Talk:2010 United States Senate special election in Massachusetts

Election date range

Mass law sets the date range for special elections for senators at 145 to 160 days after the vacancy occurs. Kennedy died on August 25, so there are seven days left in August 2009. There are 122 days among the last four months of the year for a total of 129. To get to 145, we need 16 more days, January 16. Of course January 31 is 15 days after that. Since the article originally said Jan. 17 to Feb. 1, I ask: how is my count wrong? -Rrius (talk) 08:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

It's because his "official" date of death is 26th August... 87.194.177.211 (talk) 09:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

According to what source? -Rrius (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Everything I have seen has pointed to August 25th. That said, the January 17th-February 1st date would be correct. From August 25th, there are six days remaining in August (26-31; you do not count August 25th), +30 for September, +31 for October, +30 for November, +31 for December makes 128 days for 2009. Add the 17 days needed to get to 145, that makes January 17th. Fifteen days after that is February 1st. Sahasrahla (talk) 23:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, six days, not seven. That makes a whole lot more sense than the "official date" thing given that not one news story says that. -Rrius (talk) 00:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ballot access and qualifications

I have pared down the "Ballot access" section, but I don't think it or the "Qualifications" section really need to be in the article. The ballot access section gives undue weight to the criterion for getting on the ballot. We already know from the "Election dates" section that there will be a primary, and there is little point in discussing how long a person must be registered as a party member before the filing deadline. The "Qualification" section just seems out of place unless an allegation comes up that one candidate or other doesn't meet the qualifications. -Rrius (talk) 15:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a significant fact that 10,000 certified signatures, both for enrolled and unenrolled candidates, and these must be filed in a timely manner, and this should be re-instated in the article. The party member qualification can be a surprising hurdle, and is worth making visible because it is part of the U.S. civics process.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem with that portion is that it did not reflect the source. Your passage said that you need 10,000 signatures to be placed on the general election ballot, but that is not what it says. The source says that you need to meet the actual qualifications, be a registered voter, and get 10,000 signatures to be candidate. Through WP:Synth you can arrive at the conclusion that primary candidates need 10,000 signatures to get on the ballot, and independents need 10,000 to get on the general election ballot, but such synthesis is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Moreover, the 10,000 signature requirement is not terribly important on its own. As part of a discussion that the signature requirement is so low that everyone and his uncle is running or so high that only top-tier candidates are running, it might be useful. On it's own, it doesn't answer the question, "so what?". -Rrius (talk) 15:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• On the contrary the Secretary of the Commonwealth's advisory to candidates does say that. It says that you cannot become a Senator unless you provide 10,000 certified signatures. I quote excerpts below. If you're not on the ballot, you can't become a Senator. Consider your mis-reading of the advisory an indicator that the ballot requirement belongs in the article. Under your proposed petty anti-synthesis regime, an editor cannot say 10 plus 13 is 23 because she cannot find a citation for that exact phrasing of an arithmetical forumla.

"For Unenrolled candidates:

"Non-party candidates must also circulate nomination papers. The papers will place a candidate’s name on the general election ballot, bypassing the primary. A candidate must file an enrollment certificate (certificate of voter registration) to prove he or she is a registered voter and has not been enrolled in any political party during the 90 days preceding the deadline for filing nomination papers with the Secretary of the Commonwealth. This certificate is printed on every nomination paper. At least one of these certificates must be signed by at least three members of the board of registrars or election commission and filed no later than the last day for filing nomination papers with the Secretary.

"For Enrolled candidates:

"Primary nomination papers may be signed by registered voters in the district who are:

"Enrolled in the same party as the candidate; OR
Not enrolled in any party; OR
Enrolled in a political designation.
The signatures of a voter enrolled in a different political party will be disallowed.
The candidate nominated at the primary will be the party’s candidate in the general election.

The "so what" is that this aspect of entry onto the ballot is a varying fact for the several United States, and absolutely essential. This aspect of ballot appearance is fundamental to how anyone appears on the ballot. Some states easy (Mass.) Some states, obfuscatingly byzantine and intentionally difficult (New York). Here's the cite to the statute. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Mass. General Laws. Chapter 53: Section 6. Nomination papers; contents; number of signatures; unenrolled candidates http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/53-6.htm

Nominations of candidates for any offices to be filled at a state election may be made by nomination papers, stating the facts required by section eight and signed in the aggregate by not less than the following number of voters: for governor and lieutenant governor, attorney general, United States senator, and presidential electors, ten thousand;...

First of all, the original text linked the 10,000-signature requirement to the general election ballot. That is not what the source says. It also doesn't exactly say that party candidates need 10,000 signatures for the primary and non-party candidates need 10,000 for the general election ballot.

As for the "so what" question, if the answer is that Massachusetts is easy compared to states like New York, the text you have does not make that point. Only a fraction of a fraction of people with a high interest in politics have any clue about the signature requirements of various jurisdictions. Saying that Massachusetts requires 10,000 signatures tells the reader nothing. Further, going into the distinction between states like Massachusetts and New York is inappropriate for this article as it gives a tangential issue undue weight. It would be more appropriate for an article like Elections in Massachusetts. If, after the ballot is set, there are a lot of candidates, it might be appropriate to say something like, "Forty candidates will appear on the ballot due to Massachusetts's relatively low 10,000-signature requirement for ballot access." Failing that, it is hard to see why it should be included. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just like that being 30 years old is nothing to the reader I suppose? It cannot be gotten around, there must be nomination papers, and it is a requirement to become a Senator in this state. What is so reprehensible about stating that fact? -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • No one said it is reprehensible, it is just too much information. It is far less silly, though, than the 10,000-signature requirement or even the 90-day affiliation requirement for primary candidates. You have still not explained how the 10,000 bit is important to this article, so I am removing it. -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You guys must be trying to prove the adage that there's no matter too small to have an edit dispute over. Well, I shouldn't mock, I've found myself in a few of these as well ... I'd suggest a brief description of the ballot access requirements is in order, then everyone moves on to something more momentous ... Wasted Time R (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Gee, thanks, that was helpful... -Rrius (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Appointment

I have made a minor modification to remove the part of the sentence that states the purpose behind Kennedy's 2009 letter/request regarding the succession process. While Kennedy stated that his interest is in maintaining representation for Massachusetts, this is a matter that is widely disputed. In fact the article cited as a source starts with the assertion that Kennedy's purpose was to guarantee a vote for health care reform. Packetmonger (talk) 00:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• It is a fact that Kennedy stated an interest in continuity, as such, it should remain in the article. You are invited to bring in citations and text supplementing the fact of Kennedy's statment illustrating the nature of the dispute, and see if your edits survive your article collaborators interest. From Kennedy's letter:
  

"I am writing to you about an issue that concerns me deeply -- the continuity of representation for Massachusetts should a vacancy occur. ... I also believe that is is vital for this Commonwealth to have two voices speaking for the needs of its citizens and two votes in the Senate during the approximately five months between a vacancy and an election."

Kennedy, Edward M. (July 2, 2009. Delivered to recipients August 18, 2009) Letter to Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, President of the Senate Therese Murray, and Speaker of the House Robert DeLeo. (via the Boston Globe. Published August 20, 2009.)

(Belated signature a week+ later: Yellowdesk (talk) 20:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC))

• Preceding section (from my initial comment to this point) is from an unknown editor. I am inserting this section to make this more clear. Packetmonger (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

• I won't argue that Kennedy stated that- in fact my second sentence above confirms it. I am pointing out that many people dispute the accuracy of the statement made by Kennedy, so it should not be included in an encyclopedia without appropriate context. A reference that the statement is disputed exists in the very article cited by the previous editor- the article clearly states the generally held view that the purpose was to improve the chances of health care reform passing- from the first paragraph- "fearing a months-long vacancy would deny Democrats a crucial vote on President Barack Obama's health care overhaul." If you are concerned with that source there are plenty more out there from other reputable sources- including ones perceived as being friendly to the senator. For example, here is an AP article that includes a former Massachusetts Democratic party chair saying:

"I think he's simply being cautious about the future in order to protect issues he cares deeply about, most importantly health reform," said former Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Philip Johnston. "It's a statement of his commitment to health reform and his support of President Obama."

I am concerned that this subject matter probably should be kept minimal in an article about the election- limited to the elements that relate to the election proper. Clearly, it is relevant that Kennedy asked for the law to be changed, and it is relevant that the law was created in 2004 for the purposes it is generally accepted to have been created for, and it is relevant that the same person that asked for the current proposed change also was significantly responsible for the change in 2004. Is it relevant to include a section saying that Kennedy stated his purpose was to guarantee representation? I wouldn't think so, in part because if such elements were included, it would be necessary to also include the opposing viewpoint and that would be beyond the scope I believe this article should include. If thats the way the consensus goes, then we can include both points of view, and probably should include which was the largely prevailing view and that it is possible that both interpretations could be accurate at the same time. That may well belong in the biography of Kennedy, but I don't think it is appropriate in this article, so I simply have edited to include facts and not political statements. Again, if there is a consensus that this issue is relevant and appropriate to the special election article, I'll be happy to contribute to improve the article that way.

Finally, I'm not sure if it somehow was deleted by someone else, but I can't find your signature. Can you come back and add your signature? Thanks. Packetmonger (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree with the person above (whoever he is); any debate as to why Kennedy wanted the law changed belongs on his article, if it belongs anywhere; all that should be here is information directly pertinent to the election itself (and the potential for an interim appointment until the election, if the lgeislation for such passes, as it seems likely it will). As has been pointed out, it's not impossible that both reasons are true, but neither reason belongs here in my opinion. 76.25.233.30 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I added a section above to make it more clear where my comments begin/end and which comments are from the unknown author. Packetmonger (talk) 08:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

An article on this special election that mentions the interim appointment and the law-change that enabled it should not omit mention of the controversy about the hypocrisy of enacting one set of rules when the Governor is Republican, and another when the Governor is a Democrat. The controversy was part of the relevant history, and the article as it stands appears to implicitly condone this kind of political maneuvering. The Wikipedia article on "Gerrymandering," for instance, mentions that the term has "negative connotations." The legislative shimmy by which mostly the same people deprived Gov. Romney of the power of interim appointment and then restored it for Gov. Patrick, hasn't been immortalized with catchy name, but if it were, this name would have negative connotations. Bo8ob (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring the fact that your POV is showing, the charges of hypocrisy are relevant to the appointment law, but not to the special election. -Rrius (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Might Be 2009

The Massachusetts General Court will be considering changes to the law: although the Republicans would prefer the status quo, they have relatively little clout in a state with huge Democratic majorities in both houses of the legislature. One possibility would be to prepone the special election, possibly moving the election up to 2009. If that happens, we would have to change the name of this article. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Stephen F Lynch

As of 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC) Stephen Lynch is NOT an official candidate for the seat. He has simply pulled nomination papers. Unless there is objection, I will be returning his name to Potential Candidates. Alex (talk) 13:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Section organization and order, also campaign narrative section

Proposals invited reorganizaing sections.
Should a campaign narrative section go underneath the rather large list of candidates (actual, declined, potential)? A bit hard to find there though.
Since the appointment issue so far, is hypothetical and contingent, and the election process has started and is a fact, the appointment sections could go at bottom. And yet that might all change in a few weeks if a law is passed.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the placement of the Appointment discussion makes sense because any decision on passing a law or or appointing someone would occur before the election. As a result, chronologically, it makes sense to put it near the beginning. It would just seem odd at the end. As for the rest, the only reason I can see is sort of introducing the characters before getting into the narrative. -Rrius (talk) 13:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, below all of the names for the next new section on the campaign and issues. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

References

57 different references and 35 repetitions. This is one well-researched article!—Markles 00:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Recent addition of an image gallery

The recent addition of an image gallery seems unnecessary to me. At the moment, we have images of two actual Democratic candidates and one potential one. There are also 10 Democratic non-candidates and 4 Republican non-candidates represented. There are no images of actual Republican candidates and only two of potential candidates. In addition to taking up a lot of space, this seems to give undue weight to people who aren't even running. Were the non-candidates eliminated, half the Democrats and all the Republicans actually running would be left out. -Rrius (talk) 01:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, image galleries are generally pretty redundant, especially when there are candidates for whom no image is available. I'd support removing both from the article. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• I took out the potentials and left in only the actual candidates. Nevertheless, I agree that image gallery here is entirely pointless. I suggest eliminating it altogether. Do we need to know, in THIS article, what Martha Coakley looks like?—Markles 22:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
• Agreed; galleries are superfluous, and images can be found at the candidate articles. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible appointees

I removed the extensive list of possible appointees. "... as relevant as potential candidates who didn't run"? It's of no significance that "Lois Pines, former State Senator" was considered a potential appointment. Dukakis was frequently mentioned and endorsed by a newspaper, so he should stay, the rest go, it's recentism. Hekerui (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

shoving incident

I do not know how to edit the main article to include the following. Approximately one week before the January 19th election a video tape was placed on youtube.com showing an altercation between a Coakley staffer named as Meehan and a report named McCormack outside a Washington DC gathering which Martha Coakley was leaving. The reporter, as well as several other reporters, asked Coakley a question on Terrorism and tried to follow the candidate down the street. The video apparently shows the staffer shoving the reporter into a construction fence, knocking the reporter down, and then blocking the reporter's access when the reporter attempted to follow Coakley down the street. This can be found on youtube.com under the heading "Martha Coakley thug instigates Assault on John McCormack" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beantownboyo (talk • contribs) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Curt Schilling

I moved Curt Schilling to the independent candidates section because he would have been precluded from running as a Republican because he is a registered independent.--Mhenneberry (talk) 21:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather defer to the source here: The former Boston Red Sox ace ... has ruled out mounting a GOP bid for the coveted seat... ([1]) Makes it pretty clear that he was only ever considering running as a Republican. Perhaps we should list him under both? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 21:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Nope. Not capable of being a GOP candidate. Disqualified from participating in the primary as a candidate. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yellowdesk is right. Regardless of what the CNN article said, and what Schilling himself may have been considering, he was not registered Republican by the August 5th deadline. As such, his only option was unenrolled. Republican was never on the table. Sahasrahla (talk) 17:17, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Find me a source that says that and I'll stop moaning, but without one it's synthesis. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

[2][3][4] We had one in the article before, I think. Not sure what happened to it. -Rrius (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

None of the above actually say "Curt Schilling has ruled out running as an independent." As far as we're concerned, he hasn't: the source currently in the article only says that he's "ruled out mounting a GOP bid for the coveted seat." The article combines that with the referenced fact that he couldn't have run as a Republican to come to the conclusion that we won't run as an independent, which is unsourced. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Your source doesn't say that Schilling thought he would be running for the Republican nomination. What's more, it was reported within days of Kennedy's death that Schilling is a registered independent, so during the weeks that went by, he must have known that he would have to run as an independent. What's more, to figure your source is accurate, you are trying to hold sources to WP:SYNTH, which is a guideline dealing with what should and should not be written here, not what should be written in our sources. -Rrius (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, it doesn't. And as we're not saying that in the article, it doesn't need to (for instance, Mitt Romney may never have been considering running, but still publicly declined to, and so gets a mention). I'm not going to make any assumptions regarding what Schilling "must have known", especially as it's irrelevant to the content in question. I'm afraid I don't fully understand your last sentence: the only thing I'm holding to that policy is the unsourced assertion that "Curt Shilling has ruled out running as an independent." – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, that his the one source that says he ruled out a GOP bid. It is not clear whether that is what he said or is CNN's gloss on the situation. When it comes right down to it, we don't know what he was considering running as. I suggest we try to find a way of including Schilling without putting him under "Republican" or "Independent". Short of that, it is irrational to believe that he would have continued to consider a Republican bid after it was widely reported that that was impossible within a couple of days after his name first came up. -Rrius (talk) 19:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there actually any way to list him without listing him under a party heading? I think the most sensible compromise, if you're alright with it, would be to list him under both headers. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 15:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Polling

Why is the polling listed in reverse chronological order? Shouldn't it be listed from earliest to latest? I know other articles do this, but it doesn't make sense here or there. Is there a settled policy in a style guide or in a Wikiproject? —Markles 22:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any guideline or any compelling reason to go either way. I doubt anyone will complain if you just change it. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I changed it once, and it was eventually changed back. It wasn't reverted immediately, just at some point down the road.—Markles 10:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I agree with you. It does not appear to be any kind of policy because some elections are top posted and others bottom posted. There is an argument that in especially long lists resulting from 3 to 5 years of polling, such as British, Canadian, and Australian elections, top posting makes sense because the most recent polls are of the most interest. To some extent that is misguided because it is not necessarily true after the election, but in any event that position is irrelevant here because it is such a short election period that it will always be short. As such, the polls should be listed chronologically, which is more intuitive. -Rrius (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Endorsements

I think an endorsements section would be a good idea, and I'm kind of working on it. Only problem is, it'll likely be a scarily long list ([5], [6]). Does anyone have any criteria by which the people listed could feasibly be narrowed down, or should I just try to list everybody? Thanks. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 18:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

How about none? Endorsements are not all that encyclopedic unless they are something symbolic/widely covered like Kennedy endorsing Obama. After the campaign deadlines are over, the sections about who declined to run should be eliminated as well, they have no point. Hekerui (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say it's pretty unlikely that even this entire election will gain as much coverage as Kennedy's endorsement of Obama; it's all relative. And I think there have been and will continue to be endorsements which receive coverage similar to Kennedy's, relative to the coverage of the election as a whole. Perhaps it'd be best just to put them in a campaign section, if/when there is one? – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 19:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I think endorsements should be handled in prose. If an endorsement isn't notable enough on its own to be mentioned in prose, it shouldn't be mentioned. For instance, since Capuano is a representative, it is notable whether the rest of the delegation endorses him, Coakley or no one. Kerry's endorsement is obviously important if he's made one, and Deval Patrick's probably is, too. The rest should be measured about that. As for people who declined to run, I don't think they should be removed entirely. Perhaps they should be treated as I've said endorsements should, but the decliners were heavily covered and are an important part of the story of this race, both in terms of the "tick tock" and of what this race ended up being (especially when compared to what was expected). -Rrius (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Rrius Gang14 (talk) 05:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I heard the race characterized "by who didn't run" but this means no Kennedy family members or Romney or other from the delegation - not Curt Schilling or Bob Burr. A mention that out of the congressional delegation only one person ran and a citation that this was noted/discussed by newspapers in some form would be enough, right? Hekerui (talk) 08:19, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't really say whether the Burr thing is notable because, so I have no opinion there, but it is probably worth mentioning Schilling. It was a notable happening and wouldn't really hurt anything to include it. I'm not passionate either way, though. -Rrius (talk)

If we have endorsments, we should add John McCain for Scott Brown, and maybe Curt Schilling as well —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alby45 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a campaign section

The topic has a history, and progress, not able to be shown in an article that lacks a section called "campaign".
Here's an example, perhaps useful: New York's 20th congressional district special election, 2009
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Third-Party Candidates

There is no mention in this article of the other candidate who appear on the ballot in January: Joe Kennedy from the Libertarian Party. Granted, his chances of winning are *very* slim, however, his name will be on the ballot, and as such, deserves to be mentioned in this article. 64.69.8.165 (talk) 18:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He is mentioned under the section "Independent/third party candidates"--Cube lurker (talk) 18:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't he have HIS picture up there too, then? --67.141.171.94 (talk) 22:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of equal coverage, I'd say yes. Sahasrahla (talk) 00:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

But doesn't the article say he won't be on the ballot?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that sentence refers to William S. Coleman, another independent candidate who took out nomination papers. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

He's polling at 1%, and does not merit being included in the infobox. Once the election approaches, he can be included in the results box. Gage (talk) 05:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

He should be included in the info box the poll you cite did not even include his name. If we want equalism he should be there he is on the Ballot and even has debated with them.SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

The poll cited gave the option of "someone else," Kennedy is the only other candidate, and received 1%. Gage (talk) 05:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

"It's the same as adding Ralph Nader to the 2008 election article, Kennedy has polled at 1%, and should not be included in the infobox, until his polls increase, or wins a significant amount of votes" I am so glad you think so highly of your own opinion , but I would say.. "some other candidate" is not a name in fact it implies more then one. There isn't .. You base your entire argument on a small sample sized biased* Poll. Forgive me if I think all 3 should be there- You disagree, why again does your lone opinion dictate the entire discussion? SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 02:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it is based on facts, as opposed to your argument, which is based on absolutely nothing. Gage (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah your opinion is a fact now.. That is interesting. You can't even say how a poll reads its results IE it never even names the Candidate but you imply it does, in fact it even could imply multiple when there isn't.. oh but you're factual. heh right. And were you the one who put him down his ticket as Libertarian? When its Liberty- Either way, Who ever did that was grossly UNinformed. Of course you can say what you like about me or my views.. but.. Your opinions are not facts sorrySirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

Just because Kennedy is the only third party candidate doesn't mean that he should be in the infobox. In the NJ gubernatorial election, Daggett was in the infobox because he qualified for the debates and polled over 5% consistently.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy has debated , however he has not been included in a poll. his name as we can all agree at least on this is not "Some Other Candidate" I challenge using polls like that when there have been so few in the first place with pathetically small sample sizes. SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 03:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

So because a candidate isn't important or significant enough to be included in any poll taken by multiple independent polling agencies, that indicates that he's important enough to be added to the top infobox? Gage (talk) 03:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That should be left up the voters / People being polled to decide Not a private polling company. Nor is it up to you to judge the importance or lack of it , for a candidate - Your polling argument is invalid either you poll and get a real number with his name or you dont tell people "hes not important" or "he doesnt have the % numbers" as both are invalid as an argument until that is done- SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't the voters of Massachusetts. Kennedy will not be added until he is included in a poll, obtains a significant amount of support, or receives a significant number of votes on election day. Gage (talk) 03:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nor are you the collective, nor is a private polling company. And what is Significant? Forgive me if I dont really trust your ... subjectivity on the matter- greatly.SirWence (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 04:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You tell me, since you seem to believe Kennedy is significant. Gage (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh no good sir.. you tell me.. as your opinion here passes as fact.SirWence (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 04:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I could care less, really. Gage (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you really don't care.. then why even bother removing him? I think mayhap you care more then you let on but oh well, it doesn't really matter who cares or to what degree they care- SirWence (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You guys need to stop launching personal attacks. Let's try to compromise and not be obstructionist. I personally believe there should only be two candidates in the infobox unless if there is any other candidate who is reasonably considered as a major candidate. I understand we have to be fair, but we can't just put 10 third party or independent candidates in an infobox, all of whom may get less than 1% of the vote on election day.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Kennedy met the threshhold of being nominated. It took the effort of getting signatures, which Kennedy met. That's enough to merit listing in an infobox. —Markles 17:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

You are telling me that all 10 independent candidates in the NJ 2009 gubernatorial race should be in the infobox?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

New Jersey is not Massachusetts - This is not a state election for governor and its not an easy task to get on the ballot in either case for independents in This commonwealth. 24.147.97.167 (talk) 18:57, 10 January 2010 SirWence (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy's picture deserves to be in the info box; he polled at 5% a few weeks ago.

He only polled 5% in one of six polls. If other polling firms aren't even asking people about Kennedy than he is probably not significant. In New Jersey, Daggett starting getting a lot of support, which urged all of the polling firms to ask about him. But very few are even mentioning Kennedy.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If he is on the ballot I don't see why he should not be included in the infobox. What if in an election there were two candidates and one got 99.5% of the vote? Would we only include the one candidate? When more than two people are added to the infobox it looks weird, but that is the infobox's problem. Perhaps it should have been designed better. In fairness, we should not decide who or who isn't is a "good enough" candidate. They are all officially running and will appear on the ballot. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a very good point. But we have a two party system. Only a major candidate should be allowed in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly "its a two party system so just 2 can be put up" so basically if the Republicrat candidate has no chance of winning, by said above Margins you will still put that 'un worthy' candidate because they are part of the 2 party system.. Its rather a broken system - But He polled 5% - the one time they actually used his name* and has debated - obtained over 10,000 signatures managed to get on the ballot - that is more then enough to warrant being in the infobox-- SirWence (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Scott Brown

Is somebody going to get a picture for him?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a wikipedia account and I am very unfamiliar with the system here, but here is a link with a picture of him as a state senator, which I'm pretty sure falls under public domain. http://www.mass.gov/legis/member/spb0.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.202.69 (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Brown Money Bomb

On January 11 Brown raised over $1 M via the Internet. I think that is relevant and material to the article indicating he had amassed broad support during the campaign.

http://www.brownforussenate.com/red-invades-blue —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.84.135 (talk) 03:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Results

I would think Joe Kennedy needs to have his 'party' changed back from Independent to Liberty as that is the Ballot ticket he is running under - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.97.167 (talk) 12:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical

Please do not remove losers or their data from this article.—Markles 17:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Kennedy compromise

United States Senate special election in Massachusetts, 2010

January 19, 2010

File:State senator scott p brown.jpg Nominee Scott Brown Martha Coakley Party Republican Democratic   Nominee Joseph L. Kennedy Party Independent

Senator before election Paul Kirk Democratic Elected Senator TBD TBD

After much concern over Joseph L. Kennedy being included in the top infobox, I think a compromise should be agreed upon, in going forward into the election in a few days. Now, along with the issue of polling and support, there is also the concern of the infobox setup with three images. I have created a test infobox, that places the third candidate in a second row, and doesn't compromise the size of the images needing to be decreased greatly; you can see it at the right. Secondly, maybe a threshold should be established for this specific case in including Kennedy; for example, maybe if Kennedy polls higher than 10%, or at least 5% in three or more polls, then he would be added. And though I still oppose him being added at this present time, any thoughts on these two points? Gage (talk) 04:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree there needs to be some type of polling criteria. If there isn't, than anyone who is on the ballot could get inside the infobox. This means that in the 2009 New Jersey election, there would be 12 candidates who would be in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You do realize how utterly lax the qualifications are for that...you keep bringing it up over and over again. When everything from the Qualifications, to the election are both different (and as far as Qualification goes comparatively easy). Different state, different type of election, with this current election in the Massachusetts Commonwealth it is far harder and more expensive to even reach the ballot. As for a polling threshold we don't really have the luxury of them the only named one we have is 5% and the fact that he was included in main debates for said special senate election. With so few polls and only one naming him as even being in the race...I sort of doubt you'll ever get enough to have any sort of a true average. As for the Infobox design, it seems fine to me Gage no issues on that count In fact it looks far better (to me anyways) in appearance for having more than 2 candidates. Though, of course we still have issues on the inclusion. (As you oppose and I support) SirWence (talk) 06:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Sirwence

• I disagree with relegating any candidate. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not the League of Women Voters, not CQ Politics, and not the NY Times. Kennedy will never poll well, he will never raise much money; he will not take first or even second place; but he WAS nominated and that should be sufficient for inclusion.—Markles 20:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand how this should differ from a presidential election, for example. Several third parties nominated candidates, but none obtained any noteworthy support, or a significant percentage of votes. The last example would probably be Perot in the 1992 election, but at least he pulled in a double digit percentage, unlike Kennedy, in addition to being included in a number of the debates. If Kennedy gets 5% or more in the general election, I think adding him would be noteworthy enough for inclusion in the infobox. Gage (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Gage. In addition to that I just wanted to say that maybe we should stop debating this over and over again. The election is next Tuesday. In two weeks from now, this debate we are having may mean nothing.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

and I disagree with Gage- Perot unlike Kennedy was rich.. he could run ad's he could compete with quote " the big boys " in 2008 US Massachusetts Senate race -Underwood got over 3% of the total vote (most thought he wouldnt even get over 1%) and still refused to put him up when both he and the Republican had an equal chance of winning (that is to say no chance to win). Also The debate would have never started if he wasnt removed from the infobox - will it be meaningless ? I don't know I think that is up to what meaning you place upon it.SirWence (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

• The election will not settle anything about this question. Wikipedia is a historical encyclopedia, not a political website. Long after this election is ancient history, it will be settled that three people were nominated for this election. Even after one of them wins (probably Coakley or Brown), all the candidates will have to be included for the sake of the historical fact.—Markles 02:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I honestly do not see how a compromise can be reached when We wish him to be in the infobox and you do not.. We all know polls are merely that polls they are hardly a predictor of anything - But that aside we have a 5% and a 3% and a 6% hes not polling at 0.45% I say his debate performances (and the fact that he was included in the debates) and the fact that he is polling when his name is included would say he should be up there- That and the fact that he got through the tedious process of even getting on the ballot in the first place is more than enough to put him in the box - and I agree with Markles. SirWence (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

I've added Kennedy back for now, now that he has begun to be included in national polls, as well as the most recent debate. If he obtains a very small percentage of votes on election day however, I will support removing him once again. Gage (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I must ask what a small Margin is, as we may be once again disagreeing as to what the Margin should be thus maybe a compromise could be reached or one can hope, or we can simply wait until the election- I think it better to settle it sooner; then bickering with endless undo's later, but then again it could also be better to wait, as I always remain.. weary of turn out for special elections. Also on the side note are any of his pictures public domain (IE Usable) I remain rather unsure.SirWence (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)SirWence

Why does it matter what happens on election day? This is a reference article, not a daily tally. That Kennedy is running is a historical fact even though nobody sincerely believes he's got a likelihood of winning, placing second or even getting much of a blip at the ballot. I don't mind relegating him in the infobox as a reasonable compromise; but for the record (which is sort of what Wikipedia is) there are three candidates running. —Markles 13:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Social Conservative / Independently Minded Liberal = Inaccurate

These statements are inaccurate: "Brown is running as both a fiscally and socially conservative Republican" vs "Coakley has positioned herself as an independently-minded liberal". Brown supported universal health-care legislation in Massachusetts, has voted for stem-cell research, and is Pro-Choice, and he's described himself as socially moderate and independent-minded (per his commercials). Coakley - Which issue(s) does she differ from the mainstream liberal/Democratic platform? The reference cited, a page from Martha Coakley's web site, does not state she's "independently minded" in anyway. Please fix! Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.160.150 (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsigned, per Wikipedia's own page for social conservatism and Mr Brown's campaign site, he is a social conservative. He's for parental consent, against late-term abortions, opposed to same-sex marriage, opposed to drug decriminalization/legalization. If Mr Brown's stance on lower taxes makes him a fiscal conservative, his stance on the aforementioned makes him a social conservative.--Dr Fell (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record he also opposes the current HCR plan. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 19:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)