This article is rated List-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. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There is a Senate race in Kentucky in 2016 (as Republican Rand Paul is up for re-election), but the Senate map shows Kentucky as gray, not red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach freak ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the image File:2016_US_Senate_election_seats.png that the article is using. The Eastern Shore of Virginia is colored Blue, it should be Gray like the rest of the state. Naraht ( talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The color for Oklahoma needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Tom Coburn is retiring.
-- 184.6.222.14 ( talk) 02:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be two main errors on the senate map:
1) Map shows there is no race in Kentucky but there is with Republican incumbent Rand Paul running
2) The eastern shore area of Virginia is coloured blue, as if it were part of the state of Maryland yet it is not and as such should be colored grey as there is no race in Virginia in '16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 ( talk • contribs)
The map still shows "undetermined incumbents" for HI, OK and SC. With the special elections having taken place it's now clear that those senators will be Schatz(D-HI), Lankford (R-OK) and Scott (R-SC). Someone should thus update the colors for those three states. -- fdewaele, 11 November 2014, 10:17 CET.
David Vitter is running for Governor of Louisiana in 2015. Can he run for governor and senator at the same time? 2601:3:1000:593:8994:E37A:2B30:4BD8 ( talk) 18:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Senate elections, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "West":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Charlie Cook has published his first 2016 Senate rankings here: http://cookpolitical.com/senate/charts/race-ratings Larry Sabato has done the same: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/
I would imagine that we can replace the "Seats that are predicted to be competitive" section with an actual competitive seat section found in previous years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.245.18 ( talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
California should be colored light blue because Barbara Boxer is retiring, and Hawaii, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are still black even though the new senators from all three states have now been sworn in. -- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As of 3/27/15, Dan Coats, Republican of IN has announced his retirement (3/24/15), as well as Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of MD (3/2/15) and Harry Reid, Democrat of NV (3/27/15). I don't know how to change the map colors, but someone ought to do it. - Dan Epstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.66.254 ( talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
California enacted blanket primaries several years ago for most elections, including Senate races, so party nominations are effectively abolished. I removed references to candidates seeking the Democratic or Republican nomination. If the wording I left isn't perfect, please update it. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 01:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
If you retrieve the RollCall.com 2016 Election Race Ratings [1], the page says: "The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call Race Ratings for House, Senate and gubernatorial contests." The results line up exactly the Rothenburg & Gonzales Political Report Senate Ratings [2], so we probably should remove one or the other column. 96.231.151.159 ( talk) 05:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
References
I have heard he will remain a Democrat. He became one when he decided to run for president. Should he be listed as one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.34.222 ( talk) 14:15, March 11, 2016
Could this image be updated to include Arizona? Surely if North Carolina is competitive, so is Arizona. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Primary dates are not significant and have not been used in previous Senate election pages. Also - not all races will have primaries because of uncontested party elections or because of other processes for nominations. Plus, many have already passed which makes them unneeded in the interim. I am removing the primary dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C5C6:4800:E0A1:4CF6:BE81:8652 ( talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is that primary dates should be included in the 2016 Senate elections summary table. Editors noted that since not all states had primaries or had runoffs or different ways of nominating candidates, any confusion could be cleared up with more information or explanation. Cunard ( talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Should primary dates be included in the table 2016 Senate elections summary table? Orser67 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I argue that it is useful information that helps readers understand when nominees will be chosen, and fits comfortably within the table. An IP editor has continually deleted this information, arguing that several of the states have already held primaries and the table fails to take into account other processes. Orser67 ( talk) 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I am, as someone noted from my IP address, Richard Grayson, and I edited the page to include that I have filed as the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Alaska. I see someone has added that I would be ineligible to hold the seat if elected, as I do not live in Alaska. As the Constitution, Article I, Section 3, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." As three Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled, you cannot bar anyone from the ballot based on their residence at time of filing since no one can predict where someone will be living at the time "when elected." (Also note: "Inhabitant" is not the same as "resident" or "citizen" of the state. I was inhabiting Wyoming on Election Day 2014, when I was running for the U.S. House there, and I fully expect, if in the unlikely event that I do become the Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska, to move to Alaska at least long enough to be inhabiting the state on Election Day.
I'm not going to make the change myself -- or any other changes -- but I leave it up to fair-minded editors to consider my point and whether the "ineligible" language should be removed.
The court rulings I mentioned: Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229, 1235 (10th Cir.2000) Schaefer v. Townsend, 215 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th Cir.2000) Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.223.44 ( talk) 11:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone added this to the California section. I get that it's trying to make clear to the reader that no Republicans performed well enough to advance to the general election, but the wording is confusing, because it makes it sound like there's a vote threshold, whereas in reality the top two candidates (and only them) advance to the general election.
Maybe we need a better (but still brief) way of explaining how the California primary system works. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 21:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate elections, 2016. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Naraht ( talk) 15:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
For the race summary section, we could maybe use a shading like this to indicate whether the primary has taken place
Hawaii | Brian Schatz | Democratic | 2012 (Appointed) 2014 (Special) |
Incumbent running. |
Brian Schatz (Democratic)
[1] John Carroll (Republican) [1] Makani Christensen (Democratic) [1] Karla Gottschalk (Republican) [1] Tutz Honeychurch (Democratic) [1] Eddie Pirkowski (Republican) [1] Arturo Reyes (Democratic) [1] John P. Roco (Democratic) [1] Miles Shiratori (Democratic) [1] |
---|
Orser67 ( talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The "After the elections" table currently has D34 as the last Democrat, followed by the seats up for election all listed as "TBD". Because the winner in California will be one of two Democrats, shouldn't the first seat up for election after D34 be D35, perhaps with an explanatory note? - Rrius ( talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong these are great sources, but they are updated by the hour so they date very quickly. We already have enough estimate sources so my opinion is to remove these two. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we have a map yet showing the results of the Senate elections? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 16:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The results map needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the Alabama special election... --
HighFlyingFish (
talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on United States Senate elections, 2016. 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://blog.al.com/press-release/2015/04/ron_crumpton_to_run_for_united.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) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as the 2017 special election has its own page, I do not see the reasoning of the current article title Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the title change should be reverted, as the article should only be covering elections that took place on Election Day, 2016, while others should get their own pages (but could be mentioned here). Hopefully we can get more discussion and eventually a vote. Dayshade ( talk) 20:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Primaries associated with Election Day (i.e. elections with a primary on or before that day) could be covered, which can be a clear criterion to use. Dayshade ( talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to United States Senate elections, 2016 as requested. Please note that this could have been done without discussion as the reversion of a bold move, or through WP:RMTR. If moves for any other previous elections are desired or further discussion of the plural is necessary, I suggest initiating that through adding all pages to a multimove request. Dekimasu よ! 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017 → United States Senate elections, 2016 – The 2016 election was a normal election held under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as per other articles on US Senate elections the inclusion of the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 is inappropriate as this was special election. It is not standard practice to group special/by elections into previous election articles. . support as nom Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:57, 31 January 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) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Should "Close Races" be limited to 10% margin? Should there be subheading distinctions between 1%, 5%, 10%, etc? Should they be listed at all, or are they repetitive here? Let's discuss! — GoldRingChip 03:02, 18 July 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) 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated List-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. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
There is a Senate race in Kentucky in 2016 (as Republican Rand Paul is up for re-election), but the Senate map shows Kentucky as gray, not red. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach freak ( talk • contribs) 23:24, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Could someone please fix the image File:2016_US_Senate_election_seats.png that the article is using. The Eastern Shore of Virginia is colored Blue, it should be Gray like the rest of the state. Naraht ( talk) 20:29, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The color for Oklahoma needs to be changed to reflect the fact that Tom Coburn is retiring.
-- 184.6.222.14 ( talk) 02:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
There seem to be two main errors on the senate map:
1) Map shows there is no race in Kentucky but there is with Republican incumbent Rand Paul running
2) The eastern shore area of Virginia is coloured blue, as if it were part of the state of Maryland yet it is not and as such should be colored grey as there is no race in Virginia in '16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guyb123321 ( talk • contribs)
The map still shows "undetermined incumbents" for HI, OK and SC. With the special elections having taken place it's now clear that those senators will be Schatz(D-HI), Lankford (R-OK) and Scott (R-SC). Someone should thus update the colors for those three states. -- fdewaele, 11 November 2014, 10:17 CET.
David Vitter is running for Governor of Louisiana in 2015. Can he run for governor and senator at the same time? 2601:3:1000:593:8994:E37A:2B30:4BD8 ( talk) 18:00, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: External link in |title=
(
help)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States Senate elections, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "West":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Charlie Cook has published his first 2016 Senate rankings here: http://cookpolitical.com/senate/charts/race-ratings Larry Sabato has done the same: http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/2016-senate/
I would imagine that we can replace the "Seats that are predicted to be competitive" section with an actual competitive seat section found in previous years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.245.18 ( talk) 18:39, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
California should be colored light blue because Barbara Boxer is retiring, and Hawaii, Oklahoma, and South Carolina are still black even though the new senators from all three states have now been sworn in. -- Bigpoliticsfan ( talk) 16:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
As of 3/27/15, Dan Coats, Republican of IN has announced his retirement (3/24/15), as well as Barbara Mikulski, Democrat of MD (3/2/15) and Harry Reid, Democrat of NV (3/27/15). I don't know how to change the map colors, but someone ought to do it. - Dan Epstein — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.66.254 ( talk) 14:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
California enacted blanket primaries several years ago for most elections, including Senate races, so party nominations are effectively abolished. I removed references to candidates seeking the Democratic or Republican nomination. If the wording I left isn't perfect, please update it. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 01:19, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
If you retrieve the RollCall.com 2016 Election Race Ratings [1], the page says: "The Rothenberg & Gonzales Political Report/Roll Call Race Ratings for House, Senate and gubernatorial contests." The results line up exactly the Rothenburg & Gonzales Political Report Senate Ratings [2], so we probably should remove one or the other column. 96.231.151.159 ( talk) 05:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
References
I have heard he will remain a Democrat. He became one when he decided to run for president. Should he be listed as one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.247.34.222 ( talk) 14:15, March 11, 2016
Could this image be updated to include Arizona? Surely if North Carolina is competitive, so is Arizona. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk) 15:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Primary dates are not significant and have not been used in previous Senate election pages. Also - not all races will have primaries because of uncontested party elections or because of other processes for nominations. Plus, many have already passed which makes them unneeded in the interim. I am removing the primary dates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:C5C6:4800:E0A1:4CF6:BE81:8652 ( talk) 02:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The consensus is that primary dates should be included in the 2016 Senate elections summary table. Editors noted that since not all states had primaries or had runoffs or different ways of nominating candidates, any confusion could be cleared up with more information or explanation. Cunard ( talk) 22:33, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Should primary dates be included in the table 2016 Senate elections summary table? Orser67 ( talk) 18:06, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I argue that it is useful information that helps readers understand when nominees will be chosen, and fits comfortably within the table. An IP editor has continually deleted this information, arguing that several of the states have already held primaries and the table fails to take into account other processes. Orser67 ( talk) 18:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
I am, as someone noted from my IP address, Richard Grayson, and I edited the page to include that I have filed as the Democratic candidate for the Senate from Alaska. I see someone has added that I would be ineligible to hold the seat if elected, as I do not live in Alaska. As the Constitution, Article I, Section 3, "No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen." As three Circuit Courts of Appeals have ruled, you cannot bar anyone from the ballot based on their residence at time of filing since no one can predict where someone will be living at the time "when elected." (Also note: "Inhabitant" is not the same as "resident" or "citizen" of the state. I was inhabiting Wyoming on Election Day 2014, when I was running for the U.S. House there, and I fully expect, if in the unlikely event that I do become the Democratic nominee for Senate in Alaska, to move to Alaska at least long enough to be inhabiting the state on Election Day.
I'm not going to make the change myself -- or any other changes -- but I leave it up to fair-minded editors to consider my point and whether the "ineligible" language should be removed.
The court rulings I mentioned: Campbell v. Davidson, 233 F.3d 1229, 1235 (10th Cir.2000) Schaefer v. Townsend, 215 F.3d 1031, 1039 (9th Cir.2000) Texas Democratic Party v. Benkiser, 459 F.3d 582 (5th Cir. 2006)
Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.223.44 ( talk) 11:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Someone added this to the California section. I get that it's trying to make clear to the reader that no Republicans performed well enough to advance to the general election, but the wording is confusing, because it makes it sound like there's a vote threshold, whereas in reality the top two candidates (and only them) advance to the general election.
Maybe we need a better (but still brief) way of explaining how the California primary system works. Zeldafanjtl ( talk) 21:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States Senate elections, 2016. 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}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Naraht ( talk) 15:47, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
For the race summary section, we could maybe use a shading like this to indicate whether the primary has taken place
Hawaii | Brian Schatz | Democratic | 2012 (Appointed) 2014 (Special) |
Incumbent running. |
Brian Schatz (Democratic)
[1] John Carroll (Republican) [1] Makani Christensen (Democratic) [1] Karla Gottschalk (Republican) [1] Tutz Honeychurch (Democratic) [1] Eddie Pirkowski (Republican) [1] Arturo Reyes (Democratic) [1] John P. Roco (Democratic) [1] Miles Shiratori (Democratic) [1] |
---|
Orser67 ( talk) 17:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The "After the elections" table currently has D34 as the last Democrat, followed by the seats up for election all listed as "TBD". Because the winner in California will be one of two Democrats, shouldn't the first seat up for election after D34 be D35, perhaps with an explanatory note? - Rrius ( talk) 18:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong these are great sources, but they are updated by the hour so they date very quickly. We already have enough estimate sources so my opinion is to remove these two. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 13:24, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we have a map yet showing the results of the Senate elections? -- 1990'sguy ( talk) 16:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The results map needs to be updated to reflect the outcome of the Alabama special election... --
HighFlyingFish (
talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on United States Senate elections, 2016. 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://blog.al.com/press-release/2015/04/ron_crumpton_to_run_for_united.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) 04:07, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Seeing as the 2017 special election has its own page, I do not see the reasoning of the current article title Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 23:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
I definitely agree that the title change should be reverted, as the article should only be covering elections that took place on Election Day, 2016, while others should get their own pages (but could be mentioned here). Hopefully we can get more discussion and eventually a vote. Dayshade ( talk) 20:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Primaries associated with Election Day (i.e. elections with a primary on or before that day) could be covered, which can be a clear criterion to use. Dayshade ( talk) 12:46, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: consensus to move the page to United States Senate elections, 2016 as requested. Please note that this could have been done without discussion as the reversion of a bold move, or through WP:RMTR. If moves for any other previous elections are desired or further discussion of the plural is necessary, I suggest initiating that through adding all pages to a multimove request. Dekimasu よ! 18:54, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
United States Senate elections, 2016 and 2017 → United States Senate elections, 2016 – The 2016 election was a normal election held under the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as per other articles on US Senate elections the inclusion of the United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017 is inappropriate as this was special election. It is not standard practice to group special/by elections into previous election articles. . support as nom Barryob (Contribs) (Talk) 18:57, 31 January 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) 15:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Should "Close Races" be limited to 10% margin? Should there be subheading distinctions between 1%, 5%, 10%, etc? Should they be listed at all, or are they repetitive here? Let's discuss! — GoldRingChip 03:02, 18 July 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) 06:37, 19 April 2021 (UTC)