This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc. |
Someone better provide some documentation about Liddy Dole considering a run for NC Governor, because I have heard nothing about her being interested in the position; it is more likely she'd give one more shot at a Presidential run.-- 63.19.158.7 07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
> Isnt it a little early to pencil in Al Franken and Mark Udall as being the democratic nominees for their states, considering as how the primaries haven't been held yet?
I'm not saying they will be the Democratic nominees. I'm putting them in as candidates. That's what you're supposed to do. Put in all the candidates and only clean it up when the parties do have a nominee. I'm putting them back in!
> The person that removed Texas from the Races to Watch section, could you please explain why you don't think John Cornyn is vulnerable? Thanks. -- Lst27 (talk) 7 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the one who removed Texas from the list, but whoever did had one very good reason - despite Cornyn's unpopularity (he is the most unpopular Senator in the country according to the oft-cited SUSA poll), Texas is very Republican and no prominent Democrat has announced their intentions. I think it would be foolish to assume Texas will be competitive in 2008, at least this early.
I would like to see a reliable source saying that Senator Collins is retiring in 2008 before it is posted on the webpage. Byrdin2006 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And in many places badly written and badly thought out. It is absolutely fine to quote what notable sources say about this election. It is absolutely not fine for some anonymous IP address or registered user to set themselves up as an expert. Stirling Newberry 14:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all this speculation about retirements and possible candidates should either have sources added or be removed. KCinDC 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is terribly informal and speculative. I'm going to try to take some time, Senator by Senator, to see what the current news updates are and to remove a lot of the unverifiable or highly speculative information. Zz414 13:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The possible retirements heading is silly. Either Biden will resign after accepting the nomination for President or Kerry will. Most likely neither will but it is pretty certain that at most one will resign.
A list of possible retirements might make sense but listing according to the possibility of retirement does not. Might as well have a list of 'possible deaths', which should include them all. -- 66.31.39.76 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there some sort of protocal neccesary for featuring a site under "external links"? Everytime I try to add a resource, its removed shortly thereafter, though there is nothing altogether special about the one external link that is allowed to remain. revfig 14:47, 17 November 2006 (EST)
Allard announced he's not seeking another term. I have the cite. Valadius 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What is it? Carpet9 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Never mind. Carpet9 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please please please cite your additions! Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The George Cook linked to in the Pat Roberts section is not the George Cook that the article is referring to; it's an opera singer. 70.254.28.213 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any threated seats that may swing the majority/minority situation.
I don't think rumors about Larry Craig being gay should be included in this article, because they are exactly that: rumors. Dozens of public figures have had rumors of being gay around them, and I don't think they have any place on an encyclopedia. -- JMurphy 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that politicians should not have it public any rumors that they are gay, even if they don't supporty gay rights, but Craig's case is different. He was formally charged with soliciting sex in the Men's bathroom in Minneapolis's airport. There is more evidence here than just a rumor. Mark Foley was a rumor. Larry Craig is a record and hard evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npanton81 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he wasn't just charged, he was convicted (more precisely: he pled guilty). He now says that he didn't do it, but I think that his guilty plea makes it more than a mere rumor. HMishkoff ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
With the death of Craig Thomas, Wyoming will now have two Senate contests in 2008 with the special election to fill the remaining four years of Thomas' term. How do we accomodate this in the table? Steelbeard1 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a news story giving the background for the selection process for interim senator in Wyoming and the history behind the law at [1]. Steelbeard1 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
While many sections of this article need to be cleaned up, the Kentucky section is particularly egregious, especially the first half of it. For starters, Senator McConnell did not endorse or support either nominee in the 2007 Gubernatorial Primary. The rumor campaign that McConnell lent Anne Northup his "political machine" is speculation at best, and has not been corroberated by any news source or supported by any statement from anyone involved in the process. McConnell also immediately endorsed Governor Fletcher for re-election after he won re-nomination. Second, there is no proof that the quixotic "Draft Forgy" effort has any support (or attention) from Governor Fletcher and/or his allies. A quick Google search confirms that all the blog speculation on a possible Forgy primary challenge is based off the DraftForgy Blogspot page, which could be maintained by anybody, including Democratic opponents of the Senate Minority Leader. Finally, the 2007 Governor's race between Fletcher and Beshear has, at best, tangential relation to the 2008 Senate contest. Partial poll results for the Governor's Race in 2007 is immaterial to Senator McConnell's re-election chances, and should not be included. 207.138.153.98 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Rev Fig
I decided to shift the 'Senate vacancies' subsection to the top of the 'Races' section to minimize redundant sentences after another one was inserted. Once the interim senator is appointed by Wyoming's governor, the 'Senate vacancies' subsection can be renamed 'Interim senators' with the interim senator's name replacing that of the late Craig Thomas. Steelbeard1 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the messagebox at the top of the article, because the lead section (which I just edited) doesn't contain any such thing (I don't think it did before, either). If in fact there is speculation in a specific section, whoever posted the messagebox at the top of the article should feel free to repost in the section that has the problem, rather than at the top of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the ordering here? It's not alphabetical by state or by incumbent's last name. For the Republicans, it sort of looks like least vulnerable to most vulnerable, but that's not totally consistent; for the Democrats, it looks like the reverse, which is odd.
Assuming there is in fact some underlying order, would someone please actually state, in the section, before the table appears, exactly what it is? And if it in fact is by vulnerability, may I suggest that both the Republicans and Democrats should be listed with most vulnerable first, since that's the most interesting thing to readers; it's rather boring to start out with a bunch of safe seats listed (again, if that's the order). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Hotline rankings label those races starting at #17 as "The Rest." This suggests to me that they fit into a single category in which they are essentially tied. It is perhaps misleading to include the numbering for these races in the table. Furthermore, they seem well correlated to the seats that others rank as safe. It might be more accurate to go back to simply treating them as "safe" (with a note explaining that this is being done).
The Hotline rankings are also very old (February). It might be best to just remove that column until the rankings get updated. -- RichardMathews 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a good way to weigh the Hotline rankings with the rest except as a tie breaker, so that is what I did when I just reordered the table.-- RichardMathews 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think having the seats listed in alphabetical order is a very good method, I liked it the way it was. But if you are going to keep it in alphabetical order, please include a column or color coding that indicates the party affiliation of the incumbent. 74.240.193.120 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(*EDIT* 2006 table removed)
Regarding the use of bold face: I originally used three levels. Blank represented "safe." Normal text was "likely." Bold was "leans" or "tossup." A recent change reduced this to two levels. The "safe" rankings are no longer left blank, and the "likely" has shifted to bold. I think this change to two levels reduces readability. I also do not like that the change of "likely" to bold provides no contrast between likely and tossup, which are clearly very different ratings.
Rather than reducing the number of levels, it might be worth considering increasing the number. While I thought that three levels was good enough, we could try: blank for safe (perhaps with an asterisk for no rating given), black for likely incumbent, brown for leans incumbent, orange for tossup, red for leans/likely challenger. I worry, though, that that too many colors would get to be too distracting rather than informative.
-- RichardMathews 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Safe R |
Likely R |
Leans R |
Tossup |
Leans D |
Likely D |
Safe D |
The colors used for "Republican Hold" and for "Toss-up" cannot be distinguished by color-blind people like me. Please see the Wikipedia article on color-blindness, and note that up to seven percent of men are red-green colorblind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.71.171 ( talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this article I would conclude that the Democrats would be lucky to pick up two (2) seats in the Senate in 2008. However this ignores the 2006 election in which the Democrats picked up 6 of the 15 Republican seats while maintaining 15 of their 16 seats. Based on the continuation of the Iraqi war - with no end in sight - significant casualties every month - significant democratic gains (6 to 10 seats) should be the prediction. The economy has some faultlines forming which could be in play by next November - the economy has been a Republican Strength - which may have helped them preserve some seats in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.222.235 ( talk) 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is always going to be some news that is newer than the predictions. I don't believe we should be constantly updating a list of qualifiers to the predictions to give the latest news. I thus deleted the qualifier regarding the announcement that Mark Warner will run.
On the other hand, the table does show which seats are open. It thus would be misleading to show a prediction that was made before the seat was open. I thus have left the qualifiers that refer to predictions that predate retirement announcements.-- RichardMathews 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Lott's retirement is different from the others, since he's leaving in the middle of his term, not just failing to run for reelection. The seat will eventually be listed under the new incumbent's name, just as the one for the Wyoming special election is listed as Barrasso. Actually, depending on when exactly the retirement occurs the special election may not even be in November. KCinDC ( talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be good to add Chris Cillizza's Rankings, the national journals rankings and Lindsay politics 101 to this page under the predictions section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangas ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Because the special election date is in dispute--the governor wants it in November, the state attorney general in March, the section for incumbent Roger Wicker is placed in a special section called "Election date disputed." If the courts decide on a November date, then Wicker's section could be included with the regular races. If the courts decide that the special election must follow Mississippi's election law and be held in March, then it must stay separate. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The map at the top of this page is incorrect. It has Oregon highlighted as a state with two incumbent elections happening in 2008, at least as far as I can tell. As Oregon does not have two Republican senators, and has only one senator up for reelection, this is impossible. I'd change it myself but I'm no good with graphics. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. ( talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think having individual tables for the races is a good idea since there is already one big table at the bottom of the article. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The table showing pundit ratings does not have the dates individual pundits updated their ratings. Instead it just says above that "All ratings are current as of ---". I think it makes a big difference in interpreting the ratings how old they are: not just the individual ratings themselves, but knowing X rating occured after a certain event, or didn't. ( talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Since senators are the presumptive presidential nominees of both parties this year, it seems to me that this article should mention the consequences of that. One Senate seat, whether from Illinois or Arizona, will be vacated this year. I don't know what happens next; I believe that it depends partially upon state law (leave the seat vacant, governor appoints replacement, and/or special election held). According to a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service, Arizona law says that the governor must appoint a senator from the same party; whether this is still true, I do not know. Sacxpert ( talk) 08:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For the Intrade Oregon race as of August 6, 2008. The "Last" value for the Republican winning was 57.9, the value for the Democrat winning was 55.0 and the Field was 0.1 (this last one is "normal"). What do we do for this illogical situation in terms of ranking? Naraht ( talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There's some discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 about whether to include the Pindell Report and Swing State Project in the table of House race predictions. Both are included in the Senate table. What do people think the criteria should be for which predictors get included on these pages and which don't? Are the partisan predictors (SSP and FiveThirtyEight.com) a problem (though I'm not even aware of any race tracking by conservative blogs)? Should there be a requirement that a predictor have been around for a few elections? — KCinDC ( talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your point about including partisan ratings; in fact, I believe that there was controversy over including Election Projection last cycle because the site is run by a Republican. We should either include all or include none of the partisan ratings, and I'm leaning toward including none.
I have already commented on why I feel the Pindell Report should not be included in my post below. As for Intrade, I have gone back and forth on them throughout this cycle and last (when it was called TradeSports). First, the percentages which designate one rating or the other are completely arbitrary. I am not sure who came up with the original percentages, which are as they are now, save for the 90% "safe" rating, which I modified from 93% or 95%. Second, if there is a good amount of media attention on a race, its values can change very frequently and give that race a very fickle appearance as it goes from, say "leans" to "likely" and back again every other day or so. As such, while these values seem to confirm what other ratings sources show, it might be just as well if we took Intrade out of the table.
I'm all for only including those who have been in the game for awhile, as I think it gives the table more legitimacy. What is the consensus? Bridger ( talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone briefly explain why the methodologies for 538 and SSP are biased? It shouldn't be relevant that the person running either is biased if the methodology is good. There is a Republican poll, Strategic Vision, I think, that the mainstream media use because it is a good poll and reliable. The fact that it is run by a Republican strategist is not relevant. - Rrius ( talk) 04:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that I have a huge problem with. If you want to remove Politicker.com’s Pindell Report, I'm okay with that as long as we discuss it here first. I have to take serious issue with anyone changing ratings he or she doesn't happen to agree with. We're not supposed to do original research here. We are representing other people's research here and it needs to be reflected accurately. Frankly, I agree with the most recent edit about South Carolina, but that isn't the point. BTW, I have also heard that the Georgia race is tightening. I've heard that from multiple sources, but what I've heard is irrelevant. We cannot misrepresent the sources we are citing just because we don't agree with them. Henrymrx ( talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I found it odd that the yellow boxes for the independents were at the beginning of the table. It seems like when we see graphics about the balance of power in mainstream sources, we see R's on one side, D's on the other, with any I's in the middle. I know that both independents caucus with the Democrats, but they're still independents and one at least has been acting an awful lot like a Republican lately. I'm going to "be bold" and change the table to put independents in the middle (holding the balance of power). It'll look like this:
110th Congress Senate Composition | 111th Congress Senate Composition | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks. Kingnavland ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation for Warner's supposed retirement? Also, it appears we will need a new map at the top right corner of the page if Warner is in fact retiring, as Virginia would be light red. Jsnruf 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
11/5/08: Can someone start updating this page? (re-write it in past tense, record results, etc.?) I'm trying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.126.156 ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
They're giving it to Merkley. Is that enough to paint it blue here? - R. fiend ( talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not just MSNBC. Every major news outlet has now called Oregon. *And* Gordon Smith conceded. The Democrats have officially picked up 6 seats, with two (Alaska and Minnesota) too close to call, and a third (Georgia) going to a runoff. It's time to update the map and color Oregon blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.238.179 ( talk) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Blue = Democratic pickup
Yellow = Independent pickup
Gray = Retiring Senator
State | Incumbent | Party | Status | Candidates |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona | Jon Kyl | Republican | 3rd term; Re-elected, 53.3% |
Jim Pederson (Democrat) 43.5% Richard Mack ( Libertarian) 3.2% |
California | Dianne Feinstein | Democratic | 4th Term; Re-elected, 59.4% |
Dick Mountjoy (Republican) 35.2% Don Grundmann ( American Independent) 1.8% Todd Chretien ( Green) 1.7% Michael Metti (Libertarian) 1.6% Marsha Feinland ( Peace and Freedom) 1.3% |
Connecticut | Joe Lieberman | Connecticut for Lieberman | 4th term; Defeated in Democratic Party primary, won re-election as member of Connecticut for Lieberman, 49.7% |
Ned Lamont (Democrat) 39.7% Alan Schlesinger (Republican) 9.6% Ralph Ferrucci ( Green) 0.5% Timothy Knibbs ( Concerned Citizens) 0.4% |
Delaware | Tom Carper | Democratic | 2nd Term; Re-elected, 70.2% |
Jan Ting (Republican) 28.7% William E. Morris (Libertarian) 1.1% |
Florida | Bill Nelson | Democratic | 2nd Term; Re-elected, 60.3% |
Katherine Harris (Republican) 38.1% Belinda Noah ( Independent) 0.5% Brian Moore ( Green) 0.4% Floyd Ray Frazier ( Independent) 0.3% Roy Tanner ( Independent) 0.3% |
Hawaii | Daniel Akaka | Democratic | 4th Term; Re-elected, 61.4% |
Cynthia Thielen (Republican) 36.8% Lloyd Mallan (Libertarian) 1.9% |
Indiana | Dick Lugar | Republican | 6th Term; Re-elected, 87.3% | Steve Osborn (Libertarian) 12.6% |
Maine | Olympia Snowe | Republican | 3th Term; Re-elected, 74.4% |
Jean Hay Bright (Democrat) 20.5% Bill Slavick ( Independent) 5.2% |
Maryland | Paul Sarbanes | Democratic | Retired, Democratic victory |
Ben Cardin (Democrat) 54.2% Michael Steele (Republican) 44.2% Kevin Zeese (Green) 1.5% |
Massachusetts | Ted Kennedy | Democratic | Re-elected, 69.5% | Kenneth Chase (Republican) 30.5% |
Michigan | Debbie Stabenow | Democratic | Re-elected, 56.9% |
Mike Bouchard (Republican) 41.3% Leonard Schwartz ( Libertarian) 0.7% David Sole ( Green) 0.6% W. Dennis FitzSimons ( Constitution) 0.5% |
Minnesota | Mark Dayton | Democratic | Retired, Democratic victory |
Amy Klobuchar (
Democratic-Farmer-Labor) 58.1% Mark Kennedy (Republican) 37.9% Robert Fitzgerald ( Independence) 3.2% Michael Cavlan ( Green) 0.5% Ben Powers ( Constitution) 0.3% |
Mississippi | Trent Lott | Republican | Re-elected, 63.6% |
Erik Fleming (Democrat) 34.8% Harold Taylor (Libertarian) 1.5% |
Missouri | Jim Talent | Republican | Defeated, 47.3% |
Claire McCaskill (Democrat) 49.6% Frank Gilmour (Libertarian) 1.2% Lydia Lewis ( Green) 0.9% |
Montana | Conrad Burns | Republican | Defeated, 48.3% |
Jon Tester (Democrat) 49.2% Stan Jones (Libertarian) 2.6% |
Nebraska | Ben Nelson | Democratic | Re-elected, 63.9% | Pete Ricketts (Republican) 36.1% |
Nevada | John Ensign | Republican | Re-elected, 55.4% |
Jack Carter (Democrat) 41% None of These Candidates 1.4% David Schumann (Constitution) 1.3% Brendan Trainor ( Libertarian) 0.9% |
New Jersey | Bob Menendez | Democratic | Elected to 1st full term, [1] 53.4% |
Thomas Kean Jr. (Republican) 44.3% Len Flynn ( Libertarian) 0.7% Ed Forchion ( Marijuana) 0.5% J.M. Carter ( Independent) 0.4% N. Leonard Smith ( Independent) 0.3% Daryl Brooks ( Independent) 0.2% Angela Lariscy ( Socialist Workers) 0.2% Gregory Pason ( Socialist) 0.1% |
New Mexico | Jeff Bingaman | Democratic | Re-elected, 70.6% | Allen McCulloch (Republican) 29.3% |
New York | Hillary Clinton | Democratic | 2nd Term; Re-elected, 67% |
John Spencer (Republican) 31.0% Howie Hawkins (Green) 1.2% Jeff Russell ( Libertarian) 0.4% Bill Van Auken ( Socialist Equality) 0.2% Roger Calero ( Socialist Workers) 0.2% |
North Dakota | Kent Conrad | Democratic-NPL | Re-elected, 68.8% |
Dwight Grotberg (Republican) 29.5% Roland Riemers (Independent) 1% James Germalic (Independent) 0.6% |
Ohio | Mike DeWine | Republican | Defeated, 43.8% | Sherrod Brown (Democrat) 56.2% |
Pennsylvania | Rick Santorum | Republican | Defeated, 41.3% | Bob Casey, Jr. (Democrat) 58.7% |
Rhode Island | Lincoln Chafee | Republican | Defeated, 46.5% | Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat) 53.5% |
Tennessee | Bill Frist | Republican | Retired, Republican victory |
Bob Corker (Republican) 50.7% Harold Ford, Jr. (Democrat) 48.0% Ed Choate ( Independent) 0.6% David Gatchell ( Independent) 0.2% Emory "Bo" Heyward ( Independent) 0.2% H. Gary Keplinger ( Independent) 0.2% Chris Lugo ( Green) 0.1% |
Texas | Kay Bailey Hutchison | Republican | Re-elected, 61.7% |
Barbara Ann Radnofsky (Democrat) 36.0% Scott Jameson (Libertarian) 2.3% |
Utah | Orrin Hatch | Republican | Re-elected, 62.6% |
Pete Ashdown (Democrat) 30.8% Scott Bradley (Constitution) 3.8% Roger Price ( Personal Choice)1.6% Dave Seely ( Libertarian) 0.8% Julian Hatch ( Green) 0.4% |
Vermont | Jim Jeffords | Independent [2] | Retired, Independent victory |
Bernie Sanders (Independent) 65.4% Richard Tarrant (Republican) 32.3% Cris Ericson ( Independent) 0.6% Craig Hill ( Green) 0.5% Peter Moss ( Independent) 0.5% Peter Diamondstone ( Liberty Union) 0.3% |
Virginia | George Allen | Republican | Defeated, 49.2% |
Jim Webb (
Democratic) 49.6% Gail Parker ( Independent Green) 1.1% |
Washington | Maria Cantwell | Democratic | Re-elected, 56.6% |
Mike McGavick (Republican) 39.9% Bruce Guthrie (Libertarian) 1.4% Aaron Dixon (Green) 1.0% Robin Adair ( Independent) 0.8% |
West Virginia | Robert Byrd | Democratic | Re-elected, 64.4% |
John Raese (Republican) 33.7% Jesse Johnson ( Mountain) 1.9% |
Wisconsin | Herb Kohl | Democratic | Re-elected, 67.3% |
Robert Lorge (Republican) 29.5% Rae Vogeler (Green) 2.0% Ben Glatzel (Independent) 1.2% |
Wyoming | Craig Thomas | Republican | Re-elected, 70% | Dale Groutage (Democrat) 30.0% |
-- Levineps ( talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
References
I would suggest moving the bulk of what is in the MN section as the history should be on the Minnesota Election page not the overall US Senate election page.-- Levineps ( talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It has dawned upon me that it is not certain that the Democrats are going to enjoy a 57 majority in the Senate. Obama and Biden are going to vacate their seats and it all depends on how they are going to be filled. If the State governors are to appoint the replacements, then they are to be held by Democrats; however, if the laws in any of the two states dictates a special election, then the Republicans could - however unlikely, given that both states are considered Democratic safe havens - have a go at them. That being said, does anybody know how Illinois and Delaware replace vacant seats in the Senate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.88.195 ( talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are Nebraska, Idaho, and the Wyoming Special Election considered Republican holds not Safe Republicans, they won but large percentages of the vote, it wasn't even close, and no one expected it to be close, I am sorry but I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 ( talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Associated Press, main source of election projection for a number of national media outlets, has declared Mark Begich the winner. Alaska should now be bright blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 ( talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What does the number swing mean in the infobox? I assumed it compared the percentage to the previous (2006) elections, but the numbers do not match up. It also does not work for 2002. If it is supposed to compare to 2006, then I would argue this makes no sense and should be removed, since in 2006 different states were voting for senator. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This caption is incorrect, since only 35 seats were up for election this year. Democratic seats won is 19 to 21 depending on recount/runoff outcomes, and Republican seats won is 14 to 16. I am not changing the numbers in the table because I understand that this is actually showing the makeup of the new Senate, but I don't know how to change the infobox caption (or even if it should be changed -- might create problems in other articles that use it). Cmadler ( talk) 14:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've created {{ Infobox Senate Election}}, which is a direct rip-off of {{ Infobox Election}}. The only change I made was to replace "Seats won" with "Seats after". This may not be the best way of putting it, and I would invite everyone to edit the heck out of it. - Rrius ( talk) 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added the "seats_after" function to {{ Infobox Election}}, making {{ Infobox Senate Election}} unneeded. Shall we more quickly dispense of it somehow? *cough*Rrius: G7*cough* — kur ykh 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
At some point, we will change the candidate chart to one such as is used at the 2006 election page. I have created one at my sandbox that could be used now. Any thoughts? - Rrius ( talk) 17:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We should probably turn light blue. Franken is the de facto winner, and court challenges shouldn't stop us from updating it, we should just have a note saying the results are still being contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.85 ( talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not include the independents with the Democrats. It is oxymoronic. The fact that Bernie Sanders is a socialist and sides with Democrats is self-explanatory. Most people know that Lieberman sides with Democrats except on national security matters. Lumping them in with Democrats is an insult to the independent candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonsjester ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Our list of freshman senators includes not just freshman resulting from the election, but also freshmen whose seats result from post-election vacancies. I wonder whether it would make sense to either leave out the post-election sorts or move this list to 111th United States Congress. - Rrius ( talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why in congress 50%+1 wins and the senate must have 60% to win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.92.242 ( talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Should the text of "In April 2009, Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democratic, which gave the Democratic Party another seat (their 59th) in the Senate. In June 2009, Al Franken was seated in the Senate after a bitterly-contested lawsuit in Minnesota. This gave the Democratic party their 60th seat in the Senate. In January 2010, Republican Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts, and so the balance of power became 59-41." remain in the introduction? This may not be germane to an encyclopedia article introduction. Myownworst ( talk) 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What is this supposed to mean? Why have a column where every entry is "data is missing"? john k ( talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 22 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/08/21/news/wyoming/21-newcomer.txtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/380141.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2008/02/06/news/state/doc47a97787a74ce109171390.txtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 9 September 2017 (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) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if, in addition to being able to navigate to the previous Senate election (2006) and the next Senate election (2010), if there were arrows that would lead to the previous and next elections of the same Senate class (like 2002 and 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.66.73.251 ( talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet. If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc. |
Someone better provide some documentation about Liddy Dole considering a run for NC Governor, because I have heard nothing about her being interested in the position; it is more likely she'd give one more shot at a Presidential run.-- 63.19.158.7 07:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
> Isnt it a little early to pencil in Al Franken and Mark Udall as being the democratic nominees for their states, considering as how the primaries haven't been held yet?
I'm not saying they will be the Democratic nominees. I'm putting them in as candidates. That's what you're supposed to do. Put in all the candidates and only clean it up when the parties do have a nominee. I'm putting them back in!
> The person that removed Texas from the Races to Watch section, could you please explain why you don't think John Cornyn is vulnerable? Thanks. -- Lst27 (talk) 7 July 2005 21:47 (UTC)
Well, I wasn't the one who removed Texas from the list, but whoever did had one very good reason - despite Cornyn's unpopularity (he is the most unpopular Senator in the country according to the oft-cited SUSA poll), Texas is very Republican and no prominent Democrat has announced their intentions. I think it would be foolish to assume Texas will be competitive in 2008, at least this early.
I would like to see a reliable source saying that Senator Collins is retiring in 2008 before it is posted on the webpage. Byrdin2006 18:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And in many places badly written and badly thought out. It is absolutely fine to quote what notable sources say about this election. It is absolutely not fine for some anonymous IP address or registered user to set themselves up as an expert. Stirling Newberry 14:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all this speculation about retirements and possible candidates should either have sources added or be removed. KCinDC 01:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This page is terribly informal and speculative. I'm going to try to take some time, Senator by Senator, to see what the current news updates are and to remove a lot of the unverifiable or highly speculative information. Zz414 13:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
The possible retirements heading is silly. Either Biden will resign after accepting the nomination for President or Kerry will. Most likely neither will but it is pretty certain that at most one will resign.
A list of possible retirements might make sense but listing according to the possibility of retirement does not. Might as well have a list of 'possible deaths', which should include them all. -- 66.31.39.76 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there some sort of protocal neccesary for featuring a site under "external links"? Everytime I try to add a resource, its removed shortly thereafter, though there is nothing altogether special about the one external link that is allowed to remain. revfig 14:47, 17 November 2006 (EST)
Allard announced he's not seeking another term. I have the cite. Valadius 19:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
What is it? Carpet9 23:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ah. Never mind. Carpet9 23:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Please please please cite your additions! Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 22:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
The George Cook linked to in the Pat Roberts section is not the George Cook that the article is referring to; it's an opera singer. 70.254.28.213 03:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone know if there are any threated seats that may swing the majority/minority situation.
I don't think rumors about Larry Craig being gay should be included in this article, because they are exactly that: rumors. Dozens of public figures have had rumors of being gay around them, and I don't think they have any place on an encyclopedia. -- JMurphy 06:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that politicians should not have it public any rumors that they are gay, even if they don't supporty gay rights, but Craig's case is different. He was formally charged with soliciting sex in the Men's bathroom in Minneapolis's airport. There is more evidence here than just a rumor. Mark Foley was a rumor. Larry Craig is a record and hard evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Npanton81 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, he wasn't just charged, he was convicted (more precisely: he pled guilty). He now says that he didn't do it, but I think that his guilty plea makes it more than a mere rumor. HMishkoff ( talk) 00:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
With the death of Craig Thomas, Wyoming will now have two Senate contests in 2008 with the special election to fill the remaining four years of Thomas' term. How do we accomodate this in the table? Steelbeard1 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
There is a news story giving the background for the selection process for interim senator in Wyoming and the history behind the law at [1]. Steelbeard1 16:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
While many sections of this article need to be cleaned up, the Kentucky section is particularly egregious, especially the first half of it. For starters, Senator McConnell did not endorse or support either nominee in the 2007 Gubernatorial Primary. The rumor campaign that McConnell lent Anne Northup his "political machine" is speculation at best, and has not been corroberated by any news source or supported by any statement from anyone involved in the process. McConnell also immediately endorsed Governor Fletcher for re-election after he won re-nomination. Second, there is no proof that the quixotic "Draft Forgy" effort has any support (or attention) from Governor Fletcher and/or his allies. A quick Google search confirms that all the blog speculation on a possible Forgy primary challenge is based off the DraftForgy Blogspot page, which could be maintained by anybody, including Democratic opponents of the Senate Minority Leader. Finally, the 2007 Governor's race between Fletcher and Beshear has, at best, tangential relation to the 2008 Senate contest. Partial poll results for the Governor's Race in 2007 is immaterial to Senator McConnell's re-election chances, and should not be included. 207.138.153.98 16:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)Rev Fig
I decided to shift the 'Senate vacancies' subsection to the top of the 'Races' section to minimize redundant sentences after another one was inserted. Once the interim senator is appointed by Wyoming's governor, the 'Senate vacancies' subsection can be renamed 'Interim senators' with the interim senator's name replacing that of the late Craig Thomas. Steelbeard1 16:49, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the messagebox at the top of the article, because the lead section (which I just edited) doesn't contain any such thing (I don't think it did before, either). If in fact there is speculation in a specific section, whoever posted the messagebox at the top of the article should feel free to repost in the section that has the problem, rather than at the top of the article. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
What exactly is the ordering here? It's not alphabetical by state or by incumbent's last name. For the Republicans, it sort of looks like least vulnerable to most vulnerable, but that's not totally consistent; for the Democrats, it looks like the reverse, which is odd.
Assuming there is in fact some underlying order, would someone please actually state, in the section, before the table appears, exactly what it is? And if it in fact is by vulnerability, may I suggest that both the Republicans and Democrats should be listed with most vulnerable first, since that's the most interesting thing to readers; it's rather boring to start out with a bunch of safe seats listed (again, if that's the order). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
The Hotline rankings label those races starting at #17 as "The Rest." This suggests to me that they fit into a single category in which they are essentially tied. It is perhaps misleading to include the numbering for these races in the table. Furthermore, they seem well correlated to the seats that others rank as safe. It might be more accurate to go back to simply treating them as "safe" (with a note explaining that this is being done).
The Hotline rankings are also very old (February). It might be best to just remove that column until the rankings get updated. -- RichardMathews 17:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a good way to weigh the Hotline rankings with the rest except as a tie breaker, so that is what I did when I just reordered the table.-- RichardMathews 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't think having the seats listed in alphabetical order is a very good method, I liked it the way it was. But if you are going to keep it in alphabetical order, please include a column or color coding that indicates the party affiliation of the incumbent. 74.240.193.120 14:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
(*EDIT* 2006 table removed)
Regarding the use of bold face: I originally used three levels. Blank represented "safe." Normal text was "likely." Bold was "leans" or "tossup." A recent change reduced this to two levels. The "safe" rankings are no longer left blank, and the "likely" has shifted to bold. I think this change to two levels reduces readability. I also do not like that the change of "likely" to bold provides no contrast between likely and tossup, which are clearly very different ratings.
Rather than reducing the number of levels, it might be worth considering increasing the number. While I thought that three levels was good enough, we could try: blank for safe (perhaps with an asterisk for no rating given), black for likely incumbent, brown for leans incumbent, orange for tossup, red for leans/likely challenger. I worry, though, that that too many colors would get to be too distracting rather than informative.
-- RichardMathews 17:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Safe R |
Likely R |
Leans R |
Tossup |
Leans D |
Likely D |
Safe D |
The colors used for "Republican Hold" and for "Toss-up" cannot be distinguished by color-blind people like me. Please see the Wikipedia article on color-blindness, and note that up to seven percent of men are red-green colorblind! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.71.171 ( talk) 22:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Looking at this article I would conclude that the Democrats would be lucky to pick up two (2) seats in the Senate in 2008. However this ignores the 2006 election in which the Democrats picked up 6 of the 15 Republican seats while maintaining 15 of their 16 seats. Based on the continuation of the Iraqi war - with no end in sight - significant casualties every month - significant democratic gains (6 to 10 seats) should be the prediction. The economy has some faultlines forming which could be in play by next November - the economy has been a Republican Strength - which may have helped them preserve some seats in 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.222.235 ( talk) 18:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
There is always going to be some news that is newer than the predictions. I don't believe we should be constantly updating a list of qualifiers to the predictions to give the latest news. I thus deleted the qualifier regarding the announcement that Mark Warner will run.
On the other hand, the table does show which seats are open. It thus would be misleading to show a prediction that was made before the seat was open. I thus have left the qualifiers that refer to predictions that predate retirement announcements.-- RichardMathews 22:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Lott's retirement is different from the others, since he's leaving in the middle of his term, not just failing to run for reelection. The seat will eventually be listed under the new incumbent's name, just as the one for the Wyoming special election is listed as Barrasso. Actually, depending on when exactly the retirement occurs the special election may not even be in November. KCinDC ( talk) 17:30, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
I think it would be good to add Chris Cillizza's Rankings, the national journals rankings and Lindsay politics 101 to this page under the predictions section —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fangas ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Because the special election date is in dispute--the governor wants it in November, the state attorney general in March, the section for incumbent Roger Wicker is placed in a special section called "Election date disputed." If the courts decide on a November date, then Wicker's section could be included with the regular races. If the courts decide that the special election must follow Mississippi's election law and be held in March, then it must stay separate. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 20:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
The map at the top of this page is incorrect. It has Oregon highlighted as a state with two incumbent elections happening in 2008, at least as far as I can tell. As Oregon does not have two Republican senators, and has only one senator up for reelection, this is impossible. I'd change it myself but I'm no good with graphics. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. ( talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think having individual tables for the races is a good idea since there is already one big table at the bottom of the article. Steelbeard1 ( talk) 16:19, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
The table showing pundit ratings does not have the dates individual pundits updated their ratings. Instead it just says above that "All ratings are current as of ---". I think it makes a big difference in interpreting the ratings how old they are: not just the individual ratings themselves, but knowing X rating occured after a certain event, or didn't. ( talk) 19:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Since senators are the presumptive presidential nominees of both parties this year, it seems to me that this article should mention the consequences of that. One Senate seat, whether from Illinois or Arizona, will be vacated this year. I don't know what happens next; I believe that it depends partially upon state law (leave the seat vacant, governor appoints replacement, and/or special election held). According to a 2003 report by the Congressional Research Service, Arizona law says that the governor must appoint a senator from the same party; whether this is still true, I do not know. Sacxpert ( talk) 08:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
For the Intrade Oregon race as of August 6, 2008. The "Last" value for the Republican winning was 57.9, the value for the Democrat winning was 55.0 and the Field was 0.1 (this last one is "normal"). What do we do for this illogical situation in terms of ranking? Naraht ( talk) 21:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
There's some discussion at Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 about whether to include the Pindell Report and Swing State Project in the table of House race predictions. Both are included in the Senate table. What do people think the criteria should be for which predictors get included on these pages and which don't? Are the partisan predictors (SSP and FiveThirtyEight.com) a problem (though I'm not even aware of any race tracking by conservative blogs)? Should there be a requirement that a predictor have been around for a few elections? — KCinDC ( talk) 20:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I see your point about including partisan ratings; in fact, I believe that there was controversy over including Election Projection last cycle because the site is run by a Republican. We should either include all or include none of the partisan ratings, and I'm leaning toward including none.
I have already commented on why I feel the Pindell Report should not be included in my post below. As for Intrade, I have gone back and forth on them throughout this cycle and last (when it was called TradeSports). First, the percentages which designate one rating or the other are completely arbitrary. I am not sure who came up with the original percentages, which are as they are now, save for the 90% "safe" rating, which I modified from 93% or 95%. Second, if there is a good amount of media attention on a race, its values can change very frequently and give that race a very fickle appearance as it goes from, say "leans" to "likely" and back again every other day or so. As such, while these values seem to confirm what other ratings sources show, it might be just as well if we took Intrade out of the table.
I'm all for only including those who have been in the game for awhile, as I think it gives the table more legitimacy. What is the consensus? Bridger ( talk) 17:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Can someone briefly explain why the methodologies for 538 and SSP are biased? It shouldn't be relevant that the person running either is biased if the methodology is good. There is a Republican poll, Strategic Vision, I think, that the mainstream media use because it is a good poll and reliable. The fact that it is run by a Republican strategist is not relevant. - Rrius ( talk) 04:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I just reverted an edit that I have a huge problem with. If you want to remove Politicker.com’s Pindell Report, I'm okay with that as long as we discuss it here first. I have to take serious issue with anyone changing ratings he or she doesn't happen to agree with. We're not supposed to do original research here. We are representing other people's research here and it needs to be reflected accurately. Frankly, I agree with the most recent edit about South Carolina, but that isn't the point. BTW, I have also heard that the Georgia race is tightening. I've heard that from multiple sources, but what I've heard is irrelevant. We cannot misrepresent the sources we are citing just because we don't agree with them. Henrymrx ( talk) 04:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi all. I found it odd that the yellow boxes for the independents were at the beginning of the table. It seems like when we see graphics about the balance of power in mainstream sources, we see R's on one side, D's on the other, with any I's in the middle. I know that both independents caucus with the Democrats, but they're still independents and one at least has been acting an awful lot like a Republican lately. I'm going to "be bold" and change the table to put independents in the middle (holding the balance of power). It'll look like this:
110th Congress Senate Composition | 111th Congress Senate Composition | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Thanks. Kingnavland ( talk) 20:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone have a citation for Warner's supposed retirement? Also, it appears we will need a new map at the top right corner of the page if Warner is in fact retiring, as Virginia would be light red. Jsnruf 02:29, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
11/5/08: Can someone start updating this page? (re-write it in past tense, record results, etc.?) I'm trying —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.126.156 ( talk) 01:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
They're giving it to Merkley. Is that enough to paint it blue here? - R. fiend ( talk) 16:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not just MSNBC. Every major news outlet has now called Oregon. *And* Gordon Smith conceded. The Democrats have officially picked up 6 seats, with two (Alaska and Minnesota) too close to call, and a third (Georgia) going to a runoff. It's time to update the map and color Oregon blue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.181.238.179 ( talk) 19:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
Blue = Democratic pickup
Yellow = Independent pickup
Gray = Retiring Senator
State | Incumbent | Party | Status | Candidates |
---|---|---|---|---|
Arizona | Jon Kyl | Republican | 3rd term; Re-elected, 53.3% |
Jim Pederson (Democrat) 43.5% Richard Mack ( Libertarian) 3.2% |
California | Dianne Feinstein | Democratic | 4th Term; Re-elected, 59.4% |
Dick Mountjoy (Republican) 35.2% Don Grundmann ( American Independent) 1.8% Todd Chretien ( Green) 1.7% Michael Metti (Libertarian) 1.6% Marsha Feinland ( Peace and Freedom) 1.3% |
Connecticut | Joe Lieberman | Connecticut for Lieberman | 4th term; Defeated in Democratic Party primary, won re-election as member of Connecticut for Lieberman, 49.7% |
Ned Lamont (Democrat) 39.7% Alan Schlesinger (Republican) 9.6% Ralph Ferrucci ( Green) 0.5% Timothy Knibbs ( Concerned Citizens) 0.4% |
Delaware | Tom Carper | Democratic | 2nd Term; Re-elected, 70.2% |
Jan Ting (Republican) 28.7% William E. Morris (Libertarian) 1.1% |
Florida | Bill Nelson | Democratic | 2nd Term; Re-elected, 60.3% |
Katherine Harris (Republican) 38.1% Belinda Noah ( Independent) 0.5% Brian Moore ( Green) 0.4% Floyd Ray Frazier ( Independent) 0.3% Roy Tanner ( Independent) 0.3% |
Hawaii | Daniel Akaka | Democratic | 4th Term; Re-elected, 61.4% |
Cynthia Thielen (Republican) 36.8% Lloyd Mallan (Libertarian) 1.9% |
Indiana | Dick Lugar | Republican | 6th Term; Re-elected, 87.3% | Steve Osborn (Libertarian) 12.6% |
Maine | Olympia Snowe | Republican | 3th Term; Re-elected, 74.4% |
Jean Hay Bright (Democrat) 20.5% Bill Slavick ( Independent) 5.2% |
Maryland | Paul Sarbanes | Democratic | Retired, Democratic victory |
Ben Cardin (Democrat) 54.2% Michael Steele (Republican) 44.2% Kevin Zeese (Green) 1.5% |
Massachusetts | Ted Kennedy | Democratic | Re-elected, 69.5% | Kenneth Chase (Republican) 30.5% |
Michigan | Debbie Stabenow | Democratic | Re-elected, 56.9% |
Mike Bouchard (Republican) 41.3% Leonard Schwartz ( Libertarian) 0.7% David Sole ( Green) 0.6% W. Dennis FitzSimons ( Constitution) 0.5% |
Minnesota | Mark Dayton | Democratic | Retired, Democratic victory |
Amy Klobuchar (
Democratic-Farmer-Labor) 58.1% Mark Kennedy (Republican) 37.9% Robert Fitzgerald ( Independence) 3.2% Michael Cavlan ( Green) 0.5% Ben Powers ( Constitution) 0.3% |
Mississippi | Trent Lott | Republican | Re-elected, 63.6% |
Erik Fleming (Democrat) 34.8% Harold Taylor (Libertarian) 1.5% |
Missouri | Jim Talent | Republican | Defeated, 47.3% |
Claire McCaskill (Democrat) 49.6% Frank Gilmour (Libertarian) 1.2% Lydia Lewis ( Green) 0.9% |
Montana | Conrad Burns | Republican | Defeated, 48.3% |
Jon Tester (Democrat) 49.2% Stan Jones (Libertarian) 2.6% |
Nebraska | Ben Nelson | Democratic | Re-elected, 63.9% | Pete Ricketts (Republican) 36.1% |
Nevada | John Ensign | Republican | Re-elected, 55.4% |
Jack Carter (Democrat) 41% None of These Candidates 1.4% David Schumann (Constitution) 1.3% Brendan Trainor ( Libertarian) 0.9% |
New Jersey | Bob Menendez | Democratic | Elected to 1st full term, [1] 53.4% |
Thomas Kean Jr. (Republican) 44.3% Len Flynn ( Libertarian) 0.7% Ed Forchion ( Marijuana) 0.5% J.M. Carter ( Independent) 0.4% N. Leonard Smith ( Independent) 0.3% Daryl Brooks ( Independent) 0.2% Angela Lariscy ( Socialist Workers) 0.2% Gregory Pason ( Socialist) 0.1% |
New Mexico | Jeff Bingaman | Democratic | Re-elected, 70.6% | Allen McCulloch (Republican) 29.3% |
New York | Hillary Clinton | Democratic | 2nd Term; Re-elected, 67% |
John Spencer (Republican) 31.0% Howie Hawkins (Green) 1.2% Jeff Russell ( Libertarian) 0.4% Bill Van Auken ( Socialist Equality) 0.2% Roger Calero ( Socialist Workers) 0.2% |
North Dakota | Kent Conrad | Democratic-NPL | Re-elected, 68.8% |
Dwight Grotberg (Republican) 29.5% Roland Riemers (Independent) 1% James Germalic (Independent) 0.6% |
Ohio | Mike DeWine | Republican | Defeated, 43.8% | Sherrod Brown (Democrat) 56.2% |
Pennsylvania | Rick Santorum | Republican | Defeated, 41.3% | Bob Casey, Jr. (Democrat) 58.7% |
Rhode Island | Lincoln Chafee | Republican | Defeated, 46.5% | Sheldon Whitehouse (Democrat) 53.5% |
Tennessee | Bill Frist | Republican | Retired, Republican victory |
Bob Corker (Republican) 50.7% Harold Ford, Jr. (Democrat) 48.0% Ed Choate ( Independent) 0.6% David Gatchell ( Independent) 0.2% Emory "Bo" Heyward ( Independent) 0.2% H. Gary Keplinger ( Independent) 0.2% Chris Lugo ( Green) 0.1% |
Texas | Kay Bailey Hutchison | Republican | Re-elected, 61.7% |
Barbara Ann Radnofsky (Democrat) 36.0% Scott Jameson (Libertarian) 2.3% |
Utah | Orrin Hatch | Republican | Re-elected, 62.6% |
Pete Ashdown (Democrat) 30.8% Scott Bradley (Constitution) 3.8% Roger Price ( Personal Choice)1.6% Dave Seely ( Libertarian) 0.8% Julian Hatch ( Green) 0.4% |
Vermont | Jim Jeffords | Independent [2] | Retired, Independent victory |
Bernie Sanders (Independent) 65.4% Richard Tarrant (Republican) 32.3% Cris Ericson ( Independent) 0.6% Craig Hill ( Green) 0.5% Peter Moss ( Independent) 0.5% Peter Diamondstone ( Liberty Union) 0.3% |
Virginia | George Allen | Republican | Defeated, 49.2% |
Jim Webb (
Democratic) 49.6% Gail Parker ( Independent Green) 1.1% |
Washington | Maria Cantwell | Democratic | Re-elected, 56.6% |
Mike McGavick (Republican) 39.9% Bruce Guthrie (Libertarian) 1.4% Aaron Dixon (Green) 1.0% Robin Adair ( Independent) 0.8% |
West Virginia | Robert Byrd | Democratic | Re-elected, 64.4% |
John Raese (Republican) 33.7% Jesse Johnson ( Mountain) 1.9% |
Wisconsin | Herb Kohl | Democratic | Re-elected, 67.3% |
Robert Lorge (Republican) 29.5% Rae Vogeler (Green) 2.0% Ben Glatzel (Independent) 1.2% |
Wyoming | Craig Thomas | Republican | Re-elected, 70% | Dale Groutage (Democrat) 30.0% |
-- Levineps ( talk) 21:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
References
I would suggest moving the bulk of what is in the MN section as the history should be on the Minnesota Election page not the overall US Senate election page.-- Levineps ( talk) 21:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
It has dawned upon me that it is not certain that the Democrats are going to enjoy a 57 majority in the Senate. Obama and Biden are going to vacate their seats and it all depends on how they are going to be filled. If the State governors are to appoint the replacements, then they are to be held by Democrats; however, if the laws in any of the two states dictates a special election, then the Republicans could - however unlikely, given that both states are considered Democratic safe havens - have a go at them. That being said, does anybody know how Illinois and Delaware replace vacant seats in the Senate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.41.88.195 ( talk) 16:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
Why are Nebraska, Idaho, and the Wyoming Special Election considered Republican holds not Safe Republicans, they won but large percentages of the vote, it wasn't even close, and no one expected it to be close, I am sorry but I am changing this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.116.129.138 ( talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
The Associated Press, main source of election projection for a number of national media outlets, has declared Mark Begich the winner. Alaska should now be bright blue on the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 ( talk) 02:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
What does the number swing mean in the infobox? I assumed it compared the percentage to the previous (2006) elections, but the numbers do not match up. It also does not work for 2002. If it is supposed to compare to 2006, then I would argue this makes no sense and should be removed, since in 2006 different states were voting for senator. -- KarlFrei ( talk) 17:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
This caption is incorrect, since only 35 seats were up for election this year. Democratic seats won is 19 to 21 depending on recount/runoff outcomes, and Republican seats won is 14 to 16. I am not changing the numbers in the table because I understand that this is actually showing the makeup of the new Senate, but I don't know how to change the infobox caption (or even if it should be changed -- might create problems in other articles that use it). Cmadler ( talk) 14:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I've created {{ Infobox Senate Election}}, which is a direct rip-off of {{ Infobox Election}}. The only change I made was to replace "Seats won" with "Seats after". This may not be the best way of putting it, and I would invite everyone to edit the heck out of it. - Rrius ( talk) 18:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I have added the "seats_after" function to {{ Infobox Election}}, making {{ Infobox Senate Election}} unneeded. Shall we more quickly dispense of it somehow? *cough*Rrius: G7*cough* — kur ykh 05:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
At some point, we will change the candidate chart to one such as is used at the 2006 election page. I have created one at my sandbox that could be used now. Any thoughts? - Rrius ( talk) 17:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We should probably turn light blue. Franken is the de facto winner, and court challenges shouldn't stop us from updating it, we should just have a note saying the results are still being contested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.85 ( talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Do not include the independents with the Democrats. It is oxymoronic. The fact that Bernie Sanders is a socialist and sides with Democrats is self-explanatory. Most people know that Lieberman sides with Democrats except on national security matters. Lumping them in with Democrats is an insult to the independent candidates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reasonsjester ( talk • contribs) 19:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Our list of freshman senators includes not just freshman resulting from the election, but also freshmen whose seats result from post-election vacancies. I wonder whether it would make sense to either leave out the post-election sorts or move this list to 111th United States Congress. - Rrius ( talk) 06:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why in congress 50%+1 wins and the senate must have 60% to win? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.92.242 ( talk) 01:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Should the text of "In April 2009, Arlen Specter switched from Republican to Democratic, which gave the Democratic Party another seat (their 59th) in the Senate. In June 2009, Al Franken was seated in the Senate after a bitterly-contested lawsuit in Minnesota. This gave the Democratic party their 60th seat in the Senate. In January 2010, Republican Scott Brown won a special Senate election in Massachusetts, and so the balance of power became 59-41." remain in the introduction? This may not be germane to an encyclopedia article introduction. Myownworst ( talk) 18:28, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
What is this supposed to mean? Why have a column where every entry is "data is missing"? john k ( talk) 20:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 10:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 4 external links on
United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 3 external links on
United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 22 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2008/08/21/news/wyoming/21-newcomer.txtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:59, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.sunherald.com/306/story/380141.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 14 external links on United States Senate elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2008/02/06/news/state/doc47a97787a74ce109171390.txtWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:03, 9 September 2017 (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) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
It would be really helpful if, in addition to being able to navigate to the previous Senate election (2006) and the next Senate election (2010), if there were arrows that would lead to the previous and next elections of the same Senate class (like 2002 and 2014) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.66.73.251 ( talk) 15:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)