Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Connecticut

The term "independent", and John Mertens

This starts with the quintessence of a good-sized rant that i made significant progress on last nite, before realizing that there is also an notability issue at stake. (I may finish the rant for my own benefit, but i think there's no need to post the long version!)
"Independent" is an ambiguous term, embracing your teenager being fairly independent, what makes your vehicle's suspension manage as well as it does when one wheel goes thru a pothole, and something i'm not sure is distinguishable from sovereignty. Oh, you mean "independent in domestic politics" -- well, restricting it to politics makes it even more ambiguous, not less. Permit me:

1. The only crystal-clear definition of "independent" is in political and social opinion polling: you are an independent if you were asked "Do you consider yourself a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent?" and the pollster didn't feel justified in putting down D, R, or "No answer". (Which is the ultimate combination of complete clarity and complete ambiguity, since it leaves you free to mean whatever you want it to mean, and leaves those comprising "independents" effectively uncharacterized.)
2. Closely allied to that, and often confused with it, is what CT voter law calls being an "unaffiliated voter": when you last discussed it with the voter-registration folks, you chose not to have a recognized party's name next to your name (which in many states means you don't have the right to walk into a polling station during a primary and cast a vote). In comparing this to the preceding sense, bear in mind that there are surely voters who (while they may feel obliged to tell the truth to pollsters) are committed to voting for party A in the general election, but will vote for the weakest candidate in party B's primary, in the hope of increasing party A's chances. Bottom line: "independent" can mean any of a lot of different things in practice, and at least in some states it is a misnomer for a legal term.
3. The accompanying article had, following sections devoted to the possible candidates for the D & R nominations respectively, one titled "Independent [c]andidates" (the uppercase C that appeared in it presumably reflecting carelessness or cluelessness re the WP MoS). This seems to be an extension from the polling sense of "independent" to candidates, which i suppose is a natural flight to a familiar and thus comfortable term, but a profoundly misleading approach:

   Polling, to oversimplify, is about the inability of parties to control the political process; it can be said to be an effort to monitor the political will of the median voter (which in theory is what decides the outcome of elections!), so that polling is more about independents than anyone else. In contrast, by and large (and almost certainly in this case), an election is not at all about the non-D, non-R candidates, who are a side show, except when they venture onto stage, usually only as spoiler candidates.

4. "Independent candidate" could mean "candidate of an independent party", a pretense of extending the polling term from voters to parties, but that would be fallacious: "independent voter" includes many who know who they probably will vote for, or will sit down and marshal the arguments in the final week, or will even sincerely consult their "gut" in the voting booth with the possibility of casting no vote for one or more offices. That would be a pretense, bcz there is no logical extension of "independent candidate" to parties, which collapse if they don't have a clearer direction than a sincerely independent voter (and more sincerity than an insincere one). And there is an accepted term for a party besides the two that elect 95% or more of public officials: third party or minor party; i relied on the more popular American term to precede the "and" in my replacement heading.
5. "Independent candidate" also has a more logical meaning -- candidate whose candidacy is independent of any party; this is the sense in which i used it after the "and" in the replacement heading. Depending on the state, possible paths to this may include creating a new party via petitions (if you're a 3-term Senator, it can be quite practical in CT), getting on the ballot by petition without creating a party, becoming a recognized write-in candidate by petition, or just asking people to write you in -- an option that, in CT, makes you just a symbolic fake candidate, since write-ins for unrecognized candidates aren't even counted there.

I included "independent candidate" in the heading only in order to AGF the implicit claim that John Mertens is a viable minor candidate, i.e., that he can get on the ballot.
He does have a prior association with Connecticut for Lieberman (which BTW may give the unfounded impression that JL at least acknowledges his existence), but his abysmal performance as a candidate -- 184 votes, less than a 2% share, in a constituency that's a little large than 1/200 the size of the Senate seat's -- turns out to make it unlikely he will get on the ballot, let alone have any impact on the race. In light of his bio (which i've expanded, but may nom for AfD), he for now clearly lacks notability for mention in the accompanying article. The content should be saved (which i'm doing in a sub-section below), on the off-chance that he wins the heart of a party that doesn't need to petition to get its candidates on the ballot, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, his candidacy is an insignificant factor in the race in question.
I was about to say

(I'll collapse the headings that will become empty into a comment, for possible use later; things can change, according to his status changes, or the emergence of other folks belonging in such a section; there's a long campaign season ahead.)

but a Ralph Nader entry has shown up; now there's one who can make a notable difference, at least briefly! (Nader has been accused of pissing on the lunch of much bigger wheels than Blumenthal.) The heading should stay, unchanged, unless Nader has already specified a party and it hasn't been reflected in the accompanying article.
--Jerzy•t 03:11, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Removed material

This guy could become notable in this context later in the campaign:

* Dr. John Mertens, Professor of Engineering at Trinity College, Hartford, CT <ref>http://www.Mertens2010.comwww.mertens2010.blogspot.com/</ref>

Mertens is seeking the nominations of four parties: the Independent Party, Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Connecticut for Lieberman Party.

But as James Thurber told us long ago, anyone can merely seek nominations to become the thorny Boar of Borythorn, so for now (as discussed in the preceding super-ordinate section) his interest in running is insignificantly closer to notability than mine.
--Jerzy•t 05:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Dodd Polling

Do we still need tho Dodd polling? It's unimportant clutter at this rate. All the context needed can be provided in the text, in my opinion. Metallurgist (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps we can summarize all the information in a sentence like Republican candidates blah blah blah had leads against Dodd in aggregate polling from Rasmussen, blah blah blah. Boromir123 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Done--Metallurgist (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this motion. I also feel the polling should be better in aggregate, with line graphs, similar to pollster.com. The best example of a Senate race article I can see is the 2000 New York Senate election.--Screwball23 talk 01:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I move to merge the Campaign sections of the Linda McMahon article to this page. My feeling is it would be more productive and would generate a lot of good editing to have it here. Of course, this is still up in the air, so we should probably vote and get an idea what the consensus is here. Feel free to post your thoughts below.--Screwball23 talk 04:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

In the interest of fairness, neutrality, and objectivity, including substantial content about any one candidate (be it Linda McMahon or anyone else) on this article could only be truly justified by doing the same for others (Rob Simmons, Richard Blumenthal, Peter Schiff, etc.) I had thought previously that perhaps splitting McMahon’s U.S. Senate candidacy section of her article into a separate article (perhaps to be titled “Linda McMahon U.S. Senate campaign, 2010”), might be a good idea, but I’m not too sure how often this is done with Senatorial campaigns. (It is done, however, for presidential campaigns: refer to John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s from 2008.)

At present, the amount of coverage McMahon’s candidacy is given on her article is quite impressive, while that of her closest rival, Rob Simmons, has just one paragraph. Peter Schiff’s candiacy has six short paragraphs, and Richard Blumenthal’s compares about even. Thus, all of the coverage on McMahon cannot be merged here, as it may construe a feeling of bias.

Possible solutions:

• Merge only one or two paragraphs about McMahon’s candidacy into this article, as well as equivalent content regarding the candidacies of the others.
• Hold off until both the Republican and Democratic nominees are known. Then create separate Senatorial candidacy articles with in-depth content about the two campaigns a la the McCain and Obama ones.
• Do nothing.

My recommendation, for now, would be the first option. It’s relatively simple, the easiest, and can be done without delay. Whether or not to create longer candidacy articles is a matter for another day. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 05:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is time to add the campaign info from Linda's page onto the election article. -- Screwball23 talk 14:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Linda McMahon has not won the Republic primary! It is in August! Why is her photo on the top of the page with Blumenthal?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.191.47.63 (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What about Peter Schiff?

I have not undone the changes, but regarding this edit and this edit in which Linda McMahon and Richard Blumenthal were restored to the election box, I’m afraid it may be premature. While there are no challengers to Blumenthal anymore, there is still Republican Peter Schiff, who has vowed to force a primary against McMahon via petition. This would require gathering enough signatures (specifically 8,268 from Republicans in Connecticut) to do so, and if Schiff can get the signatures by June 8, he will be allowed on the August primary ballot.

I don’t give Schiff much of a chance in the primary; I’d personally expect him to only get around 20-30 percent. But legally, McMahon is not the absolute GOP candidate until, presumably, she wins the primary on August 10. Additionally, Rob Simmons’ name will remain on the primary ballot, so even if Schiff fails to get his signatures in time, Republican primary-goers will still be, in essence, voting for either McMahon or Simmons regardless. In my view, the election box should not have any candidates, especially a Republican, until August 10. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. Blue, I understand your readings into the pundits' reports have opened you up to a lot of future speculation. However, speculation on this issue does not equate to future success or failure. There are two officially-nominated candidates. Blumenthal is in. McMahon is in, with no active competition in the Republican party. Please remember, Simmons will not be campaigning for the Senate primary. Schiff is not even on the ballot for the primary at this time.

If, in the near future, Schiff is welcomed back into the Republican field, then a primary challenge may become feasible. At this time, that challenge is unofficial and largely conjecture.

--Screwball23 talk 02:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Would like to state my full agreement with Sgt. Blue. McMahon is not the nominee, and will face a primary challenge regardless of whether Schiff collects enough signatures or not. Gage (talk) 23:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

That's not true Gage. If Schiff doesn't collect enough signatures, than she will be the only candidate because Simmons dropped out and therefore she would be the nominee.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

With Rob Simmons' name still remaining on the ballot, there will still be a "primary." Republican voters will still be casting a choice unless Simmons stands up and makes a Sherman Statement beforehand. With all the reverting going on around here lately, I'd just like to restate my opinion to eliminate the election box completely until after the date of the primary. I can't wait until August 10, because then there will be no doubt whatsoever about the nominees. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

In response to Jerzeykydd, it is exactly the same as Obama not being the official Democratic nominee, only the projected nominee, until after the Democratic Convention. He was not the party's official nominee until after that point. McMahon winning a spot on a primary ballot does not equate her nomination by the Republican party, as that was not what was determined at the convention on May 21. Simmons will still appear on the ballot, regardless, and Schiff will also likely appear on the ballot, if he collects enough signatures, the deadline of which is this Tuesday, I believe. Simply because you want the self-satisfaction of placing McMahon in the infobox, does not mean she should be there at this point in time. Gage (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Gage, watch your tone. You have no right to put your aggravation on Jerzeykydd. Now, you may not know this, but Blumenthal became the official nominee at his Democratic Convention, and the Republicans held a convention for the exact same reason - to pick a nominee! The offer is given for any candidate with 15% or more of the delegates to push a primary, and Simmons decided to do so. I would like you to remember that your statement "Schiff will also likely appear on the ballot" is unsourced and presents a future prediction. Linda, on the other hand, is referred to as the "presumptive nominee" again and again by reputable sources.[1]

Gage, take things into consideration and do not attack other editors. If you would like to ask me a question, please feel free on my talk page.--Screwball23 talk 18:39, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

At this point I don't care if McMahon is in the infobox. Right now, I'm trying to organize the candidates so that readers understand who was on the convention ballot, who withdrew, and who declined the ballot, etc.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:10, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

As of today, there is no Republican nominee

Linda McMahon is surely the favorite to be the Republican nominee, but she isn't the nominee as of my typing this. For all we know, Simmons will choose to un-suspend his campaign, and he'd be in a place to defeat McMahon in the primary. Schiff could still get on the ballot, and possibly win or split the vote. Any other citizen of Connecticut who is eligible to run could still get on the ballot and (theoretically) defeat McMahon in the primary. Therefore, it is irresponsible to call her the "presumptive" nominee, or to declare her the winner of a primary that doesn't happen for another two months. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Linda McMahon is not the official nominee. I can see you are a very responsible editor, and I know you got into Wikipedia for the same reason I did - responsible, factually-accurate editing.

Muboshgu, we are both working to get this article accurate and informative, yes? You have a strong sense of responsibility, and I think we could both benefit from a little quick reading. Check this out: [2] I picked a little reading just for you, just because I wanted us to be on the same page.

Keeping the article referenced and factually accurate is our major concern here, and I want to make it clear that no one's picture should be put on the article without merit. You certainly agree with that. No one's picture should be taken off the article without fair reason either. As you already know, Linda McMahon did win the Republican Nomination Convention in May, and the purpose of this Convention was to pick a nominee. Simmons chose not to give up, and decided to present a primary challenge. The answer to your concern of accuracy is absolutely right - she could still face Simmons or Schiff (Schiff will submit petitions tomorrow I believe) and lose at the primary. At this time, which is weeks after the Convention, she is still considered the presumptive nominee, and reputable sources are calling her the presumptive nominee. We should respect these sources and the results of the Convention and avoid making speculation against McMahon; Simmons is currently not active and Schiff is not on the ballot, so to predict a Simmons comeback or a Schiff challenge is speculation.

I would also like to make it clear that I am in the same boat as you - I want our readers to know Linda as the presumptive nominee, and I put the caption to ensure that people do not get the wrong idea. --Screwball23 talk 02:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that today, on the day of the deadline for such, Peter Schiff's campaign submitted more than 12,000 signatures for Schiff's attempt to gain access to the GOP primary ballot. (He only needed 8,268 -- 2% of state Republican voters -- to qualify, but he submitted more to be on the safe side.) Once (and assuming) the names are certified by local registrars of voters, Schiff will officially be added to the primary ballot. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I do, indeed, want an article to be accurate and informative. I want it to be known that McMahon could indeed lose the nomination, and therefore it is inappropriate via WP:CRYSTAL to put McMahon in the "nominee" line in the election box. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion: I do have one possible suggestion on how to settle the issue over who is the Republican nominee. Rather than identify Linda McMahon as either the "Republican nominee" or the "presumptive nominee," perhaps we should call her exactly what she is: the party-endorsed candidate. Going into the August 10 primary against Peter Schiff and the non-campaigning Rob Simmons, McMahon will have the top spot on the ballot and will have "Endorsed by the state party" placed next to her name. She is thus the party-endorsed candidate heading into the Republican primary because she won the majority of delegates at the state convention. These delegates were representatives of the state party as a body. The registered Republican voters of the state can, in essence, overrule the state party's endorsement by choosing someone other than McMahon in the primary, but it does not take away the fact that McMahon was the candidate endorsed by the state party. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:04, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. McMahon can be mentioned as the "party-preferred" or "party-endorsed" candidate. But she MUST NOT be referred to as a "presumptive nominee", because presumption violates WP:CRYSTAL. She should not be put in the infobox on the top of the page, because that is only for OFFICIAL nominees, which McMahon is not (as of this writing, she may well be after the primary but she isn't at present). Screwball, if you revert my edit again to put her in the infobox, I will consider your edits to be vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:07, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Muboshgu, thank you for joining the discussion. I believe this is a good compromise Sgt. Blue has put forward, and although there are many sources that continue to refer to her as the presumptive nominee, I think "party-endorsed" is least likely to be misinterpreted.--Screwball23 talk 23:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

It is, and it can be written that way in the text. But we don't add all primary challengers to the infobox, which refers to the general election. --Muboshgu (talk) 07:53, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The return of Rob Simmons

After having suspended his campaign in May, Rob Simmons is now back in campaign mode and seeking to win the GOP nomination on August 10. He has begun to air ads on TV reminding primary voters that his name is still on the ballot, and has participated in some debates and interviews with editorial boards. Asked directly if he considered himself an active candidate for the primary, Simmons said "Yeah, but without a staff." Further information on Simmons' apparent re-entry into the primary can be found here on a Wall Street Journal blog, in addition to other places.

In light of this, should all the general election polling on Simmons as a potential candidate against Richard Blumenthal be re-added to this article? If so, anyone may go ahead and re-add the information as soon as possible. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I clearly haven't kept tabs on this article well enough, because I don't think that polling should have been taken out in the first place. An election is a historical event, not a tally sheet where some details become expendable. If there's polling on Jodi Rell or someone else who declined to run, that should be included too as part of the narrative.

On another note, I had an issues with Screwball23 consistently putting McMahon in the infobox as the nominee after Simmons suspended his campaign. As Yogi Berra once said, "it ain't over 'till it's over". --Muboshgu (talk) 13:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's be clear. She was the Party-endorsed candidate and there are references that said she was the presumptive nominee. All I did was acknowledged these facts, and made it clear in the infobox.--Screwball23 talk 14:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

We're clear. She's the party-endorsed candidate and some in the media have been so presumptive to use the word presumptive. Many insurgent candidates have trumped party-endorsed candidates, and though I'd wager Simmons won't shake off his indecisiveness, it's not outside the realm of possibility that he'll win. Therefore, the use of the term "presumptive" is presumptive and those in the media are in the wrong. The infobox is for official nominees only. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Simmons re-added to table

Resolved

 – Polling for all three potential Republicans against Blumenthal now complete.

I have re-added Rob Simmons to the general election table, as well as added new polling figures to it for all three potential contenders against Blumenthal based on a recent Quinnipiac poll. However, I did not yet add Simmons' figures from all of the other polls of the past simply because I haven't the time required to do so now. Instead, I added an {{Incomplete table}} tag above it, which will hopefully prompt someone to complete Simmons' figures. If not, I'll just have to do it when I can. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll try if I get a chance later today. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I have already gotten to it. The project to re-add Simmons' figures, as well as a few others that had gotten overlooked, took some time over the past three days to do, but I was able to do it. Once I got the hang of it, it was actually pretty easy. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 06:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

"Out-dated" fundraising & polling info

In recent edits, there has been an inclination to remove former primary candidates from the article. The fundraising info, for example, has been removed repeatedly, as well as the external links to politicians' campaign sites. Now, it is true that most other political articles have kept to the rigid two major candidate data, but with the exception of United States Senate election in California, 2010 and United States Senate election in Florida, 2010, there just wasn't a significant amount of fundraising from any third candidates. In Connecticut, there was a significant amount of media coverage for Simmons and Schiff, and their fundraising figures, which are in the $3 mil range, are nothing to scoff about.

I ask that the fundraising figures be kept for Simmons and Schiff. Considering the fact that McMahon is already making this one of the most expensive races this year, I think the fundraising figures are significant and should be kept.--Screwball23 talk 22:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

• Absolutely not. You want to keep it for notability, than put it in words, as I said before.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how this is an issue. I'm talking about adding two fundraising figures into a table. What precedent states that these figures must be put into words? I haven't seen any rule on the inclusion of fundraising data.--Screwball23 talk 02:44, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

In every other senate election article, that's the way it is. If you think it's so notable and historical to than put Simmons/Schiff finances in words. Not a big deal.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I would also agree that Simmons and Schiff's fundraising figures be retained. If for some reason it is not appropriate to keep them in a table with the two general election candidates, then create two tables: a "pre-primary" table and a "general election" table.

Additionally, I also believe that not only should the external links of former candidates remain, but the polling of all three potential Republicans against Blumenthal should be kept as well. Just because Simmons and Schiff are not going to go up against Blumenthal doesn't change the fact that they polled at X number against him at some given point. That's history that should be retained. Not to mention all the work I did[3][4][5] on the table when I had to re-add Simmons. My recommendation is to keep all three Republicans on that table and to simply shade Simmons and Schiff in gray for all new polling to indicate that they are no longer in the race.

I will probably never see these changes implemented, and I do not intend to fight or war for them. But at least this post will serve as a record of my stance and dissent on this matter. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 04:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to be absolutely clear that I'm opposed to those polling tables. They create a high-maintenance editing nightmare. Believe me, I've been there and wasted plenty of time doing it. They are incredibly easy to update, and all they require is frequent timing, so everyone who jumps in gets a false sense of productivity. It's that feeling of small rewards multiplied again and again. People get hooked into those tables like an addiction. Think of the Dodd vs Simmons/Schiff/mcmahn polls. People invested a LOT of time and editing power to update the tables and provide detailed references. And where did that effort lead? Most of that polling was inaccurate and grossly hypothetical. I advocate the use of graphs so people can see trends, but to you and all the others who contributed to those tables, I'm afraid to say that I just don't see the point. If someone really wanted to know that info, they could google for it.--Screwball23 talk 06:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sgt. R.K. Blue I understand how you feel and I appreciate the hard work you did on the polling tables. I have no problem with you keeping the external links. However, as far as the fundraising, I maintain my prior position.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Hold on. are you saying the polling tables are fine if Simmons and Schiff are shaded in gray, but the fundraising info is not?--Screwball23 talk 17:29, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a solution to these problems!!! Refer to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to the polling, new compromise section.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed solution a good one

It's been several days since it was proposed, but I would like to say that the above solution I think could work here. It places the historical hypothetical figures still within the article, but hides them away from material that is still relevant. Such has been done on the United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010 article, its collapsible navbox placed below. See the Delaware article to see how it fits in with the page. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 10:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

List of hypothetical polling numbers

Poll Source Date(s) administered Sample size Margin of Error Michael Castle (R) Chris Coons (D) Other Undecided Research 2000 October 12-14, 2009 600 ± 4.0% 51% 39% –– 10% Rasmussen Reports January 25, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 56% 27% 5% 13% Rasmussen Reports February 22, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 53% 32% 8% 8% Research 2000 February 22–24, 2010 600 ± 4.0% 53% 35% –– 12% Rasmussen Reports April 29, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 55% 32% 7% 7% Rasmussen Reports July 14, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 47% 36% 6% 11% Rasmussen Reports August 5, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 49% 37% 5% 9% Public Policy Polling August 7-8, 2010 600 ± 4.0% 48% 35% –– 17% Rasmussen Reports September 2, 2010 500 ± 4.5% 48% 37% 6% 9% Public Policy Polling September 11–12, 2010 958 ± 3.2% 45% 35% –– 20%

Is anyone here good with graphs?

I notice the Blumenthal-McMahon graph is long and winding, and it is a little unappealing. If anyone knows how, I would like for the polling data to be put into a graph with a blue line, a red line, and an other/undecided line.

I tried my hand at this before with the Dodd approval ratings graph, but I never could figure out how to make it in strong bold colors so it could be easily read. Does anyone know how to make a graph out of this polling data? Please let me know if you can.

--Screwball23 talk 02:50, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Jeff Russell

Although the Hartford Courant feature on him is apparently true, I have removed Jeff Russell from the article. He is not running on the actual ballot line of the Green Party (see sample ballot), but rather is one of six registered write-in candidates (see list). If Russell manages to garner any votes as a write-in he should probably be listed in the eventual election results table, but as for being listed in the candidates section, he lacks notability, a place on the ballot, and, in all honesty, a prayer to even be elected. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 03:31, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Fox

Fox News is projecting that Richard Blumenthal has defeated Linda McMahon in the run for the vacant U.S. Senate seat in Connecticut

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090419161401/http://www.connpost.com:80/ci_12158273 to http://www.connpost.com/ci_12158273

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110928085542/http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/06/08/ap-state-ct/ct_connecticut_primary.txt to http://www.rep-am.com/articles/2010/06/08/ap-state-ct/ct_connecticut_primary.txt

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on United States Senate election in Connecticut, 2010. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130722145358/http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html to http://elections.gmu.edu/Turnout_2010G.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecgifpdf2/?_28196+29020071245.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090923222609/http://www.courant.com:80/news/politics/hc-peter-schiff-senate-0917,0,3466805.story? to http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-peter-schiff-senate-0917,0,3466805.story
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101001141930/http://www.linda2010.com/images/pdf/20091221_PollingMemo.pdf to http://www.linda2010.com/images/pdf/20091221_PollingMemo.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110708212440/http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/images/library/Final%20Senate%20CD%20poll%20doc.pdf to http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/images/library/Final%20Senate%20CD%20poll%20doc.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/files/FINALSUFFOLK_CT_V5.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101025094740/http://www.ctcapitolreport.com:80/images/library/CT%20Cap%20Report%20Senate%20Release%20%20Cross%20Tabs%20(2).pdf to http://www.ctcapitolreport.com/images/library/CT%20Cap%20Report%20Senate%20Release%20%20Cross%20Tabs%20(2).pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100527144033/http://www.ct.gov:80/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=415810 to http://www.ct.gov/sots/cwp/view.asp?a=3&q=415810
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100315083516/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=senate-2010-CT to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=senate-2010-CT
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090622214008/http://merrickforachange.com:80/ to http://www.merrickforachange.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100217070606/http://www.vincentforras.com/ to http://www.vincentforras.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120722085711/http://www.mertens2010.com/ to http://www.Mertens2010.com/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090719130442/http://www.schiffforsenate.com:80/ to http://www.schiffforsenate.com/

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)