Talk:2014 United States Senate elections

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

Senate Map Pickup Shading[edit]

Are we waiting for the final races to take place before we shade the map to highlight the GOP pickups? NBA2030 (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Harkin[edit]

One IP continues to try to claim Harkin is running with a source detailing his fundraising, only to see Harkin announce his retirement the next day. Let this be a lesson to everyone about WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some state-specific articles should be deleted[edit]

Some state-specific articles should be deleted as they serve no purpose other than being vehicles for idle speculation. The articles on Oklahoma, Wyoming, Kansas, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, and Illinois exist in blatant violation of WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL and likely will until at least the end of this year, if not into next year.

--184.6.222.14 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Composition Charts Majority Seat[edit]

The current Vice President is a Democrat, therefore Democrats only need 50 seats to maintain a majority whereas Republicans need 51. I'm sure everyone is aware of this.

However, the "Composition" charts in the article shift the majority box to the *Republican* side. The way it is currently shown, majority would be achieved by only 50 seats from the Republican's side and 51 from the Democrat's.

I give an example below, the first being the current (incorrect) version, and the latter being the corrected version.

Senate composition before the elections (INCORRECT MAJORITY)
I1 I2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8
D18 D17 D16 D15 D14 D13 D12 D11 D10 D9
D19 D20 D21 D22 D23 D24 D25 D26 D27 D28
D38 D37 D36 D35 D34 D33 D32 D31 D30 D29
D39 D40 D41 D42 D43 D44 D45 D46 D47 D48
Majority → D49
R41 R42 R43 R44 R45 D53 D52 D51 D50
R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34 R33 R32 R31
R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30
R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10


Senate composition before the elections CORRECTED
I1 I2 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 D8
D18 D17 D16 D15 D14 D13 D12 D11 D10 D9
D19 D20 D21 D22 D23 D24 D25 D26 D27 D28
D38 D37 D36 D35 D34 D33 D32 D31 D30 D29
D39 D40 D41 D42 D43 D44 D45 D46 D47 D48
Majority →
R41 R42 R43 R44 R45 D53 D52 D51 D50 D49
R40 R39 R38 R37 R36 R35 R34 R33 R32 R31
R21 R22 R23 R24 R25 R26 R27 R28 R29 R30
R20 R19 R18 R17 R16 R15 R14 R13 R12 R11
R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 R6 R7 R8 R9 R10

I will make the changes to the main article in a few days, unless someone refutes my claims...

Sounds fair to me. -Rrius (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roll Call Predictions[edit]

Can anyone provide an actual link to Roll Call's race ratings? There is just a generic link to a section of their website which is of no use. I know Roll Call does produce their own ratings, but they also post ratings from Rothenberg since he is a contributor. I believe this is leading to confusion and people making erroneous changes to the Roll Call predictions. The chart says April 30th was the last update, but I cannot find anything on Roll Call from that date with ratings. If we can't find an actual source to verify those ratings I will be removing them until one is found. Rxguy (talk) 20:18, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Massachusetts color change[edit]

Democrat Ed Markey won the special US Senate election on June 25, and the map still goes Massachusetts as black (for undetermined incumbent). Needs to be changed to blue as we now know a Democrat will be defending this seat in 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peach freak (talk • contribs) 04:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Silver/FiveThirtyEight[edit]

As Nate left FiveThirtyEight, and his predictions are unlikely to be updated, I would suggest getting rid of his predictions. Otherwise as the rest of the predictions are updated we're going to have FiveThirtyEight stuck on July 15, 2013.

ProfessorPlum27 (talk) 11:58, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Check again, Nate Silver did not leave FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight left the NY Times and is moving to ESPN next month where Silver will still be doing political posts along with some sports and other topics. Rxguy (talk) 15:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here is just one article about it: Silver makes move to ESPN Rxguy (talk) 15:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the 538 data from last year considered "too old" but the Daily Kos (tagged as July 2013) is left in the mix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.26.223 (talk) 21:42, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky and Tennessee[edit]

are the wrong colors on the map. They are Republican seats.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Map: South Carolina[edit]

There is a diagonal bar across South Carolina, in the map at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Competitive_2014_Senate_seats.png (Perhaps this was left over from prior to the appointment of Tim Scott.) Tripodics (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citations must back up edit[edit]

Candidate listings must be backed up by bona fied journalistic citations or official candidate listings from each state. Citations which require a subscription to read are not allowed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should the Daily Kos predictions be included?[edit]

Seems like there may be an edit war brewing. Just thought I'd get the conversation going before this got any more contentious. 50.136.74.20 (talk) 17:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say no. I'm a big fan of the site and I don't think that they "skew information or misrepresent facts," but they're still a liberal site and I think we should probably keep predictions to non-partisan and non-ideological sources. Chris (talk) 20:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the question is, how do they formulate their rankings? What information are they using? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Despite apparently joining in an edit war, I don't actually care much whether they stay or go. I just don't want it removed based on one person's opinion. So if anyone can answer Muboshgu's question, it would be very helpful. Ratemonth (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess one of the main concerns is that those predictions really aren't the Daily Kos' predictions, as much as they are the opinions of a blogger who uses Daily Kos as a forum. This is unlike say Real Clear Politics, which has a paid staff that crunches the numbers. Whichever predictions they make, RCP "owns". Daily Kos on the other hand, could just as easily have another blogger come along and post his/her own predictions which could be completely contradictory to the ones displayed in this article. Maybe a good rule of thumb is to only use sources that endorse the predictions they make, rather than just being a forum.50.136.74.20 (talk) 13:58, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the case. The DK main page editors don't use anonymous usernames. DKE is run by a blogger named "David Nir", and certainly his work at DKE will follow him wherever he goes. I read his work; I'm just not knowledgeable enough to know the methodology behind his predictions, though I'll probably look it up later today if noone else does it first. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. It's a far-left website. They have absolutely zero credibility. Only non-partisan polling firms should be included. Thismightbezach (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're missing a point that I was trying to make. These predictions come from Daily Kos Elections, not Daily Kos. These two sites are very different. Daily Kos is without a doubt a strongly liberal-leaning site. However, Daily Kos Elections (henceforth to be known as DKE) is a subsite of Daily Kos that feels like an altogether different site. The people there are not ideologues or cheerleaders. They are extremely intelligent political analysts who, while they may have partisan beliefs, put those aside when making their predictions. They report all news relating to elections, regardless of whether they like it or not, and they are perfectly willing to predict that a race is leaning Republican if that is what the evidence suggests (as it is with Georgia, for example). These people are just as valid analysts as Cook, Sabato, and Rothenberg, and in fact many people on DKE predicted the 2012 elections more successfully than the aforementioned Cook, Sabato, and Rothenberg. Thus, DKE's predictions should definitely be included.137.146.145.79 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "someone from a partisan site trying to make non-partisan guesses about elections" is a sufficient standard to be posted here. I decided to take a look at this supposedly non-ideological Daily Kos Elections site. Someone apparently slipped a bunch of nasty phrases about Republicans in over the past couple of days without them knowing:
  • "[W]e will have gotten rid of McConnell, which by itself would make 2014 a wonderful year indeed."
  • "[T]he Indiana GOP is in an unenviable position. Every option they face sucks for them—and that's good news."
  • "[T]he teabagger seems to be not very comic relief."
50.201.63.86 (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not to be pedantic, but technically Sabato, Rothenberg, Cook, and Silver are more political analysts (looking at polling trends, demographic makeup, electoral history, and combining it with their own personal expertise). Pew, PPP, Gallup, et al. are more what would be considered polling firms50.136.74.20 (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thismightbezach (talk · contribs) and IP, DK contracts with PPP to conduct its own polls. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One thing to consider is that DKE uses a category that none of the others do: "races to watch", which doesn't fit into the table. It also means that half a dozen of their predictions are currently listed incorrectly. Tiller54 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Race to Watch" means "Safe", but conceivably could change based on future developments. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks. My mistake. There's still at least one race incorrectly listed though. Tiller54 (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least then, could the "(updates)" box be hyperlinked to the appropriate DKE webpage? 50.136.74.20 (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've done it now. Tiller54 (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No[edit]

Predictions have no part in Wikipedia. Otherwise, we should just change the Hillary Clinton article and state that she is the predicted nominee for President in 2016. EatingGlassIsBad (talk) 17:08, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using what standard? How is it unacceptable to report probability models from reputable sources? This isn't mindless speculation by some idiot on a blog. Comparing speculation on whether or not Clinton will run to models analyzing aggregate polling data is ridiculous. One is tangible and one is not. [1] and United States Senate elections, 2012#Final predictions before the election show that we've done predictions tables before without issue. Rhydic (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coburn table entry[edit]

Most entries in the Race summary table give a citation for the incumbent's 2014 intent. Coburn's entry there ("Retiring and resigning at the end of the 113th Congress") is at least initially confusing, and bears no immediate citation. The links numbered [2] and [3] on Coburn's page might be appropriate here. However, link 2 appears dead. The story no longer appears on ABC's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.226.120 (talk) 15:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Updates needed[edit]

The color coding for Montana and the summary section need to be updated. --Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 21:24, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to post that on the map talk page. I'd fix it myself, but I never got around to figuring out how to edit in .svg format. Orser67 (talk) 22:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which forecasters should be included?[edit]

There doesn't seem to be any controversy over Cook, Rothenberg, and Sabato, however, it looks like there's a low-level edit war going on over a couple of other forecasters. 538's predictions are over six months old (and are currently removed), and Daily Kos's are older than that and suffer from potential POV problems (but have just been re-inserted). Can we come to a consensus on a) whether old predictions should be removed, b) whether ostensibly neutral predictions from partisan sites should be included? Deusnoctum (talk) 18:46, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma on Senate Map[edit]

Shouldn't Oklahoma have a black line through it on the Senate running/retirement map, like South Carolina, as they have two Senate races this year?

Oklahoma Map[edit]

Oklahoma needs to have a line through it to indicate that both senate seats are up like South Carolina has Guyb123321 (talk) 01:39, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Ex-President Ventures Where Some Might Not(Lihaas (talk) 18:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Shorten table with latest predictions?[edit]

This table is currently rather long. Maybe it is a good idea to remove (comment out) the 20 or so races on which everybody agrees, similarly to what was done in 2012? The other races are more interesting. KarlFrei (talk) 15:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make this clear, I am suggesting to remove only those races which are Safe Republican or Safe Democrat. KarlFrei (talk) 15:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue for a return to a single table. Races move back and forth between being competitive to not being competitive. It really is too much to expect that both tables be rebuilt as races change. The current set of tables have many races that aren't considered safe for one party or another in the non-competitive table.Mc6809e (talk) 17:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders: Leader of the Independents?[edit]

Why is Bernie Sanders listed as the Leader of the Independents?

I mean he's a nice guy and such, but I doubt that the "Independent Caucus" (Sanders of VT and King of ME) agreed to make him their leader (unless I missed something).

And, of course (not to beat a dead horse), there is no citation.

72.82.178.10 (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Competitive 2014 Senate seats.png[edit]

I find this image a very useful tool for summing up the Fall election. However, it is a PNG and not easy to update as the political tides rise and ebb. Would anyone be opposed to converting it to a SVG? -DevinCook (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to it at all, but I personally never figured out how to edit in SVG so I can't do it myself. Orser67 (talk) 01:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is an excellent program called "Inkscape" that can easily edit and create SVGs (or EMF if you want to use it Microsoft Office). Its probably one of the best "free" programs out there. Anyway, I'll create an SVG when I get a chance. Cheers! -DevinCook (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks for the tip. Orser67 (talk) 01:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times[edit]

The NYT is now releasing its own in-house set of Senate predictions. I just wanted to float the idea of incorporating them into the Wikipedia projections table. Note: these are not the same as Nate Silver's predictions because Silver is now no longer affiliated with the NYT. Funny actually when you consider that, on the flip side, Roll Call now seems to have ceased their in-house predictions and now fully rely Rothenberg as their sole prognosticator.

http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/comparisons.html

50.136.74.20 (talk) 14:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Buckets[edit]

As the IP has posted above, the NYT have their own predictions out now. However, they're on a continuous scale (0-100) instead of the 7-point scale used in the article; 538's predictions are also continuous, but currently the article buckets them into the 7-point scale (I don't think that the actual buckets used are noted down anywhere). The best reason I can think of for bucketting is that it makes all the predictions comparable and so allows a median prediction to be calculated from all 7 prediction-makers, but the big reason I think we should ditch it is because it's probably OR. (Rothenberg uses a 9-point scale, but it doesn't actually need rebucketting because its values are directly comparable to the 7-point scale. I don't know why it's being rebucketted.)

I'm not going to do this immediately because it's likely I'm missing something here, but if no-one argues strongly in favour of the current bucketting in the next few days I'm going to change the prediction tables to directly report what the source predictions say, which will sadly mean the overall median prediction will have to go. We could still present separate medians for the continuous-valued predictions and the discrete-valued predictions, or someone could dig up a principled, non-OR way of making the two comparable. Facing the Sky (talk) 15:29, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should just keep the "overall median," with a note that the median only applies to raters that use the 7 point scale (including Rothenberg). Rothenberg's "tilts" could count as 3.5 and 5.5 respectively, since that particularly rating is actually "tossup/tilts (Republican/Democrat)." Orser67 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
After doing a little digging, it appears that Silver has in the past converted his percentages into traditional race ratings. This could potentially be used as a way to categorize his ratings. Orser67 (talk) 12:30, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Map Error[edit]

There needs to be a line through Oklahoma just as there is for South Carolina to indicate both senate seats from the respective states are up for election Guyb123321 (talk) 10:12, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. I came here in order to point out the mistake in the map concerning Oklahomo. Leucojum vernum (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two African-American candidates favored[edit]

With both Cory Booker and Tim Scott being favored to win their elections, this is the first time that two African-American candidates have ever been favored to win Senate seats by popular vote in the same election cycle. bd2412 T 15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of incumbent name and party from current predictions table[edit]

Oddly, the incumbents were left names in the "safe seates" table, but the incumbent name and party were removed from the "competitive seats" table. This appears to have been done to keep the table narrower, but data like this shouldn't be removed for aesthetic reasons. It's nice to look at the table and see an incumbent's name and party and see if the forecasts see him being unseated or retained at a quick glance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.29.171.138 (talk) 15:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Five Thirty Eight and New York Times prediction scales[edit]

This is simply a proposal, but I feel it seems most logical to makes 50 - 59% probabilities of victory as tossups, 60% - 74% as leans, 75% - 89% as likelies, and 90% or above as safes for the Five Thirty Eight and New York Times predictions.

Andrew Darmac (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kansas senate seat[edit]

Pat Roberts' seat in Kansas has unexpectedly become rather competitive. Shouldn't the "competitive senate map" reflect? Unfortunately, I'm not sure how to alter the map. (Mlaurenti (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]

 Fixed, let me know if there are any other problems. --JFH (talk) 00:30, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that change. I'm also sorry to bother you, but suddenly New Hampshire looks to be quite competitive. Any possibility to once again alter the map to show that NH is now a tight race? Mlaurenti (talk) 15:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, no trouble at all. If you are interested in editing these files, see Commons:Help:Inkscape, but I don't mind. --JFH (talk) 19:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

add succint table showing which seats changed parties[edit]

I came to wikipedia looking for the list of states that had seats change parties. while there are lots of tables in the change in composition section, none of this summaries this clearly.

just a table that says

state <before party> <after party> <gain>

it was unclear because the "safe republican gains" section is referenced briefly while the tabular data omits a clear way showing which seats changed parties.

thanks

jkeesh (talk) 05:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

or i guess my question is... is this something that can be added? not sure i can edit a key page like this...

jkeesh (talk) 05:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just completed a major edit to the Race summary table which should help. It is not quite the succinct table you requested, but it does a clearer job of illustrating the before and after than what was already on the page. As a relatively new editor, I don't feel comfortable creating a table like the one you suggested because there was not a similar table on the pages for previous US Senate elections. Perhaps a more experienced editor could review this request. Thanks. Makeitobjective (talk) 10:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

that's great! it is way clearer than before what happened overall. jkeesh (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing all US election results[edit]

I think it would be very interesting to make a spreadsheet that summarized all US election results, across all years. I am wondering if such a place exists on Wikipedia.

For instance, one spreadsheet/article/etc. could summarize the results of the Senate vote every year, with vote totals and the winner, going back as far as we could get data. Another one could do it for the House races, another one for Governor races, and so on.MissPiggysBoyfriend (talk) 12:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "Political party strength" series (links at {{Political party strength in U.S. states}}) and some pages like List of United States Senate elections. Those lists doesn't actually have vote totals, though. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:47, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Carolina[edit]

North Carolina actually had a Republican gain by Tillis (R) narrowly defeating Hagan (D) with a 48.9% 47.2%. This map shows this state is blue. (2601:7:80:2E4:80F0:35C8:3D30:AEF0 (talk) 01:34, 19 November 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comparing 2014 to either 1980 or 1994[edit]

When comparing 2014 to different years, the article currently reads:
"If Republicans prevail in the final remaining race, then they will have made the largest Senate gain by any party since 1980, and the largest Senate gain in a midterm election since 1958."

If Democrat Mary Landrieu does lose, the GOP will have picked up 9 seats. But I think comparing it to 1980 might be a little much because that year amidst the "Reagan landslide," the GOP picked up 12 seats. In the 1994 "Republican Revolution," they picked up 8 seats, which is closer to what they will probably achieve. Is the purpose of the sentence above to make it known that they will break their record of 1994, or just to do a comparison? If it's the latter, then I would think 1994 might be better because the pickup number is close to that than of 1980.
In addition, I think the comparison to 1958 might be a little much. In 1958, Democrats picked up 15 senate seats, and the GOP possible pickup of 9 seats seems rather mediocre compared to 15.
Maybe it's me. Thoughts? Mlaurenti (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to be intended to be relative to previous records. I imagine United States House of Representatives elections, 2014 will be reworded if McSally prevails and the Republicans beat their majority of 246 from 1946 and have their largest since 1928 instead. Rhydic (talk) 04:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I guess. Mlaurenti (talk) 21:17, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate elections, 2014. 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 22:05, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate elections, 2014. 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, 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).

  • 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) 21:02, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on United States Senate elections, 2014. 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, 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).

  • 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) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tipping Point State Shouldn't Need a Citation[edit]

The "Closest races" section has "b" and if you move your mouse over it, it says Georgia was the tipping point state, but a citation is needed. The Democrats had 45 seats and the vice-president. Adding Georgia and all the seats won by Republicans with a smaller margin than that would make a 50-50 split and would have given the Democrats control. The definition of the tipping point state is sufficiently basic that it should not need to be cited. Even if some people do not know that the vice-president breaks a tie in the Senate, many pages have something that requires prerequisite knowledge. If not giving a citation in that case violates Wikipedia's rules, then it's the equivalent of a victimless crime. I believe in honesty and accuracy, but I also believe that people shouldn't make up flaws that don't exist. EvanJ35 (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vote Totals by Party in "Results summary"[edit]

The vote totals by party at the bottom of the "Results summary" table have a mistake and something else I want to say:

1. The votes for Democrats and Republicans are switched. Republicans got more popular votes. Without checking another source, it's obvious that since the Republicans won 24/36 = 2/3rds of the elections, and the two states with the biggest possible Democratic margins of victory in terms of votes, California and New York, didn't have elections, the Democrats couldn't have gotten more votes.

2. The total votes are much fewer than the file made by the FEC. I checked state-by-state, and the first difference I found was that the FEC treated Louisiana's jungle primary on Election Day and runoff in December as if they were both general elections. A jungle primary determines the winner if somebody gets a majority, so it's not like a regular primary that can't determine the general election winner (unless only one party runs a candidate). I'm not saying Wikipedia should change, and I'm not changing the amounts, but whenever Wikipedia doesn't match an official source, Wikipedia should say why. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revert factually wrong edits[edit]

A random IP selectively changed the article to factually wrong information regarding retirements and races. Is it possible to revert all their edits? --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update Line[edit]

Last sentence before subpages says “This is the most recent Senate elections where any Republican flipped an open Democratic-held seat.”

Unless I misunderstand the claim (which lacks citation), the last Senate election where a Republican flipped an open Democratic-held seat was in 2020 in Alabama when Doug Jones lost to Tommy Tuberville Refsjjehhgshh (talk) 10:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]


https://yapms.com/app?m=vka839vb2ju1yws — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sttammany (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_United_States_Senate_elections&oldid=1218825853"