Talk:2004 United States Senate elections

Initial comments

Having "seats up for re-election" is very common: [1]. It used here too: [2].

Well it's a stupid usage but I won't argue about it.

If they're going to retire, are they any longer up for re-election?

Yes. "up for" means "due to stand for." Whether they choose to or not is another matter.

It should be OK to refer to seat being up for election (notice I did not say re-election); this avoids comment on what the incumbent plans to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Please use American date formats for American subjects. --Jiang 13:43, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The election cannot be on November 1. The formula is "the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November." U.S. presidential election, 2004 says November 2 and I followed that article. Please check this.

Adam 13:48, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Jiang, with all respect, please don't be a pedant about date formats. -- Viajero 14:15, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Now now, he can't help it, and there are worse vices. Adam

The Jim Marshall link out of Georgia doesn't seem to have any info about this Jim Marshall. I don't know anything about him though. Dfarmer

those declared

Without the § scheme that I just implemented, the confines of the chart make it look like Johnnie Byrd, Betty Castor, Peter Deutsch, Alcee Hastings, Larry Klayman, Mel Martinez, Bill McCollum, Alex Penelas and Dan Webster have all declared. Kingturtle 17:43, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)~

Might someone be kind enough to explain the § scheme? - Mcarling 03:23, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It means "declared candidate." Now that the primary season is well advanced, I think the § should be deleted from candidates who have won primaries and are thus officially candidates, as opposed to merely running for the right to be candidates. Or else we need a new symbol for them. Adam 03:21, 18 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I'm tempted to get rid of the table altogether and make a subheading for each state. Some of the states in question (Illinois and Florida come to mind) are developing some real drama. -- Sekicho 23:59, May 25, 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've killed the § marks. Primary or general, it doesn't matter... they're still candidates. I think it should be obvious, in this context, whether they're running within their own party or running against the other party's (or parties') opponent(s). - Sekicho 16:20, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

---

The text now says: "The Democrats thus need to make a net gain of two seats to gain control of the Senate, or one if Kerry and his vice presidential running mate win the presidential election." This is presumably because Edwards would have a casting vote in the Senate if there should be a tie. But does it not ignore the fact that Kerry will be replaced in the Senate by a Republican, since Massachusetts has a Republican governor? Adam 08:39, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ah, but it is still Massachusetts.

Acegikmo1 14:03, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Adam and Acegikmol,

We need to gain three seats to control the Senate. Let me explain...

The Senate is currently 51 GOP 48 Dems and Jim Jeffords. If three GOPers were to lose, we control the Senate outright (w/o a partner); that is, it would be 51 Dems 48 GOP and Jeffords. If two GOPers lose that numbers would be 49 GOP 50 Dem and Jeffords. Without Jeffords that would give us a majority of one or with Jeffords' help the majority would be a majority of two.

Things get interesting if Kerry resigns to become prez. If the bill passes and the Guv is stripped of his power to appoint. then it would be upto the voters and we would win, since MA is a hardcore dem state. If the bill that would strip the Guv to appoint fails, that means Gov Rommey would appoint someone, and that also he could hold the balance of power....

If Kerry loses, then the above is moot. If the GOP makes any gains, then everything I said is moot!

One last thing, the Georgia seat is a notional GOP seat. I'll go into more details on the article. --iHoshie 06:23, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

If the Dems are ahead 50-49, they take control of the Senate even though they don't technically have a majority. (Remember the last Senate?) So 2 is the magic number, unless Massachusetts goes red as a result of Kerry winning, in which case 3 is the magic number, unless Jeffords becomes a Democrat, in which case 2 is the magic number. (Whoever said American politics were simple?) Sekicho 14:46, Jul 29, 2004 (UTC)

I came to the number three due to the fact if we do gain three GOP seats and keep all of our current seats, we would have 51 seats and control the Senate outright. Besides that, you are correct. However to be sure, I will email the DSCC to ask. - iHoshie 07:17, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edwards' seat is not vulnerable.

" Most polls show Bowles leading Burr by eight to 10 points; one Republican source said a GOP poll gave the Democrat an 18-point advantage." [3]. Kingturtle 00:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Pennsylvania/Specter

This race was never considered close by anyone in Pennsylvania (or even nationally) after Arlen Specter defeated conservative challenger Pat Toomey in the GOP primary. The DNC never spent a great deal of money in support of Joe Hoeffel, and he was never really considered a serious challenger. Accordingly I've deleted it from the Close Republican Races category. It never should have been there. --Xinoph 14:53, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Pluralizing the name of this article

Are there any objections to a move to U.S. Senate elections, 2004? Ground 21:29, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd have to object. I see your point, but it is common practice to refer to collective whole (i.e., all the elections for the given body that took place on the given date) using "election". This is the way that all similar articles are named, and should be the way this is named.

Some examples: U.S. Senate election, 2002, U.S. House election, 2002, Australian federal election, 2004 (and see 2004 election for more). The only counterexample I can find is Indian general elections, 2004, where the plural is used. However, in that case, there were actually multiple separate elections held, "in four phases between April 20 and May 10, 2004". modargo 18:53, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Okay. I think I'm just going to create a redirect. Ground 01:40, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Good idea. modargo 00:44, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of changing the format now, but in all fairness I have to note that all the other Senate and House election pages were probably named after this one. :-) Willhsmit 03:24, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Question

What does the "C" stand for here: David Schumann (C) 1% (Nevada's Senate election results)? --Anon

Constitution Party. I have added a key to the abbreviations. — DLJessup 15:27, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Boxer percentage

I saw a change in Boxer's vote percentage from 58% to 59%. Checking on this, I found that the California dept of state cites 57.8%, Psephos (attributing NY Times) cites 57.9%. The Congress web site repeats the 58% figure. Thus, I reverted. Can you cite a source if changing? Willhsmit 04:27, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Seat schematic

Comparing the schematic with the apparent layout of the assembly (United States Senate) doesn't work. How are member seats allocated in the chamber itself? Fishhead64 22:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Government Source Gaff

The government has cocked up their own tables. For the state of Oregon it lists 1,128,728 votes for the Democrats. Yet, the end repcap table lists them as having 2,257,456, which would be quite difficult considering the fact that that there was only 1,780,550 votes cast. Unless theres something I'm missing? Using this, the Democrat total vote count for the 2004 senate elections should be I believe 43,625,890, which is less than the current figure listed which is using the recap table. I've tried to hunt it down, but I can't find where this 2,257,456 figure comes from. Mikebloke 04:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

formatting/table updating

Folks, I've updated a few tables on the "United States Senate elections, XXXX" pages, and want to make sure my edits are acceptable before continuing. The most complete example is at United States Senate elections, 2004. The main changes are as follows:

• convert from HTML to Wiki table formatting where necessary.
• use class="wikitable" to standardize table formatting, with lighter borders and other characteristics in line with other tables on Wikipedia.
• use {{Party shading/Democratic}} and {{Party shading/Republican}} to standardize the colored cells on the tables.
• replace candidate names, for the most part, with the names of their Wikipedia articles, under the assumption that is the most widely known name they're known by. Middle initials/names etc. may still be found by clicking into the individual's article.
• reformat the "composition chart" (which is incredibly cool!) to have less obtrusive (narrower) dividing lines (class="wikitable" again) and standardize colors.

Any thoughts before I continue along these lines? -Pete 18:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)