This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018 United States Senate elections article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2018 United States Senate elections was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 November 2018. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After looking over the competitive seat map, Florida and Ohio are not highlighted, and I'm curious as to why. I would think that the Democratic candidates (whether they're incumbents or not) would have tough fights since these two states are truly competitive. Thoughts? Mlaurenti ( talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just include them. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe that we should include Tennessee's open seat aswell. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Its right here here. Winterysteppe ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders is now registered as a Democrat and says he'll run as a Democrat in the future. His page says this. Can anyone please change Vermont to blue on the map? 173.67.106.134 ( talk) 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
no. He hasnt changed his Senate affiliation and he was last elected not being a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 ( talk) 20:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
senate.gov website lists him as "I-VT" no question he should be listed as an Independent until he changes and that change is reflected officially in the senate.-- Ldurkin ( talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The map uses the caption entries "Undetermined Democrat" and "Undetermined Republican." These are not defined. What is an "Undetermined Democrat" or an "Undetermined Republican" ? Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 20:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been fixed. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
U.S. Senator for Alabama, Jeff Sessions, is likely resigning to become Attorney General under the Trump Administration so won't their be a special election to fill the remaining 2 years of his term? Cake8325 ( talk) 14:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do you prefer combining the two tables of election predictions in the 2018 Senate elections? That's a fairly big edit to make (and then un-revert) without leaving any sort of rationale. Orser67 ( talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This may be a small thing, but shouldn't the colors be reversed for Running/Undeclared? Nevermore27 ( talk) 01:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The Democratic Incumbent Senators of Maryland and Delaware have both announced they will run for reelection. While the text in the article takes note of this, the map colors do not. I do not know how to fix it, I just wanted to make note of it. Mikeb0728 ( talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
What does this mean on the map, when states are listed as "Democrat running", "Republican running", "Democrat undeclared"? I'm sure the meaning of this is perfectly clear to whomever created the map, but it's absurd to list a state as "Democrate running", when we all know that in every Senate race there will be both a Democrat and a Republican running. I'm guessing that these labels have something to do with incumbency, but that is not at all clear, and without clearer labels, the map should be removed. I'll wait a bit for someone to clear this up before I do anything major. Un sch ool 06:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I added a citation needed tag to the PVI column of the table under what is currently called "Most recent election predictions". Previously those numbers had been the 2014 PVI numbers, but they no longer are. This is not to say that the numbers are wrong. I think that they are the 2018 numbers (the changes are consistent with what I'd expect). But those aren't publicly available, so I can't confirm that. The source of the numbers should be properly cited, as the ratings are. Such a citation could lie behind a paywall. This is also a problem on the Cook Partisan Voting Index, but this was the page I was reading. Mdfst13 ( talk) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Should that survey under the table of partisan composition be there? It seems pretty unencyclopedic to me, alphalfalfa( talk) 03:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We need to clarify this. My edits to improve the description keep getting reversed by one editor. As it is, the edit suggests the advisory court oppinion has an impact on US Senate and US Housee races, but it does not. It only is about November elections for governor and state legisaltors. The law currently stands in full, and the house has passed legislation to keep RCV in place in 2018 for all legal uses, including US Senate and U.S. House. While the legislature might repeal RCV, they certainly might not- and it would be because of politics, not law.
I would ask that someone step in and resolve this. It affects three articles. Note that the person doing the undoing even keeps undoing the correction to his/her mistake in the year of the reference, wsich is 2017, not 2016. The person also took out the new reference to what's actually gone on since the ruling. So I'm going to once again "undo" the editorial change, and have that persson work within the new edits, not reverse to go back to patently false information about the impact of the legal ruling. Thanks. RRichie ( talk) 16:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe the usage of "I" and "D" along with the blue shading is confusing and misleading under the election predictions section for the two Indp. Senators. In my opinion, the listing of "D" or blue shading implies that a Democrat is predicted to run against King and Sanders and possibly win. In my opinion "I" and yellow shading should strictly be used for Sanders and King unless they switch parties or declare their candidacy for a parties nomination in the 2018 Senate election as opposed to running as an Independent/Unaffiliated. -- Ldurkin ( talk) 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Only announced candidates belong in this article. Potential candidates with journalistic citations are allowed in articles for U.S. Senate races in individual states, but are not allowed in this article. So Kid Rock under his real number of Robert Ritchie (due to state law) can be listed as a potential candidate in the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 article, but not here. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 13:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am curious as to what criteria you are using to solicit others to come to this discussion. 331dot ( talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Kid Rock already sead he will be running he sead it at his consert the other night. I am from MI and I know who's running. As a Republican. https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/10154790212356135/?hc_ref=ARRX-vM4nIFx6XCQjp8dklZWHEOPwMyMe5w_6kw88Nl8HecznNM77yobIKoFXBUhPIY&pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 ( talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edit on the United States Senate elections, 2018 on the number of seats required for a majority. I won't start an edit war on this, but surely the majority indicator refers to which caucus will become the majority caucus in the Senate? See how the Senate majority changes, despite a 50-50 split in the 107th United States Congress, which would make it fair to assume that the Republicans only need 50 seats to be the majority, whereas Democrats need 51? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 13:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. — GoldRingChip 13:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
^Tables appear to be missing information about Colorado.
I have no idea how to fix this problem and have a broken hand so this is not the time for me to learn how to edit properly, but could someone please add Colorado to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plostroh ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no Colorado election this year. Redditaddict 6 9 05:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead.
There is no prejudice against a new RfC that specifically shows what material is proposed to be added as a subsection or a brief mention.
Should the article include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead? Casprings ( talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Presently the simple majority is indicated in the diagram, but there are a couple of other interesting thresholds, not least 60 votes (for cloture) and a 2/3 supermajority (for impeachment and a few other things). The simple majority has the advantage that it only needs one indicator, but the other thresholds would need one each for R and D, so maybe it would get cluttered to add all of them. Also, my table-fu is too weak to do this myself anyway. Thoughts? 82.31.82.76 ( talk) 17:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
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) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Will all FEC accepted parties have their person for that state shown, where one is running? (In the lower section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1014:c2fc:0:5837:b088:a394 ( talk) 02:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Please add pictures for all senatorial candidates including Mike Espy in Mississippi, Jane Reybould in Nebraska (she looks remarkably similar to Deb Fischer but they are different people), and Jenny Wilson in Utah, 14:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.80.218 ( talk)
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) 04:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States Senate elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hey! I am requesting edit access for this. I will not vandalise. I am always active and i like this kind of stuff. I already am waiting for 3 edits to make and change the ratings as i wan't people to get the most up-to-date information. Doverdoebo ( talk) 16:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The day after the election, there are all these checkmarks showing the winner. No, that the is news media declaring a winner. Well, I declare George Washington the winner so why not make it so?
The state election commission or office is the certifying body. Otherwise, it is just an exit poll or preliminary result. There should be a footnote stating the check is the latest results.
Actually, TV news is very deceptive. They know which races are hopeless. Then they "call" it the moment the polls are closed but it is based on no results or maybe 1% of results reported. So dishonest.
But for Wikipedia, we should note if the result is not a certified result but only the latest partial data or the latest count of most of the votes. Voterama ( talk) 19:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Republican number should be moved up to at least 52 seats.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2018/state/fl/senate/
46.93.244.85 ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it heading to recount?. Real clear politics is not Florida Secretary of State. Noncommittalp ( talk) 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Rick Scott won in Florida and Kyrsten Sinema won in Arizona /info/en/?search=United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2018 /info/en/?search=United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018
I was reverted for removing all popular vote counts from all senate election pages i believe its misleading as only a third of senate seats are up for election a large portion of the population doesn't vote and in the case of California it was democrat running against a democrat so both their totals are counted this is misleading for people and it's even used as a talking point that the party that got more votes lost seats so there's some problem with our democracy so I now propose removing the popular vote from all senate election pages as it is meaningless and misleading עם ישראל חי ( talk) 00:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Reopening request to remove popular vote data from all House and Senate election pages for historical reasons. The reasons given to keep the popular vote on a count of the California situation has merit, but there is a larger, overarching reason the popular vote data should be removed for two major reasons.
(1) The United States is not a parliamentary system where the cumulative number of votes cast corresponds to which party holds majority power -- and readers should not be mislead into believing a disparity between seats and votes is consequential. The United States is a bicameral legislature, one of the few with an upper chamber that wields significant power and the only one in which that upper chamber, The Senate, is representative of independent states, who share their sovereignty with the federal government, but elect representatives to represent the state, not the nation and not the people. The American Senate is distinct in this from any other country in the world.
Wikipedia should refrain from using a template that applies with many Western legislatures onto the United States' unique system of divided power.
(2) Each state is equally represented in the Senate. The size of the electorate in these states vary rendering "national" popular vote data meaningless as the disproportionate number of votes cast in some states that increase the popular vote does not fairly represent the votes of all states, nor does it acknowledge the sovereignty of each state. Rs24 ( talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Rs24 Rs24 ( talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
What "readers may want to know" is relative. The question is whether the selective data point is critical to understanding the election outcome, and moreover whether the data point is misleading. Popular votes in Senate elections are not relevant data points to understanding the outcome of Senate or House elections.
Wikipedia should stop applying Western parliamentary data templates to the United States.
Rs24 ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The map in the National Results section needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlambe3 ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The article (including the lead section) talks about Democrats having an exceptionally "unfavorable Senate map". However, it does not explain what a "Senate map" is or how its degree of favorability can be measured. Can the reader be expected to understand what this is saying? (I do not.) — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This [2] needs to be reliably sourced. I don't think it's wrong to add an asterix about how a jungle primary works and how that affects the popular vote count, but it's not correct to say that the total popular vote count is misleading. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey User:AmYisroelChai, you know what's really misleading? Presenting a statistic that excludes the biggest state in the country! I said above you could provide a stat with the primary data, but saying Democrats actually only won 53% because California doesn't count because you feel like it is bullshit. I have changed it to more neutral wording that shows the primary vote that included Republican candidates for comparison. Reywas92 Talk 23:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Given California is by far the biggest state, that badly skews the national “Senate popular vote.”.
a large portion of the population doesn't vote, as the percentage of states that vote is much greater than 50%. BarbadosKen ( talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Please comment:
Thank you. Levivich ( talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What is that "tipping point state" written in the red bold font in #Close_races supposed to mean? -- Diblidabliduu ( talk)
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) 05:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor RaySwifty18 is edit-warring change to the lead and body which remove text that note the electoral map was unfavorable to Democrats (as described by every RS) because Democrats were defending an enormous amount of seats (the seats won in the 2006 and 2012 elections). That Democrats were defending an enormous share of the seats has implications in terms of interpreting and understanding why Democrats lost seats on net in the Senate despite winning the House and getting a massive majority vote share. The editor should seek consensus here before continuing to edit-war out this longstanding text. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The map was widely characterized as extremely unfavorable to Democrats, as Democrats were defending 26 states while Republicans were defending nine.That's not quite true to the source, which makes more of a point of the partisan leans. I think it would be better to give the leans as the primary reason. As you say, the number of states is also relevant, but it should be mentioned second. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
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) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
In the
revision prior to this post, there is a discrepancy in the Democrats' national popular vote between the infobox (52,260,651) and the #Results summary
table (52,265,346). There is no indication whatsoever where these derive from, so, basing on the results from
page 57 of the
Clerk's report, I am using the following standard:
(For unexpired term ending January 3, 2021), Hyde-Smith (R) and Espy's (D) totals from the runoff are listed first.
In light of this, the D + R national vote totals that ought to be presented are a combination of the A) totals from page 57 (which only account for the regularly scheduled Class I elections), plus the B) runoff votes from MS special; C) votes from MN special (Class II, where Tina Smith won election to complete what would have been Franken's second term). CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 04:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need such extensive content about predictions and polls after we have actual results? It makes it harder to find what people are much more likely to actually be looking for, which is the results.
Hello, I don't have the time or expertise to fix all of the problems on this page, but there are some glaringly obvious errors in the first part of this article. Hopefully someone can amend that soon. 209.196.113.85 ( talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"Despite receiving less than 40% of the popular vote in this election, the Republicans increased their majority . . . ."
The popular vote is not a thing when it comes to Senate elections. Only one third of Senate seats are up in any given election, and depending on the map, the result can skew heavily Democratic or heavily Republican. There is no correlation between the popular vote for 1/3 of seats and majority control of all 100 seats.
"[T]he Democrats would win the Senate the next cycle, making Donald Trump the first US President since Herbert Hoover, who served from 1929 to 1933, to lose re-election and have his party lose both Houses of Congress in a single term."
This is irrelevant to the article. This would belong in an article about the 2020 Senate elections, not the 2018 Senate elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2018 United States Senate elections article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A news item involving 2018 United States Senate elections was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 7 November 2018. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
After looking over the competitive seat map, Florida and Ohio are not highlighted, and I'm curious as to why. I would think that the Democratic candidates (whether they're incumbents or not) would have tough fights since these two states are truly competitive. Thoughts? Mlaurenti ( talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Just include them. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I believe that we should include Tennessee's open seat aswell. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Its right here here. Winterysteppe ( talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Bernie Sanders is now registered as a Democrat and says he'll run as a Democrat in the future. His page says this. Can anyone please change Vermont to blue on the map? 173.67.106.134 ( talk) 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
no. He hasnt changed his Senate affiliation and he was last elected not being a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 ( talk) 20:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
senate.gov website lists him as "I-VT" no question he should be listed as an Independent until he changes and that change is reflected officially in the senate.-- Ldurkin ( talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
The map uses the caption entries "Undetermined Democrat" and "Undetermined Republican." These are not defined. What is an "Undetermined Democrat" or an "Undetermined Republican" ? Geoffrey.landis ( talk) 20:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
This has been fixed. Macraesam17 ( talk) 09:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
U.S. Senator for Alabama, Jeff Sessions, is likely resigning to become Attorney General under the Trump Administration so won't their be a special election to fill the remaining 2 years of his term? Cake8325 ( talk) 14:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Why do you prefer combining the two tables of election predictions in the 2018 Senate elections? That's a fairly big edit to make (and then un-revert) without leaving any sort of rationale. Orser67 ( talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
This may be a small thing, but shouldn't the colors be reversed for Running/Undeclared? Nevermore27 ( talk) 01:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
The Democratic Incumbent Senators of Maryland and Delaware have both announced they will run for reelection. While the text in the article takes note of this, the map colors do not. I do not know how to fix it, I just wanted to make note of it. Mikeb0728 ( talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
What does this mean on the map, when states are listed as "Democrat running", "Republican running", "Democrat undeclared"? I'm sure the meaning of this is perfectly clear to whomever created the map, but it's absurd to list a state as "Democrate running", when we all know that in every Senate race there will be both a Democrat and a Republican running. I'm guessing that these labels have something to do with incumbency, but that is not at all clear, and without clearer labels, the map should be removed. I'll wait a bit for someone to clear this up before I do anything major. Un sch ool 06:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I added a citation needed tag to the PVI column of the table under what is currently called "Most recent election predictions". Previously those numbers had been the 2014 PVI numbers, but they no longer are. This is not to say that the numbers are wrong. I think that they are the 2018 numbers (the changes are consistent with what I'd expect). But those aren't publicly available, so I can't confirm that. The source of the numbers should be properly cited, as the ratings are. Such a citation could lie behind a paywall. This is also a problem on the Cook Partisan Voting Index, but this was the page I was reading. Mdfst13 ( talk) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
Should that survey under the table of partisan composition be there? It seems pretty unencyclopedic to me, alphalfalfa( talk) 03:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
We need to clarify this. My edits to improve the description keep getting reversed by one editor. As it is, the edit suggests the advisory court oppinion has an impact on US Senate and US Housee races, but it does not. It only is about November elections for governor and state legisaltors. The law currently stands in full, and the house has passed legislation to keep RCV in place in 2018 for all legal uses, including US Senate and U.S. House. While the legislature might repeal RCV, they certainly might not- and it would be because of politics, not law.
I would ask that someone step in and resolve this. It affects three articles. Note that the person doing the undoing even keeps undoing the correction to his/her mistake in the year of the reference, wsich is 2017, not 2016. The person also took out the new reference to what's actually gone on since the ruling. So I'm going to once again "undo" the editorial change, and have that persson work within the new edits, not reverse to go back to patently false information about the impact of the legal ruling. Thanks. RRichie ( talk) 16:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
I believe the usage of "I" and "D" along with the blue shading is confusing and misleading under the election predictions section for the two Indp. Senators. In my opinion, the listing of "D" or blue shading implies that a Democrat is predicted to run against King and Sanders and possibly win. In my opinion "I" and yellow shading should strictly be used for Sanders and King unless they switch parties or declare their candidacy for a parties nomination in the 2018 Senate election as opposed to running as an Independent/Unaffiliated. -- Ldurkin ( talk) 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Only announced candidates belong in this article. Potential candidates with journalistic citations are allowed in articles for U.S. Senate races in individual states, but are not allowed in this article. So Kid Rock under his real number of Robert Ritchie (due to state law) can be listed as a potential candidate in the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 article, but not here. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 13:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
I am curious as to what criteria you are using to solicit others to come to this discussion. 331dot ( talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Kid Rock already sead he will be running he sead it at his consert the other night. I am from MI and I know who's running. As a Republican. https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/10154790212356135/?hc_ref=ARRX-vM4nIFx6XCQjp8dklZWHEOPwMyMe5w_6kw88Nl8HecznNM77yobIKoFXBUhPIY&pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 ( talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Hi, you reverted my edit on the United States Senate elections, 2018 on the number of seats required for a majority. I won't start an edit war on this, but surely the majority indicator refers to which caucus will become the majority caucus in the Senate? See how the Senate majority changes, despite a 50-50 split in the 107th United States Congress, which would make it fair to assume that the Republicans only need 50 seats to be the majority, whereas Democrats need 51? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... ( talk) 13:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. — GoldRingChip 13:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
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) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
^Tables appear to be missing information about Colorado.
I have no idea how to fix this problem and have a broken hand so this is not the time for me to learn how to edit properly, but could someone please add Colorado to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plostroh ( talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
There is no Colorado election this year. Redditaddict 6 9 05:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
There is no consensus to include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead.
There is no prejudice against a new RfC that specifically shows what material is proposed to be added as a subsection or a brief mention.
Should the article include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead? Casprings ( talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Presently the simple majority is indicated in the diagram, but there are a couple of other interesting thresholds, not least 60 votes (for cloture) and a 2/3 supermajority (for impeachment and a few other things). The simple majority has the advantage that it only needs one indicator, but the other thresholds would need one each for R and D, so maybe it would get cluttered to add all of them. Also, my table-fu is too weak to do this myself anyway. Thoughts? 82.31.82.76 ( talk) 17:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
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) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Will all FEC accepted parties have their person for that state shown, where one is running? (In the lower section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1014:c2fc:0:5837:b088:a394 ( talk) 02:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Please add pictures for all senatorial candidates including Mike Espy in Mississippi, Jane Reybould in Nebraska (she looks remarkably similar to Deb Fischer but they are different people), and Jenny Wilson in Utah, 14:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.80.218 ( talk)
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) 04:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
United States Senate elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Hey! I am requesting edit access for this. I will not vandalise. I am always active and i like this kind of stuff. I already am waiting for 3 edits to make and change the ratings as i wan't people to get the most up-to-date information. Doverdoebo ( talk) 16:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
The day after the election, there are all these checkmarks showing the winner. No, that the is news media declaring a winner. Well, I declare George Washington the winner so why not make it so?
The state election commission or office is the certifying body. Otherwise, it is just an exit poll or preliminary result. There should be a footnote stating the check is the latest results.
Actually, TV news is very deceptive. They know which races are hopeless. Then they "call" it the moment the polls are closed but it is based on no results or maybe 1% of results reported. So dishonest.
But for Wikipedia, we should note if the result is not a certified result but only the latest partial data or the latest count of most of the votes. Voterama ( talk) 19:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Republican number should be moved up to at least 52 seats.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2018/state/fl/senate/
46.93.244.85 ( talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Is it heading to recount?. Real clear politics is not Florida Secretary of State. Noncommittalp ( talk) 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Rick Scott won in Florida and Kyrsten Sinema won in Arizona /info/en/?search=United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2018 /info/en/?search=United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018
I was reverted for removing all popular vote counts from all senate election pages i believe its misleading as only a third of senate seats are up for election a large portion of the population doesn't vote and in the case of California it was democrat running against a democrat so both their totals are counted this is misleading for people and it's even used as a talking point that the party that got more votes lost seats so there's some problem with our democracy so I now propose removing the popular vote from all senate election pages as it is meaningless and misleading עם ישראל חי ( talk) 00:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Reopening request to remove popular vote data from all House and Senate election pages for historical reasons. The reasons given to keep the popular vote on a count of the California situation has merit, but there is a larger, overarching reason the popular vote data should be removed for two major reasons.
(1) The United States is not a parliamentary system where the cumulative number of votes cast corresponds to which party holds majority power -- and readers should not be mislead into believing a disparity between seats and votes is consequential. The United States is a bicameral legislature, one of the few with an upper chamber that wields significant power and the only one in which that upper chamber, The Senate, is representative of independent states, who share their sovereignty with the federal government, but elect representatives to represent the state, not the nation and not the people. The American Senate is distinct in this from any other country in the world.
Wikipedia should refrain from using a template that applies with many Western legislatures onto the United States' unique system of divided power.
(2) Each state is equally represented in the Senate. The size of the electorate in these states vary rendering "national" popular vote data meaningless as the disproportionate number of votes cast in some states that increase the popular vote does not fairly represent the votes of all states, nor does it acknowledge the sovereignty of each state. Rs24 ( talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Rs24 Rs24 ( talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
What "readers may want to know" is relative. The question is whether the selective data point is critical to understanding the election outcome, and moreover whether the data point is misleading. Popular votes in Senate elections are not relevant data points to understanding the outcome of Senate or House elections.
Wikipedia should stop applying Western parliamentary data templates to the United States.
Rs24 ( talk) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
The map in the National Results section needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlambe3 ( talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
The article (including the lead section) talks about Democrats having an exceptionally "unfavorable Senate map". However, it does not explain what a "Senate map" is or how its degree of favorability can be measured. Can the reader be expected to understand what this is saying? (I do not.) — BarrelProof ( talk) 00:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
This [2] needs to be reliably sourced. I don't think it's wrong to add an asterix about how a jungle primary works and how that affects the popular vote count, but it's not correct to say that the total popular vote count is misleading. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 16:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey User:AmYisroelChai, you know what's really misleading? Presenting a statistic that excludes the biggest state in the country! I said above you could provide a stat with the primary data, but saying Democrats actually only won 53% because California doesn't count because you feel like it is bullshit. I have changed it to more neutral wording that shows the primary vote that included Republican candidates for comparison. Reywas92 Talk 23:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
Given California is by far the biggest state, that badly skews the national “Senate popular vote.”.
a large portion of the population doesn't vote, as the percentage of states that vote is much greater than 50%. BarbadosKen ( talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
References
Please comment:
Thank you. Levivich ( talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
What is that "tipping point state" written in the red bold font in #Close_races supposed to mean? -- Diblidabliduu ( talk)
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) 05:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 06:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
The editor RaySwifty18 is edit-warring change to the lead and body which remove text that note the electoral map was unfavorable to Democrats (as described by every RS) because Democrats were defending an enormous amount of seats (the seats won in the 2006 and 2012 elections). That Democrats were defending an enormous share of the seats has implications in terms of interpreting and understanding why Democrats lost seats on net in the Senate despite winning the House and getting a massive majority vote share. The editor should seek consensus here before continuing to edit-war out this longstanding text. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
The map was widely characterized as extremely unfavorable to Democrats, as Democrats were defending 26 states while Republicans were defending nine.That's not quite true to the source, which makes more of a point of the partisan leans. I think it would be better to give the leans as the primary reason. As you say, the number of states is also relevant, but it should be mentioned second. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
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) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
In the
revision prior to this post, there is a discrepancy in the Democrats' national popular vote between the infobox (52,260,651) and the #Results summary
table (52,265,346). There is no indication whatsoever where these derive from, so, basing on the results from
page 57 of the
Clerk's report, I am using the following standard:
(For unexpired term ending January 3, 2021), Hyde-Smith (R) and Espy's (D) totals from the runoff are listed first.
In light of this, the D + R national vote totals that ought to be presented are a combination of the A) totals from page 57 (which only account for the regularly scheduled Class I elections), plus the B) runoff votes from MS special; C) votes from MN special (Class II, where Tina Smith won election to complete what would have been Franken's second term). CaradhrasAiguo ( leave language) 04:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Do we really need such extensive content about predictions and polls after we have actual results? It makes it harder to find what people are much more likely to actually be looking for, which is the results.
Hello, I don't have the time or expertise to fix all of the problems on this page, but there are some glaringly obvious errors in the first part of this article. Hopefully someone can amend that soon. 209.196.113.85 ( talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
"Despite receiving less than 40% of the popular vote in this election, the Republicans increased their majority . . . ."
The popular vote is not a thing when it comes to Senate elections. Only one third of Senate seats are up in any given election, and depending on the map, the result can skew heavily Democratic or heavily Republican. There is no correlation between the popular vote for 1/3 of seats and majority control of all 100 seats.
"[T]he Democrats would win the Senate the next cycle, making Donald Trump the first US President since Herbert Hoover, who served from 1929 to 1933, to lose re-election and have his party lose both Houses of Congress in a single term."
This is irrelevant to the article. This would belong in an article about the 2020 Senate elections, not the 2018 Senate elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 ( talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)