Talk:2012 United States Senate elections/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

concern

I'm concerned about the neutrality and professionalism of some of the language in this article. Two examples:

"Perhaps one of the most highly partisan politicians in the US..."

"The Democrats' strongest candidate would indisputably be Wyoming Governor Dave Freudenthal, who would be out of office by 2012."

Mikehillman 02:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


John Barrasso

Isn't it a little early to be penciling in Barrasso in as an incumbent? He could be defeated in the 2008 special election, be it by a Democrat or a fellow Republican. Jsnruf 03:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)


Leroi

Its not 51 required for a majority its 50 for the party that controls the presidency or 51 for the party that does not control the presidency. The Vice President making the tie-breaking majority for a 50-50 split. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.31.195.233 (talk) 02:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Senate contests in 2012

I made the table sortable and added the party affiliation as a column, since it was the only way to make that sortable. Plonker Bonker (talk) 16:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Should we not delete this page and protect it from recreation, similarly to United States presidential election, 2012?

Please, someone with admin status take care of this as soon as possible. Thanks, Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

  • It was nominated for deletion and the result was Keep. —Markles 15:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

teddy

sadly ted has died so mass. should be grey like new york —Preceding unsigned comment added by The truth maker (talk • contribs) 02:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Request

Can someone with the know-how change the black states on the map to blue? Thanks. -R. fiend (talk) 14:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Predictions table

I'm wondering what people think about the prediction colums. They're unused and it seems a bit early to have them if there's no data to fill in yet. This is certainly a "not yet" issue more then a "get rid of them" issue. Thoughts? ~Gosox(55)(55) 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I tried to comment out the whole section, but it didn't work. I'm not sure why. I guess we can just delete the section wholesale (preserving it here if necessary) though? (Also, does anyone know when Cook, Rothenberg, et al normally start publishing ratings?) – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 22:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Updates link

Now that Roll Call and Cook have published their ratings, I notice a confusing piece in the table. Instead of using references, we are using a link called "(updates)". Unfortunately, in neither of the existing cases does it seem to go to a page that actually updates when the information changes. The Roll Call link goes to an article and the Cook link goes to a chart. Worse, the Cook chart actually has been changed once and the original link didn't even update to fix what was essentially a typo kind of error (they left out New York). Shouldn't we link the date or something else rather than providing an updates link that does not update? Mdfst13 (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Map

Should we update the map to provide for a different shading for retiring Senators? BrianY (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

polls

When a reader links to a page about individual senate elections, the vast majority of polls cited are from PPP, a partisan polling firm (they work for a particular party). Should this be addressed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.176.115 (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Not all of PPP's work is for one of the parties. There are other pollsters who work for the other party, so if one is addressed all should be addressed. Also, I believe PPP is fairly open and forthcoming with their methodologies, and this is an important factor. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Independent Democrats

There are only two independents in the U.S. Senate, both of which caucus with Democrats. Instead of having separate subsection for independents, can't we just put them with the Democrat subsections? That's what I perfer.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

I think doing that would be misleading to readers. They caucus with the Democrats, sure, but they identify as independents and should be designated as such in the headers. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. In the predictions section, we mix them together. We need more opinions!--Jerzeykydd (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Well what you are proposing actually gives us less options. They should have their own subsection as a candidate could theoretically run against them on the Democratic ticket. Rxguy (talk) 20:58, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Map Changes

Nevada is currently colored in light red for "retiring Republican" on the map. This should be changed to dark red for "Republican incumbent seeking re-election," since the new Senator (Dean Heller) has already announced he's running for another term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.95.183.147 (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Wisconsin should also be changed to light blue as Herb Kohl will now retire. Rxguy (talk) 14:47, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Consensus Removal

Can someone undo the unnecessary deletion of the consensus prediction by 150.203.223.102. For the record, consensus prediction is if all the sources (Roll Call, Cook Report, Rothenberg, and Sabato's) all agree if a race is expected to lean Democratic or Republican or Tossup, not what users believe they will lean. This should meet the neutrality standards. RedState1995 (talk) 20:16, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


150.203.223.102 (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)I removed the consensus prediction because it is NOT a consensus of all of those. They change almost every week, and the only consensus that have been made are of 2 states. It is precarious that all the democratic tickets were put in the "consensus" prediction area, when Sabato and Rothenberg disagree with the "consensus opinion". If anyone reads the history of RedState1995, you can see his clear bias in editing. It goes directly against the rules of Wikipedia.

Have you even looked at the predictions 150.203.223.102? I read them everyday to check for updates and I can assure you that the consensus section was correct so it will stay. I am sure that if you continue to vandalize the page you will be warned and eventually blocked from editing. Rxguy (talk) 23:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Primary safety

Who else thinks it would be a good idea to make a primary safety chart. In the Tea Party era, incumbents losing primaries is extremely common. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 18:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Nebraska

I don't know how to fix this but, Nebraska should be changed to 'retiring democrat on the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.224.171.139 (talk) 05:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Polling order

In Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#Polling_order, we are having a dispute concerning whether polls should be listed in chronological or reverse-chronological order. I would appreciate any outside input from the broader group of editors who contribute to these articles. Thanks! johnpseudo 16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

More Map Changes

The main map file has been changed to show Indiana as "Incumbent Retiring" (now that Senator Lugar was defeated in the primary), but the smaller .png versions of the map haven't been updated as well. Since those are the maps that actually display in the application, they all show up with Indiana in the wrong shade of red. I would regenerate the smaller files myself, but I can't get my copy of Inkscape to run on my computer. Could somebody please update the smaller versions of the map? Thanks. (The main map, which is correct, is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Senate_election_map.svg) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I created .png files in all the right sizes, but I have no idea how to upload them to Wikipedia so they replace the current ones. Can anybody give me a hint? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 03:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned references in United States Senate elections, 2012

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, 2012'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 "ap":

  • From Naked Cowboy: (October 6, 2010) "NYC's Naked Cowboy suits up for presidential run", Associated Press. Retrieved on October 6, 2010.
  • From United States Senate election in New York, 2012: "New York Democrats back Kirsten Gillibrand for US Senate; Conservatives pick Wendy Long". The Post-Standard. Associated Press. March 19, 2012. Retrieved May 6, 2012.

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⚡ 09:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Predictions - suggested deletion

Why is Predictions even included? More people spend time editing this section than all other sections combined. More revert wars and pointless arguments are spawned by this section. It adds very little encyclopedic value to the article. The day after the election, this section will be obsolete. The day after the election, this section will be frozen in the predictions of the day before the election. Why? I suggest deletion. —GoldRingChip 16:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

It's true that the predictions will lose much of their relevance after the election, but until then, those predictions are the single most important piece of information about the topic of this article. Deleting it simply because it requires frequent updating would be counter-productive. johnpseudo 17:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
How are they so important?—GoldRingChip 18:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
They're the best indication we have of what the result of the elections will be, which of course is the primary thing that matters about elections. johnpseudo 18:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Arizona section needs to be updated

Will Cardon lost to Jeff Flake in the Republican Primary 24.249.175.130 (talk) 19:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Results section

I appreciate the effort it must have taken to build this new chart, but I think we should remove the bottom section of the chart (the one populated by "TBD"s) for the time being. It presents absolutely no information. johnpseudo 23:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

  • All in favor? 'Aye.' All opposed? (crickets.) So moved.—GoldRingChip 01:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Justification for listing ages of candidates?

Why are only some candidates' ages listed in this article? No ages are listed in the US House of Representatives Elections, 2012 article. And with just 2 months to go until election day, there is no mystery as to whether various incumbents will stand for election — those decisions were made long ago; so there is no reason to offer up ages as clues to whether incumbents might decide to retire rather than run for re-election. Dezastru (talk) 20:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

  • I didn't do it, but I think this is the rationale the original editor used: the senate election articles are started up to five years ahead of time, and the winners will serve six year terms. The age of an elderly candidate is an issue when the election is five years in the future and the term is six years, meaning the 78 year old Senator could be 89 when the term ends. Representative elections are different: the article is started no more than two years ahead of time, and the winners only serve two year terms, thereby only adding, at most, four years to their ages, so it's not as often a factor in the race. Again, it wasn't my idea to include them, I'm just guessing at the rationale, and I'm not saying it's a good idea. —GoldRingChip 23:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Ordering of races

As GoldRingChip and I discussed on his talk page, how should the races be ordered? Previous elections (2010, 2008 etc.) have them listed alphabetically by state, which makes the most sense. But, for current and future elections (2012, 2014 etc), I would argue that it makes more sense that they be ordered by the incumbent party and whether the incumbent senator is seeking re-election (how they were listed until a few days ago), providing a better overview of the elections. What are people's feelings on this? Tiller54 (talk) 16:31, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

The ‎Latest Predictions Table

I actually liked the format better that User talk:Jamesyons came up with. It was reverted by a posible sockpuppet IP editor because "these ratings look bogus and not supported by references." This however could have been remedied without removing the new table entirely. This table seems easier to read in my opinion. Light-jet pilot (talk) 16:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Independents caucus with ?

"After: 2 independents (ME, VT) will caucus with [blank]"

Is this a clerical error or open because there is no fact of the matter, yet. If the latter it may be best to explain in a note what the experts expect of Mr King (i presume). --140.247.136.212 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have hidden the comment until Angus King tells who he will caucus with. See Reid wastes no time lobbying Angus King (Politico) Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary rapport from OSCE

The preliminary rapport from OSCE: LIMITED ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION - United States of America – General Elections, 6 November 201.

It is mostly general positive things like: "The 6 November general elections took place in a pluralistic environment and were administered in a professional manner." and "The election campaigns were vibrant and highly competitive." and "Overall, media is pluralistic and diverse and provided voters with a wide range of information and views on candidates, issues, and electoral platforms." and "The overall field of candidates provided voters with a wide degree of choice"

But also comments on voter eligbility: "US citizens who are at least 18 years old on election day and residents of a state were eligible to vote. Some 4.1 million citizens that are residents of US territories were not eligible to vote, while some 600,000 citizens that are residents of the District of Columbia were eligible to vote only for the president. An estimated 5.9 million citizens were disenfranchised due to a criminal conviction, including some 2.6 million citizens who have served their sentences. This is at odds with the principle of universal suffrage and the commitment to ensure proportionality in the restriction of voting rights as enshrined in paragraphs 7.3 and 24 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document."

And alsom comments on voter registration: "Voter registration is implemented at state level through an active system. A number of states launched initiatives to improve the accuracy of their voter lists. Civil society was active in encouraging citizens to register, as well as checking the accuracy of voter registers. Nevertheless an estimated 50 million eligible citizens were not registered to vote, bringing into question the effectiveness of existing measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right."

Read the whole rapport to learn more. Some may be useful in the article Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Map shows New Hampshire

The current map shows New Hampshire as being an Independent gain, which is wrong. Ordinary Person (talk) 23:08, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

That's Vermont. SOXROX (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

"Last election" & "Seats after" counts (for independents)

There's an inconsistency in the "last election" and "seats after" counts.

In the 2012 and 2010 pages, the independents are included in the majority party count - the numbers go by the Democratic Caucus. From 2002 to 2008, though, the independents are not part of the Democratic Party count, so the numbers only go by strict party affiliation.

Which format should we use? Abstractematics (talk) 21:47, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I am fine with either way, just so long as they all are the same.Light-jet pilot (talk) 17:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Map shows North Carolina

The map shows North Carolina remaining blue. That's incorrect. There was no senate election in that state. Needs to be fixed. Mlaurenti (talk) 01:57, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? I checked back and NC isn't blue nor was it in any previous version. Light-jet pilot (talk) 05:03, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Infobox shows independent gain of 1

Yet it actually stayed at 2 seats

  • Good catch, O anonymous one. Someone has fixed it.—GoldRingChip 01:55, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I changed it to show no change.[1] Maybe there was inconsistency in whether to count Joe Lieberman as Democrat or Independent. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate elections, 2012. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 23:33, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States Senate elections, 2012. 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).

  • 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) 13:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_United_States_Senate_elections/Archive_1&oldid=1142389969"