Talk:2014 United States Senate elections

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

U.S. Congress List‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Elections and Referendums List‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics List‑class Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States: Government List‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
List	This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

This is a historical article, not a daily tally sheet.
If someone drops out or loses, do not erase them; rather, refer to them as having run and lost, dropped out, etc.

Harkin

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

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

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)

D₃₉	D₄₀	D₄₁	D₄₂	D₄₃	D₄₄	D₄₅	D₄₆	D₄₇	D₄₈
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
Majority →									D₄₉
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

Senate composition before the elections CORRECTED

D₃₉	D₄₀	D₄₁	D₄₂	D₄₃	D₄₄	D₄₅	D₄₆	D₄₇	D₄₈
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
Majority →									D₄₈
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

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

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

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]

Kentucky and Tennessee

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

Map: South Carolina

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

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?

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]