as Rasmussen) and the most recent change was VERY small (11 point lead to 8 point lead). But if poll numbers are going to be heavily disputed, they probably shouldn't even be mentioned in this article. --Ajdz 20:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Strategic Vision’s numbers never jibe with independent polls. They use them in order to spread false frames about Democratic politicians in Washington being unpopular. They will poll people from Republican lists so their numbers are sketchy. --8bitJake 20:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

They are very consistent with other polls in the Washington United States Senate election, 2006 article. All listed polls have fit within a 49-38 race, plus or minus 3 or 2 points since August 2005. (Amazing stability, I might add.) If this is some kind of Republican scheme, it isn't working very well. --Ajdz 20:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be but I would not trust Strategic Vision to tell me the time of the day. --8bitJake 22:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Missing eight articles on Senate races

Judging by the red text in the table at the bottom of the article, there are eight Senate races where no article has yet been created. If someone would build a skeleton for these, I'll be happy to add details from politics1.com and from the pages of individual candidates (as well as linking candidates to the new eight articles). John Broughton 00:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that's taken care. But a tiny bit of housework is still needed. Folks over at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Congress decided that the titles should be "StateName United States Senate election, 2006" rather than "StateName U.S. Senate election, 2006". 25 of the 34 articles have been moved, and redirects from old names set up. Eight of the articles have NOT been moved: Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. (Indiana is a very special case; I'm working on that.) John Broughton 22:40, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

West Virginia as a Notable Democratic Race

Is Robert C. Byrd really considered vulnerable at the present time? Any incumbent would love to have a 57-34 margin in an opinion poll. I changed some of the information, but I do not think it should be considered notable at the present time. Byrdin2006 22:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Added Competitiveness Indicator

The source indicated is not infallible, of course, but has the benefits of being both neutral and fairly reliable (after all, people are putting actual money where their mouths are, so to speak). For those who may not be able to interpret approval ratings, state voting history, strength of opponent, etc., this rough-and-ready indicator does a good job of showing which races to watch. The dividing lines between "safe", "favored", "leans" and "tossup" are somewhat arbitrary, but I used the following thresholds, which I can offer some minimal defense to if called upon: 95% or better, safe; 67% or better, favored; 55% or better, leans, and less than 55%, tossup (with leader indicated). Like everything else, this will have to be updated periodically. Thesmothete 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC) (signed later than the posting; sorry)

I don't know how useful this addition is, and it also makes the table kind of crowded. Having the 2000 results and a current incumbent approval rating seems sufficient to me. Alex 15:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, why would we want to include just those two factors and not any others (like the strength of the challenger, shifts in demographics, party allignment of the state, etc. The approval rating alone doesn't tell you much in, say Hawaii or Utah, where relatively low approval ratings are balanced by near lock-step party identification. Likewise, 2000 voting histroy doesn't tell you much in Delaware or Ohio, where the races are much less and more (respectively) competitive this year. If chart-clutter is the issue, then if anything I'd remove the 2000 results and approval ratings and keep the competitiveness analysis. Thesmothete 17:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
But how accurate is Tradesports.com? Let's not forget they picked Bo Bice at 65% to win AI last year and didn't pick Taylor until there were only 2 this year. Not to mention it pegged Kerry to win by almost 70 electoral votes in the 2004 election. Tradesports just is not an accurate indicator for predicting elections. --Bobblehead 20:23, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
If there were a truly accurate indicator, we wouldn't need to hold the elections. However, in general, the market-based approach of trading exchanges have proven more accurate than "experts" in determining the outome of elections. Mind you, a 95% chance to win doesn't mean the person will get 95% of the vote, just that in 19 out of 20 of such races, the indicated person will win. That means that in 1 out of 20 of those races, the indicated person will NOT win. That doesn't make tradesports innacurate, it merely confirms that even the market doesn't have perfect information (such as, for example, whether a Senator will be in a plane accident). With different weather in Ohio, Kerry could have won the election by 70 electoral votes. I don't think the test is "is tradesports going to predict every outcome?" which it doesn't even purport to do, or even "are its analysis of the chances always correct?" which they may not be, but rather "is this a better indicator of the chances than anything else we have?" and I humbly suggest that the answer to the third question is "yes". No other single measure, including 2000 election results, or polls about the incumbent, is going to be more accurate. And even better, tradesports is open to anyone, so it's guaranteed NPOV. Thesmothete 21:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link that shows the relative accuracy of polls to market data for a similar market, the Iowa Political Furtures Market. It show that the market was generally as accurate or more accurate than polling was (and those were polls that actually asked how people were going to vote, as opposed to "approval"). Thesmothete 21:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the odds from today's tradesports data, the major difference being that Montana squeaked into "leans Democrat" category from "tossup". There is also an anomoly in New Jersey -- the last trade for the incubent to win was only 50 cents, but the recprocal prices in the category don't add up to $1.00, so the market is out of balance and this may be an anomoly. I decided to keep that one intact until such time as the Republican trade price is closer to being the recprocal of the Democratic one. Thesmothete 22:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Colors for the table

I adjusted the color scheme slightly so that seats deemed likely to switch parties from Republican to Democrat are listed with the blue color, and "tossup" seats are listed with a purple color (is there a better "neural" color?). If later there are are predicted to switch to Republican, they should be in a red color. I wonder if the non-switching "leans" should also have a color... Thesmothete 17:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Reverting the color scheme to the aforementioned scheme from changes by User:Cmc0. "Tossup" seats should not be red or blue -- they should be purple, befitting their indeterminate status. However, if someone wants to propose an overall different scheme, that's cool; let's see if we can get consensus. Thesmothete 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
You know, it might be informative to put colors in EVERY box in the last two columns (i.e. in the last column, red for R wins, blue for D wins, and in the penultimate column, red for R safe/favored/leans, blue for D safe/favored/leans, and purple for "tossup". I fear that could make the table look too "busy" however. What do others think? Thesmothete 06:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
In the penultimate column, I suggest coloring the background immediately around the words "SAFE", "TOSSUP", "LEANS", etc. (some people have sigs with this approach). I suggest using a light red and light blue so the black text in the (small) colored box is very visible. For the last column, I suggest putting a small red or blue outlined box AROUND the percentage figure (and center that, by the way), if that's possible. (To put this another way: four red or blue lines, in a box form, around the number.) You're definitely right to worry about something being too busy. (Alternatively, for the last column, just use dark red and dark blue text for the percentage figures.) John Broughton 13:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter to me what colors you guys make it, just make sure you use the same color scheme for the United States 2006 governor election page as well
Fair enough! I'd never visited that article before. I see now that it seems to do a few things differently. I will post to the talk page there and suggest consistent treatment. Thesmothete 05:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
I've used the light red and light blue and green from United States gubernatorial elections, 2002 to show current and static party affiliation. In races where party change is likely, I've kept the darker colors. If people like this scheme, I'll also put it on United States 2006 governor election. Thesmothete 20:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Just a thought, but the darker color may not be necessary. The difference between the color of the incumbent and the color of the Market Predicted Outcome columns should be enough to indicate a party switch. The green for independent is a bit much, IMHO, how about a pastel green (#92CCA6)? Softer tone of purple might be a good idea as well (#D15FEE or #DB70DB).--Bobblehead 20:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead and give it a try -- let's see how it looks. Thesmothete 21:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Heh. I didn't like the color options I gave for purple. Probably just the close approximation of the dark blue that made the existing purples seem bright. --Bobblehead 21:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for giving it a shot. But I'm a little concerned that the colors we have now are so pale as to make it seem to me like a palette for newborns. I have a terrible eye for color, though. Does it seem like pink and powder blue to you, instead of the colors of the US flag? And for indepenents, what about #BBBBBB? Are there other pages that get this done well that we can look at? Thesmothete 05:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
Getting to be quite a bit of colons, so moving it back some.;) Part of the problem is if we go with the colors on the flag the blue links of the candidate names disappear for Dems and just look funky for the republicans. How about yellow (FFFF33) for independents? That way the color is the same for the indies on the map at the top of the article and in the bottom? Grey would be an example backup as well. ;)--Bobblehead 04:01, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
How about this? Thesmothete 05:16, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
It gets the point across and you can still read the content of the cell. Works for me.--Bobblehead 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


Adding Tennessee as "Senate Races to Watch"

The poll numbers are too close to call according to recent polls. Any Objections? --Bearly541 12:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

If the polls are close, then it's a race to watch. Go crazy. --Bobblehead 17:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Missouri Senate Race

The latest poll on Rasmussen Has (D) McCaskill leading (R) Talent 45%-42%... I think this should be moved into her column... or at the very least a toss up. However I'm not entirely familiar with the table at the end of this article, so I'll wait for someone who is to agree with me and change it.--Cms479 14:44, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The column you are referring to doesn't use polling results such as Rasmussen, but rather uses a market-based approach from TradeSports.com. Basically online betting. See the discussion here. If the latest poll results influence a change towards a tossup then the column can be updated. Hopefully this helps. --Bobblehead 15:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

What color for Joe?

Senator Lieberman has announced that he will oppose the Democratic nominee for Senate. So is what way is he "presently" a Democrat? I am leaving it green for the moment to give time for response, dicussion and consensus here rather than just reverting and re-reverting. Reasoned opinions welcomed :) But I feel he should be yellow. Thesmothete 03:53, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

But is he currently a member of the Democratic party. If so, he is a Democrat running as an Independant. Or has his affiliation with the Democratic party officially ended today? Green might not be the best xcolor, but I think "Currently D; I Candidate" summarizes his statusAronk 04:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Joe's still a Dem for the rest of this term, so leave him as blue? If he takes the lead in tradesports he'd be yellow like the other indy. --Bobblehead 04:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
The right-hand color follows tradesports outcome, agreed. But if he said he was running as a Republican, would we still label his left side there as blue? I don't think so -- even if he had once said he was a Democrat. If you are a Democrat, capital letter, present tense, doesn't that at a minimum mean you aren't the candidate opposing the Democratic nominee? Thesmothete 04:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps wait until tomorrow? I'm sure we'll find out more then. If all of a sudden Joe finds himself not on any committees, then we know he isn't a Dem anymore. --Bobblehead 04:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well... Watching Hardball right now and Lieberman's Campaign Manager, Sean Smith, is saying that Lieberman is a registered Dem now and always will be and that he will caucus with the Dems if he wins in the general election. So if we believe his campaign manager, blue it is. --Bobblehead 05:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So being a Democratic politician is self-defined? Or does the Democratic Party get to say who is and is not a Democrat, running on their behalf? After all, Bernie Sanders (I) of Vermont says he'll caucus with the Democrats, but he's yellow on our chart. In what way is Lieberman is different -- like Sanders he is running against the candidate the Democratic party of his state has on the ballot. Thesmothete 05:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the sanders remark. For continuity sake, give him the same color as Sanders in VT. I need to correct you though vis-a-vis Sanders: there is no official dem nominee in the VT race, the Dems have united around Sanders. Besides by running as an independent after losing the primary, Lieberman removes himself of the Democratic party. -- fdewaele, 9 August 2006, 9:00 (CET)
For the purposes of the election, the parties define who represents them in the general election. So if a politician wants a (D) after their name in the general election then they'd better win that party's primary. However, once elected the politician defines their party. There have been many cases where a politician has change parties after being elected (although I can't think of any off the top of my head). As for Sanders, he identifies himself as an Independent, thus he is marked as one. Based on Sean Smith's comments on Hardball, for the purposes of the election Lieberman is an Independent, but for the purpose of being a standing elected official, he is a Democrat. --Bobblehead 06:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
So does this mean that Joe should now be listed as an independent in the Senate or for the remainder of his present term, is he still a Democrat?Aronk 13:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
IMHO, for the purpose of displaying a color under the incumbent column, he's still a blue. However, if he takes the lead in Tradesports, then it'd be yellow. But the news from the next few days may well change that. --Bobblehead 16:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Please see above, my response to this comment when you made it at 04:40, 9 August 2006. Thesmothete 17:03, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
And please see above, my response to your response. At this point Lieberman considers himself to be a Dem and his party affiliation remains that way in relation to his current term. Lieberman's loss last night and subsequent announcement to run as an indy did not kick him out of the Democratic party. Just means he will not be the one representing the Democrats in the election. As for whether or not Lieberman considers himself a Dem, here's the transcript of his campaign manager saying he does. --Bobblehead 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and please see the responses to those responses. Rather than us simply asseting answers, shouldn't we decide what the crieteria are? This reminds me of when the IRA settled with the British, and then a group calling itself the "Real IRA" continued to bomb. Were they also the IRA just because they said they were? Who gets to decide if someone is a Democrat? The Democratic Party? Or each individual person? Could Carl Rove say he was a Democrat and run against a Democratic candidate and we would have to abide by that and put a blue flag next to his name? What if someone calls himself Catholic, but the Pope disagrees and says he isn't? Can Al Gore say he is a Green Party member even if he runs against the Green Party candidate? What is the criteria for this? Thesmothete 22:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted the page back to where it was. Sorry for the changes in the first place. I changed it because I thought it was a mistake. But as I read the discussion, I see that this article is about the 2006 election for the Senate. In that situation, Lieberman is running as a independant regardless of what he is as a memeber of Congress.

I think an instructive comparison here would be the 1986 Illinois races for Lt. Gov and Secretary of State; see the article on Adlai Stevenson III (the gubernatorial nominee), and the external link there, for more. Although he was a Democrat, and the party nominee for governor, Stevenson refused to be on the same ticket as the candidates lower on the ballot, and a new party was created to resolve the situation; but despite running under another party's name, he remained a Democrat. Likewise, Lieberman is not the Democratic nominee, but remains a Democrat. MisfitToys 00:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

State Incumbent Term Competing candidates Approval rating [1] Market predicted outcome [2] Vote % of winner in 2000 [3]
Connecticut Joe Lieberman (I)
(previously D)		 3 Ned Lamont (D)
Alan Schlesinger (R)
Ralph Ferrucci (G)		 54% TOSSUP (52% I to take, 45% D to hold) 63%

user:mnw2000 22:27, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related issue, Lieberman is currently listed as (I); however, I'm uncertain if that is correct. If my understanding of the situation is correct, he is running for re-election neither as an independent nor as a member of the Independent Party of Connecticut [4] but as a member of a new party that he created specifically for his run, the Connecticut for Lieberman party. While the party does not have any purpose outside of his candidacy, I believe it is the official party he is affiliated with for the election. As such, based on the way other people running on less common party platforms are identified (e.g., Don Grundman (AIP) in the California part of the table), I am planning to change his designation to CFL. Any comments/objections? modargo 19:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I just think it's important to distinguish that he remains a Democratic senator for the current term, although he is an independent (or CFL) candidate for the next term. MisfitToys 20:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I know and agree, and I now realize I was somewhat unclear. I don't plan to change how it says he's currently sitting as (D); rather, I plan to change how it says he is running for re-election as (I) to running for re-election as (CFL). modargo 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I think the "Connecticut for Lieberman" may be a technicality -- was he permitted simply to file as an Independent, or did he have to select a name for his organization. It is not uncommon for American politicians, even if they are members of an established political party, to have an official campaign organization called "Friends of Bill Johnson" or "Bill Johnson for Springfield County" or "Springfield County for Johnson". I don't know that CFL is really a political party. Thesmothete 20:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure, but I recall hearing that the deadline for registering as an actual independent was prior to the Democratic primary. I believe he will be on the ballot listed as "Connecticut for Lieberman". modargo 20:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Looking around a bit and even trying to decipher Connecticut's election law website [5], I've concluded that this is unclear enough currently that it isn't worth changing until it becomes clear. Might as well wait till they print up the ballots and see what's on them. Either way, (I) is close enough for now. modargo
The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress still lists Senator Lieberman as a Democrat, although it does not say he lost the primary. The United States Senate still lists him as a Democrat. His Senate website also lists him as a Democrat, under "Congressional Delegation." He his still a Democrat until January 3, 2007. Byrdin2006 03:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Byrdin, those references merely beg the question: what constitutes a "Democrat"? As a candidate he's clearly not the Democratic party pick, which is one definition of "Democrat". As we know from Sanders, caucusing with the Democrats is not enough. Why should out-of-date Senate websites be considered definitive on this point? Thesmothete 05:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
That site sometimes take quite a while to make updates (some deaths have taken years to get noted in the bios); I think it would be better to keep an eye on the official Senate site and the Senate Democratic Caucus site. MisfitToys 21:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Lieberman is not running as an "independent" or as an "individual." He filed paperwork to start a new party "Connecticut for Lieberman" so that he will be higher up on the ballot. Official party candidates get first billing on ballots and then any individual that has submitted the proper petitions to be on the ballot are below the party candidates. There is an actual candidate running on the Independent Party line, so labeling Joe as running as an "independent" is at the very least, misleading. Lieberman was elected in 2000 as a Democrat so until his successor is sworn in in January, he is still a Democrat. But, he can't be labeled as running as a Democrat OR an independent. Should be labeled as CFL, but not sure of the best way to notate it in the chart. --Uruz7 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Our goal should be to be informative to the reader. On the ohter hand, we don't want to bust the table open with a paragraph of info about the technicalities of one race. It is common to refer to non-major-party candidates with the shorthand "I" or "Independent" even if they are members of some other party; and the more obscure the party, the more likely that shorthand will be used (e.g. less likely for Greens, more likely for the Farmer's Progressive Party...) in Lieberman's case the fact that his party is the made-up-out-of-whole-cloth Connecticut for Lieberman is truly a technicality and not like Sanders (who has runs as a Socialist, not a true independent -- (but is nonetheless referred to as Independent in many instances)). Anyway, let's put an asterisk next to the (I) or the (CFL) or whatever we're going to use, and put the long explaination at the bottom of the table. And as for colors, let's agree that we will use yellow for "other" than (R) or (D), whatever it may be. I think we have agreement now that as long as Lieberman is listed by the official Senate Democratic organ (the Caucus? the Minority Leader?) as a Democrat, the left color is blue, but his color on the prediction column is yellow if he's ahead. Hey! consensus... right? Thesmothete 03:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

It is official [6]. Joe Lieberman is not an independant but a candidate of a new Connecticut of Lieberman party. Thus we should create a new color for this party. I have changed the yellow to green. If, for some reason, this is not correct, please change it to whatever color is appropriate. Yellow should be for true independants such as Jeffords of VT. user:mnw2000 20:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable races

Just wondering what the criteria is for notable races. They should all get at least some play in the local media, but are we saying it has to be notable at a national level to be included? Or are we also including competiveness in this measure? As an example, Florida's seat is notable because Katherine Harris is in the race and has made national headlines for refusing to leave the race, but all indications are that the race won't be competitive due to Harris's negative name recognition. --Bobblehead 18:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that both competitiveness and national attention are good enough reasons for a race to be included as notable. Usually the two are linked, but they don't always need to be. modargo 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
If that's the case, then perhaps Hawaii, Michigan, and Arizona should be removed? None are what you'd call competitive and the national media hasn't paid any attention to them. So perhaps a better question would be what makes these races worthy of mentioning? --Bobblehead 20:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't see any reason to include "notable" in the title at all. Senate elections, unless they are completely uncontested, are always notable (though a completely uncontested Senate election would probably be an oddity, and thus notable as well). Regarding Hawaii specifically, isn't the incumbent only leading his challenger by something like 10%? That's barely outside the margin of error. In any event, I think this page should include more blurbs on 2006 Senate races, not less, though perhaps some of them should be edited down a bit. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Hawaii is on there because it has a competitive primary challenge to an incumbent, which if successful could also make the general election competitive. That seems worthy of note. Michigan and Arizona are both on the trailing edge of competitiveness. The incumbents aren't particularly strong, distinctive, or accomplished, and their challengers are credible. Both states lean slightly in favor of the incumbent, but not so much as to make a loss impossible. The challengers are polling behind the incumbents, but the incumbents never get much higher than 50% in polls of vote preference or approval rating. That all separates them from the many races that do not have a writeup in this article, most of which have an incumbent polling around 60% or higher. All in all, Michigan and Arizona aren't that far from Virginia, Nevada, or Washington. modargo 20:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Although, I do agree with Jersyko that we should probably have something about the others listed to. Even if they aren't competitive, they are probably worthy of mention more than just a single line on a table. --Bobblehead 21:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, each of them does have an article of it's own, linked to in the table. And I think that it is appropriate to provide longer descriptions in this article for the more notable races than for the less notable races - they're not only more interesting, they're also more important. But I wouldn't be opposed to adding another section to the descriptions, something like "Other Races", and giving each race a few sentences. Enough to talk about the incumbent, the challenger, any interesting issues that have been raised in the race, and why the race is considered noncompetitive. No more than a couple sentences. I don't see any harm to it, at least. modargo 00:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Sanders in VT

I understand he has registered as and is contesting the race as a Democrat. - Jord 22:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First I've heard it. Do you have a source? All the ones I've seen have him Indy. --Bobblehead 23:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
He was just changed from Ind to Dem on an election projection site [7]... will look for a more solid source - Jord 23:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems he is on the ballot for the VT Democratic Primary [8] - Jord 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like it is campaign jockeying.. Well, according to this source. Basically on the Democrat primary ballot in order to stop a Dem from running against him and stealing some of his vote. According to the source he'll reject the nomination and run in the general as an independent. *shrug* --Bobblehead 01:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

According to The Green Papers [9], he is currently running as a Democrat.

What is the most informative way to show projected outcomes?

(I have collected the various threads on this topic together here, so people can more easily read through the discussion.) Thesmothete 06:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Market approach - more comments

This categoy has now been the subject of repeated anonymous changes to the Sabato rankings, without further discussion here. In an effort to be clearer about the NPOV nature of the market approach, I have changed the title. Hopefully, that will help. Thesmothete 20:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The NJ race is not currently stable on tradesports. The Republican's last trade was at 40, and the Democrat's bids and offers are all between 55 and 65, so this was not a good moment to change the designation here to 50, which just happened to be the last trade. As a compromise, I'm putting the value at 60, the recprocal of 40 and the halfway point between the bids and offers. In the future, I recommend not changing the figures when there is instability like this (it usually goes away within a day or two). Thesmothete 06:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Race ratings Sabato not "tradesports"

The ratings used for the senate races arent credible and is a really stupid source to use. They will be Sabato for now on. no more garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.115.41.168 (talk • contribs) 13:05, July 23, 2006 (UTC).

It's great that you're being bold, but the switch from Tradesports to Sabato has been controversial. So, how about discussing it on the talk page and providing some evidence as to why Sabato is more accurate than Tradesports. If we're going to analysts instead of TradeSports.. Why Sabato over the others? Cook Report is popular as well. Also, don't forget to sign your comments by puting --~~~~ after it. --Bobblehead 20:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sabato

I replaced the Tradesports ratings with Larry Sabato ratings... Roughly the same outlook but from a political scientist as opposed to gamblers:)

Please see the discussion, below, where scientific evidence is given for the reliabilty of market-based predictions, such as tradesports. Mr. Sabato's opinion is just one person's opinion, among many. He has a conservative bias in most of his analysis, which violates NPOV for Wikipedia. Tradesports is at least as accurate and less biased than Mr. Sabato. Thesmothete 06:10, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I see no scientific evidence... Most of these haven’t even been traded in weeks (with volume under 300)... And Mr. Sabato does not have a conservative bias; his ratings were almost the same as those of tradesports…

Where did you look for it? Please see the link I inserted below related to the Iowa Political Futures market, which has been the subject of considerable scientific study and operates under nearly identical principles to Tradesports. Sabato's ratings are not identical to Tradesports. Sabato has a conservative bias in his general political commentary and outlook, not just his rating system. Therefore, his predictions (whether he believes conservatives will win or not) are not neutral or objective (e.g. in the same way many liberal democratic voters in the 2004 primary misunderstood what moderate voters would want in a candidate and incorrectly picked Kerry over Dean and Edwards as the candidate "more likely to win". ). Also, I'm not surprised that some Senate races haven't traded in weeks -- what has changed in the Utah race in the last 2 months that would cause a market shift? Also, kindly consider registering with Wikipedia so you can sign your posts. Thesmothete 22:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
Sabato should really be used, this "trade sports" thing is an embarressment.pjnwe 22:17, 3 Aug 2006 (ETC)
I also agree, sabato is much more reliable and i believe there was a consensus before this that we wouldnt use trade sports. www3434 20:10, 5 Aug 2006 (ETC)
You are right, Sabato should be used not trade sports.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.115.41.168 (talk • contribs) 04:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC).
Just a note, the comments by User:PJNWE and User:www3434 were actually left by User:24.115.41.168 in order to show support for his change from TradeSports to Sabato. Neither user actually exists. --Bobblehead 06:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
As noted above, these comment above were created through sockpuppetry, but I will also add that to the extent there is consensus, it is in the *other* direction -- that is consensus to *use* tradesports. There are several editors who have stablely maintained this practice for many weeks now. While we're at it, I will point out that using market-based trading exchanges as opposed to reliance on one particular "expert" opinion is not only demonstrated (here is another copy of the link to adacemic analysis) to be reliable, but it also touches on the core values of the Wikipeida project itself. This very encyclopedia, after all, is made by large numbers of non-experts working together. Wikipedians ought to believe that this approach is at least as good as, if not better than, reliance on a single expert. Certainly, we should not expect it to be an "embarrassment" to rely on market-exchanges. Finally, I will note in comparing the last version of Sabato's analysis to the market exchange, to the extent there were differences, the significant majority suggested Democrats in a weaker position than the exchange did, which tends to confirm that use of Sabato constitutes POV under a single person's control. Thesmothete 13:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
My own preference is to use the most recent polls by reputable polling agencies (e.g. Rasmussen) instead of tradesports. However, tradesports is better than Sabato or any other "single-person guesswork" operation for reasons stated above. I have no real problem with using tradesports, I just prefer scientific polling. · j·e·r·s·y·k·o talk · 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too concerned about which predictive mechanism we use. Any way you look at it it is going to be a wild shot in the dark. As far as using reputable polling agencies.. Unless you provide a list of what is considered a reputable polling agencies the section will be constantly updated whenever the partisan polling agencies come out with their results. Tradesports provides some stability and saves on having to update links constantly to show the source of the polling. --Bobblehead 16:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Market"

Please let's not treat "market analysis" as some sort of credible science. Can we remove the "market" percentages from the chart or at least add some other measures so as not to give this pseudoscience some sort of undeserved credibility or authority?HieronyMouse 01:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is saying it is a science. We're just using it as an indicator for the trend, which is about as accurate as any poll or analysis is. If you want to propose an alternative to what we're using, then you're more than welcome to do so. Just have to build community support to switch to a different one. On a side note, glad to see you finally made an account. --Bobblehead 23:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I think a much more accurate proposal is to have the most recent media poll.Alex 20:27, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
WHY do you think it is more accurate to have the most recent media poll? (I presume you think it is more accurate in predicting the election outcome than the expert OR market analysis.) So, for example, take two states, in one state the incumbent has $10,000,000 in campaign money available and the challenger $50,000; in the other, they both have $2m. In both states the latest poll says that the incumbent is behind by 4 points. Do think that means that each incumbent has an equal chance of winning his/her election? Or shouldn't money on hand be taken into account? Or any other factor? Also, why is the most recent poll better than, say, the poll with the largest sample, or the one conducted over more days, or that had trained human interviewers vs. an automated phone-button system? Thesmothete 06:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Non-partisan analysis

I congratulate Sholom in providing two alternate sources of non-partisan analysis. I think this might help us out of our dilemma in terms of describing which races are the most notable. One nit-pick is that I think all of the races (except maybe the "safe" races) should be listed specifically in that section (e.g. which states, exactly, are the ones that "lean"?). But other than that, I would suggest that we merge this section with the "Races to Watch" section, into a section entitled "Races Deemed to be Competitve". Likewise, I would recommend dropping the 2000 vote total from the table at the bottom and replacing it with columns for **all three** of the rankings from Tradesports with percentage, CQ and Sabato. That should keep everyone happy, and provide a balanced perspective on the various races. I have modified the table formatting to show how it could fit (I'd recommend that we shorten "Republican" and "Democrat" to "(R)" and "(D)" in the Market-analysis column to make it fit more easily. What do people think about this proposal? Thesmothete 19:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the other 2 projections to the table here which lasted all of about an hour and a half before being reverted if you want to see what it looks like. ;) Have to agree with the person that reverted it in saying it made the table look a bit sloppy. Too many dueling colors. Shortening to D and R doesn't really save that much space since the headers are rather long as well. --Bobblehead 00:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Replace asterisk (for likely pickup) with colored end border

I have made a change I think is very useful. I added a wide blue right border to the four contest where a Democratic pickup is expected. (There are no Republican pickups yet expected.) I think that this is much easier to see than the small asterisk that is currently in use. If the creator of this article does not like my addition, please feel to revert and I am sorry for any incovenience. Otherwise, I think this will allow us to keep track of the race as time progresses. Today polls point to a possible four seat pickup for the Democrats. user:mnw2000 13:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, but you forgot to change the explanation of the chart. I've done so, however you may want to streamline the langauge. 68.39.174.238 15:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
If the bar is based on Tradesports, don't we already have an indicator that the party is likely to switch for that seat? The fact that the column next to the incumbent is one color while the color next to the tradesports column is another is a good indicator. Just need to include a legend saying what each color means.--Bobblehead 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, you may recall that we once had color indicated ONLY for party switches, but for some reason we moved away from that. I tend to agree with user:mnw2000 that we should make it a little more obvious somehow. Perhaps by shadowing turnovers and tossups (differently?). Thesmothete 04:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. The "likely switch" bar was removed but the text still remains. I thought that there was a concensus that the bar looked good. Why was it removed and, if that is the decision, shouldn't the text now be removed as well? I, for one, liked the use of the bar as it made it reall easy to see which contests are likely to result in a change. user:mnw2000 18:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

From the above discussion, I believe it was 3-1 in favor of the bars. That's a vote, not consensus -- Bobblehead is a respected editor on this page, so if he/she has continuing concerns about the bars, I'd want to hear them. Otherwise, let's go with the bars. (Although I think they should go on the right-hand side of the Tradesports column, rather than the far right of the table). Thesmothete 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
I was just unclear as for the need since we had the color for the incumbent and the color for the tradesports and if the two don't match that indicates a party switch, but if y'all feel it isn't clear enough, then I don't have any real opposition to another bar to the far right.--Bobblehead 21:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Question

"To control 51 seats, a majority in the Senate, Democrats would need a net gain of 6 seats (presuming that independent candidate Bernie Sanders wins Jim Jeffords' seat in Vermont and continues to caucus with the Democrats as he does in the House)."

So do they need to gain five seats+ for Sanders to win? 132.241.246.111 18:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

No. The Dems need to get 6 Republican seats. Including Jeffords the Dems only control 45 seats while the Republicans control 55. So the republicans have to lose 6 seats and the Dems have to pick up 6, not including Jeffords's seat. --Bobblehead 18:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Joe Lieberman has stated that he will caucus with the Democrats if he wins as an Independant. However, if the Dems pick up 6 Republican seats, an Independant Senator Joe Lieberman (assuming he wins) will hold all the cards for the Democrats. Interesting... user:mnw2000 14:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Heh. If Lieberman switches to the Republican caucaus and the Dems get the 6 republican seats that leave the two caucauses with a 50/50 split. I'm not sure how that would work as far as who controls the Senate.--Bobblehead 21:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

We had this situation before. The Republicans would control it based on the Vice-President breaking ties. Howsever, as they learned, all it would need is one moderate Republican who has a beef with Bush to switch sides. Then again, Joe could really get back at the Dems if it goes to 50/50. user:mnw2000 01:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

How about a link to "document" current outlook

How about putting a link to the news article with information about the poll that the current outlook of the race is based on?

Summarization by Rob van Stee

I recently mischaracterized this edit as "blanking" after a cursory look at the amount of text removed. Rob van Stee explained, however, that he was merely excising unnecessary detail to summarize the article because he believed it has grown too long. I thought his comment warranted discussion here.

Personally, I don't think the article is too long, especially given the extremely broad subject. There are certainly quite a few Wikipedia aritlces, even featured articles, that are much longer (I know, I should refer to policy, not precedent). I am not opposed to trimming the fat here, but I like the brief summaries of some of the races that are described in the article. I think Rob van Stee's edit, which removed all of the summaries, is too much. · j e r s y k o talk · 13:58, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I concur. 46K is long enough to trigger the "may be too long" edit warning, but it is as you say far from unprecedented (heck, this Talk page is longer) and the information that was excised is useful material to have on the main article. VoiceOfReason 14:02, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
If size is an issue, could always just move the table off to a template page and link the template back to here. *shrug* That method is used on several of the WP: pages. --Bobblehead 16:14, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

market predicted outcome

What do the percentages mean in "market predicted outcome?" Why are all the percentages in the 80's and 90's? I dont think any candidate is going to get 80 or 90 percent of the vote! So if they arent what the poll numbers are, then what are they?

-crd721

Please see the entire discussion, above. The market predicted outcome is not the predicted vote totals but the chance that the party indicated will win the seat. If you click the link for the reference you can find out more information. Thesmothete 04:37, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

References

Is anyone else getting the messed up references? I've got them all doubling up. When I view it in 'preview' it looks fine, but as soon as I save it the reference count doubles. I've been eyeballing the reference links and can't find anything wrong with them, so hopefully someone can ID where it goes wrong. --Bobblehead 16:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, apparently saving a section without any references fixed the problem for now. We'll see what happens when someone else edits a section with references.--Bobblehead 16:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Changing Tossup Purple to Black

I changed the color for a TOSSUP contest from purple to black. My reasoning is that the purple color is difficult to see for some reason. I know that some colors are more difficult for some to read. The black is very similar to the dark purple color, but seems to be easier on the eyes and not bleed into the blue or red. Also, froma political point of view, purple seems to imply that the winner will be a Democrat or Republican (which is probably true in reality), but we must always be open that someone other than a Democrat or Republican can win any contest. user:mnw2000 16:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Virgina percentage

I dont think its 75% I think its alot closer than that personally i know its closer than the Tennessee race anyways and Tennessee is like 66% or somthing like that

The number is from Tradesports. There has been some discussion about this before, see above. --KarlFrei 10:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Nevada Race

Why is it that the market predicted outcome is 90% Republican Favored when Ensign leads Carter by 3%? Rhelmerichs 23:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Rasmussen premium

Does anyone have a Rasmussen Reports premium account? I'm dying to know what the most recent Tennessee poll says, exactly. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC)