Talk:2008 United States House of Representatives elections

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

CREW[edit]

I'll be removing the POV-inducing lists of CREW and Rolling Stone's "worst congressmen" labels unless someone can show me an NPOV reason to keep them. It's totally arbitrary to take these two lists as the only lists for identifying poor congressmen, and it's essentially irrelevant to who's running in the races. Zz414 01:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Map[edit]

The final unresolved race, Ohio's 15th, has been called for Democrat Mary Jo Kilroy. It should be painted bright blue as a Democratic pickup. Democrats will officially have a 257-178 majority in the 111th House of Representatives, unless the recount in Virginia's 5th overturns Democrat Tom Perriello's victory (unlikely). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.209.71.141 (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Factual and spelling corrections[edit]

Made a few minor corrections for spelling and factual corrections on the page through to Colorado. Alaska's Ethan Berkowitz is now the former State House Minority Leader. Under Colorado, slightly modified the entries for the Doug Lamborn and Tancredo districts. Tancredo was not the highest vote getter for a GOP Congressional candidate in Colorado in 2006. According to the CO Secretary of State's office, Tancredo got 59% of the vote and freshman Doug Lamborn got 60%. http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/electionresults2006G/ Also factually incorrect was the claim of narrow reelection for Tancredo in 2000 after Columbine. While Tancredo's performance was (as a percentage) lower than in 1998 (where he scored 56% vs. 54% in '00), he received substantially more votes in 2000 (30k more), ran ahead of Bush's performance, and the Democrats received the exact same percentage in both 1998 and 2000 -- 42% (despite the Democrat being financially competitive in 2000). Columbine had almost no effect in putting a damper on Tancredo's performance. 69.247.131.177 03:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Complete list[edit]

Last cycle, I copied over the 2004 tables into the 2006 article. I'm planning to do the same with the 2008 election. Thoughts or concerns? Chadlupkes 21:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You created a seperate page I dont see anything wrong with that Gang14 21:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please make a list of retiring representatives? Star Garnet 3:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Lack of Citations[edit]

This page, though well compiled, severely lacks citations. There are more than just "two" themes in the 2008 GOP House Races. Additionally, there are no citations for the impact different presidential candidates could have on the races.


Thomas M. Davis[edit]

So he was going to run for the Senate but changed his mind... are we sure he's not going to run for his house seat again instead?--Dr who1975 (talk) 16:54, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on him cites 2 sources saying he's retiring. --W.marsh 20:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Charts[edit]

Charts ought to be avoided. They remove all narrative and boil this historical article down to a check list. All information about who these people are or how the races went would be lost!

I'll repeat the warning from the top of this page:

The five states with charts have been reverted/restored. They may need a little touch-up: Illinois, Maryland, Mississippi, Ohio, Texas.

Sorry for the hassle.

—Markles 17:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please seek consensus before eliminating all the article text and replacing it with a simple check list. If there's a consensus, then that's fine.—Markles 16:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to use charts, use them at United States House of Representatives elections, 2008 - complete list.—Markles 16:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Markles that the chart concept is better suited to the complete list of races rather than this article. The point of this list of November elections in this article is to note potentially competitive races and explain why they might be competitive. Removing the article text for each state and replacing it with a list of all House races in the state completely eliminates that information.
As I said, I am not a big fan of the charts. I don't think we should retain them in this article, but even assuming we are going to have them, it is not clear why the article text is deleted when they are added. Clearly the text regarding who will be the major party nominees is useless after the primary, but that is not the sum total of the information contained in the text. Some of the people discussed are said to be considering either a major party bid or an independent bid. Other people are noted as possible independent candidates and are sometimes linked with specific third parties. All that information is erased even though independents may not have to get on the ballot until much later than the major parties. Finally, interesting information is lost about why a seat is open or why it changed parties last time or the electoral history of the district in congressional and presidential elections.
My suggestion is that the charts not be included, but if people insist on having the charts on this page, that the article text be retained with amendment. It may be that under "Races by State" there should be a link to the complete list. Perhaps that would eliminate the apparent lack of understanding as to what this list is supposed to be. -Rrius (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view is that this page should be kept as a summary of competitive races, while the complete list article shows all candidates running in every race, without any commentary. This was how the articles on the 2006 congressional elections were organized, and that seemed to work fine. Using charts in this article would make it essentially a copy of the complete list article. As long as this article is watched for POV pushing, I think it's beneficial to have an article that gives summaries of competitive races.--Tdl1060 (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, I believe that Wikipedia should be a collection of information, not charts. However, I do believe that once a state has held its primary, that state's section on the complete list should be changed to one like that of those that were added on this article. I believe that they were much better made than those on the current complete list. Star Garnet (talk) 00:39, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaii[edit]

Which races to include?[edit]

There need to be criteria on which inclusion is based. The table in the previous section provides a good start, but a number of the races currently listed in this section don't seem to me to warrant inclusion. A consensus-based set of criteria for inclusion would help to weed out those that don't belong. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's include all open seat races and races that are rated as anything other than "safe" by at least one of the groups on the ratings sheet. Primaries will need some criteria set up thought. CylonCAG (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2008 (PST)
I agree with the above. Do any of the sources being used for the ratings sheet have information on incumbents facing significant primary challenges? And should primary dates (and runoffs where applicable) be included in the information presented? JTRH (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Races with no incumbents"[edit]

Rather than removing MD 1 and 4 (Gilchrest and Wynn) from the list of races with no incumbents, the section should be renamed either "Open seats" or "General election races with no incumbents." The intent seems to be to list those districts which will definitely elect new members in November, and those two districts qualify and should be included, since the incumbents aren't in the race now. If there's no objection, that's how I'd like to proceed. JTRH (talk) 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see much reason to single out races in which the incumbent lost the primary. After all, some of the races will feature an incumbent who loses the general. Looking back at this article from 5 years in the future, it won't matter which way the incumbent lost. I do think it's worth mentioning that the incumbent lost his/her primary, but i think there's no reason for those people to have their own section in the discussion. Therefore, I advise leaving MD1 & MD4 out of a special section.—Markles 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't suggesting including in a special section. I'm saying that they shouldn't be removed from the list of races with no incumbents, since the incumbents are not currently in the race. They're now open seats. I was proposing to re-insert them into the list from which they were removed, and rename the section. JTRH (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, they ARE (or WERE) in the race. They lost. This is a historical article: in 2008 Gilchrest and Wynn ran and lost their seats.—Markles 14:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think you and I are trying to describe two different things. I understand your point, and I think I might see it your way if this were an article on a past election. But they are "races without incumbents" as far as the upcoming general election is concerned, i.e., they are NOW races without incumbents. Given that the article describes a current campaign and a future election, leaving those two seats out makes it an incomplete list of seats which will definitely have new occupants in January, and that's what's implied by the phrase "races without incumbents." The most accurate way to do this would be to retitle it as I suggest above ("Open seats" is the generally accepted term), and include those two races with the notation that Wynn and Gilchrest were defeated rather than retiring voluntarily. JTRH (talk) 16:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The election may be present/future but a Wikipedia article must be written with a long-term historical perspective. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an on-going tally sheet to keep people up-to-date. Everything in WP is intended for historical purposes.—Markles 16:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then what's historically accurate and what's currently accurate are two different things. JTRH (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Sorry if the above was a bit abrupt. I changed the section heading to "Retirements." That makes the section content accurate as far as I'm concerned. My concern was that a section called "races without incumbents" that didn't include MD 1 and 4 would be inaccurately perceived by some readers to be a list of races which are currently for open seats, in which case the list is inaccurate without those two there. The unusual thing is that once the special is held in MD-4, it will indeed no longer be a race without an incumbent - but for the moment, it is. I think this was simply a difference in semantic interpretation, but I'm fine with it as it is now. JTRH (talk) 19:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • That's a good idea.—Markles 20:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of them is resigning, and that would merit a section if that resignation led to a special election BEFORE the November date -- but even that's debatable. (I'm not looking at the article right now so I can't remember.)—Markles 02:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there should be a sub-section in the section for incumbents defeated in primary as they are open seats. Bentley4. 6:57 PM EST. 11 May 2008
    • They're not open seats. The incumbents ran and lost.—Markles 23:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thus they are open seats. For an election in the future, an 'open seat' is one in which the incumbent is not currently running. 207.170.238.132 (talk) 19:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's the point I was trying to make earlier, but apparently there isn't a consensus to accept that terminology on this page. JTRH (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I suppose it's a matter of semantics. If an incumbent loses in November will it be an open seat? No, because the incumbent ran and lost. This article is about ALL elections to the House in 2008. It covers primaries and general elections. In the case of Albert Wynn, however, he lost his primary and is expected to resign in June. His seat still will not be open, but it will be listed as a retirement.—Markles 10:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • It depends on which election is being discussed and when. If an incumbent is defeated in the primary, then it is an open seat in the general election, even though it was not before the primary. An incumbent losing in a primary is certainly worth noting, but I'd argue that for most people, and indeed for historical purposes, when discussing an election in the U.S. system the general election is usually regarded as the race of record. older ≠ wiser 12:34, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This article discusses THE election. The primary is part of the process. If a candidate wins a primary but drops out of the general, it's not an open seat either. This is a very simple rule to follow: If the candidate does not run, then it's an open seat.—Markles 13:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Actually, in the case you describe (a candidate wins the primary buts drops out of the general) it would indeed be an open seat for the general election. That is the only election that actually matters. Of course, for some districts, whomever wins the primary for a particular party is usually assured of election in the general -- but it is only the general election that officially determines who is elected to the House. older ≠ wiser 15:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • This article is about the entire process of the election. Of course, the November election is the final decision (except in Louisiana where there are run-offs??). Nevertheless, when an incumbent is a candidate for re-election, it is not an open seat. If the incumbent loses the general, the primary, a caucus or whatever, it's immaterial — it's not an open seat. An open seat is where the incumbent does not run at all. If the incumbent resigns, withdraws, or drops out of a race, then it's open.—Markles 16:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing (and happy, even) to drop this debate. But let's see if we can find better language or some sort of compromise that will retain the article's purpose while remaining accurate and consistent. That's my real goal, anyway.—Markles 16:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we can come up with better language that we agree upon perhaps. I'll reiterate my position: If an incumbent is not running in the general election, then there is an open seat in that election. I don't see how it can possibly be construed any other way. Up until the general election, the parties are merely choosing their candidates. It is possible for there to be an open seat in a primary election, but that is distinct from the status of the general election. older ≠ wiser 22:46, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General election[edit]

What if the incumbent is beat in the general election, but there is a run-off between two other candidates? Then the run-off is what will be decisive. Does that mean it's an open seat?—Markles 00:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My intuition would be no -- at least not until after the general election. You could say the runoff election was for an open seat, but that's not something we'll have to worry about until November, if at all. I doubt there's much chance of anything like this happening in any case. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with David. The incumbent ran in the main election, so the election was not for an open seat. Unlike a primary elections, a run-off is more like a procedural extension or refinement of the general election. You could perhaps describe the run-off as being for an open seat, but not the general election overall. older ≠ wiser 11:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Democratic Leader[edit]

I'm surprised nobody has yet to catch this mistake made on the 10th of May. Nancy Pelosi isn't the Democratic Leader, she's the Speaker of the House. The Democratic (Majority) Leader of the House is Steny Hoyer.

If any of you don't understand what I mean or why I'm going to change it, look at (for example) United States House of Representatives elections, 2004. That year, Nancy Pelosi was the Minority (Democratic) Leader and she was listed as such. The incumbent Speaker of the House, Dennis Hastert, is listed at the bottom of the infobox. --72.148.158.58 (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Actually, now that I had a closer look at these articles, I take all that back. It seems that in these articles the Speaker of the House is being listed as the leader of his/her party, and the real Leader isn't being mentioned at all (in this case, Steny Hoyer). Is that the way you guys want it? If so I raise no objection. --72.148.158.58 (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the US House of Representatives, as well as many state legislative houses, the Speaker is the leader of the party. He or she takes the lead on policy matters. The majority leader is a floor leader, responsible for making sure that the party's bills succeed. It is no mistake that when the minority party goes into majority, the minority leader becomes Speaker, and the minority whip becomes majority leader. By the same token, if the majority party goes into minority and the party leaders stay in their jobs, the Speaker becomes minority leader, and the majority leader becomes minority whip. -Rrius (talk) 10:46, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sabato's Crystal Ball?[edit]

Since Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball ratings are included in the predictions on the Senate page, should they also be included for House races? KCinDC (talk) 23:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. Sabato is about as reputable as our other predictors and Crystal Ball is regularly updated. Also, during the 2006 midterms, Sabato was included in the predictions table. I'm going to go ahead and add these. CylonCAG (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2008 (PST)

Level names (and colors) in predictions[edit]

The three (now four) predictors use different terminology for the three levels of competitiveness, but we haven't been consistent in preserving the wording for each. I'm not sure that we should. It might be better to translate all of them into "Safe _", "Likely _", "Leans _", and "Tossup" to make the table less confusing (though use "Tossup/Tilts _" for the extra level in Rothenberg). What do people think?

Cook Rothenberg CQ Politics Sabato Becomes
Solid _ Limited Risk Safe _ Solid/Safe _ Safe _
Likely _ _ Favored _ Favored Likely _ Likely _
Lean _ Lean _ Leans _ Leans _ Leans _
Toss-Up/Tilt _ Tossup/Tilts _
Toss Up Toss-Up No Clear Favorite Toss-Up Tossup

I'm not sure about the colors. The dark Democratic color looks significantly less green than the medium and light versions, and it's odd to have the standard Republican color be used for safe seats while the standard Democratic color is for likely ones (though I understand that was done because the standard Democratic color is so light). If someone changes the standard color templates our other colors won't match them anyway, so maybe we should just abandon the templates and use our own hard-coded colors for everything (either that, or introduce dark, medium, and light party shading templates). Any ideas? KCinDC (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with anything on colors. As for ratings, I agree. I'll make the changes right away. CylonCAG (talk) 18:31, 31 July 2008 (PST)

On second thought, I should wait to hear other people's opinions before making changes. But count me as in favor. CylonCAG (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2008 (PST)

I don't have any specific ideas on colors. Maybe someone more designery has some ideas. I agree that we should wait for some more people to chime in before making any changes. KCinDC (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I do have a proposed color scheme now. What do you think of this?
Smith (R) Safe R Likely R Leans R Tossup/Tilts R Tossup
Jones (D) Safe D Likely D Leans D Tossup/Tilts D Tossup
I've written a Perl script that will allow me to change the colors quickly if people like the idea. KCinDC (talk) 17:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I like that color scheme. CylonCAG (talk) 11:28, 01 August 2008 (PST)
I like the color scheme too. However, I disagree with regard to level names. I think we should use the predictor's own terminology rather than translating into a "standard" term. I think the terms should match the predictor's own, so that if someone views the predictor's website, they won't be confused as to why there is a different name on Wikipedia--leading them to try to "correct" it. People will understand that different predictors call the levels different things, and the matching color will show that they are more or less equivalent ratings. --Esprqii (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll change the colors this weekend if no one objects soon. I agree that translating the level names does present problems (though we're already partially translating them now, as well as frequently mixing them up so that we have different terms in the same column, which makes things even more confusing for the reader trying to figure out whether "Safe R" and "Limited Risk" are the same or not). If we did translate, we'd have to have some explanation. I'm not sure that would be more confusing than the current situation. —KCinDC (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Until we make a final decision on ratings names, let's just change everything back to what ever they are called on their home page. I can do that now. CylonCAG (talk) 17:08, 01 August 2008 (PST)
Actually, everything seems fine regarding the ratings right now. If someone finds something I missed (which would be anything), we should fix it. I'll keep an eye out too. CylonCAG (talk) 17:30:28, 01 August 2008 (PST)
Well, we do have "Safe" in place of "Solid" for Cook (and in place of "Solid/Safe" for Sabato), but maybe they do use "safe" somewhere. (Then there's "Leans" versus "Lean", and the spelling of "Tossup", but we can probably ignore those). —KCinDC (talk) 02:19, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll change Cook's Safe to Solid. As for Sabato, in the intrust of space, maybe we should just say "safe". CylonCAG (talk) 20:19, 01 August 2008 (PST)

Since there were no objections and two people liked it, I changed the color scheme. —KCinDC (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! I don't think the chart needs anymore changes except for the updates. It looks good and is very clear. CylonCAG (talk) 22:28, 03 August 2008 (PST)

Races we don't need[edit]

The following is a list of races that are described in the "Races by State" area, yet are not rated as competitive by any of our four "predictors" (Cook, Rothenberg, CQ, and Sabato), do not have an incumbent retiring, and do not have competitive primaries:

CA-8, CO-3, CO-7, FL-18, GA-10, IL-16, IA-1, IA-2 IA-3, MD-4, MA-5, NC-7, NC-11, ND-AL, OH-3, OH-12, SC-1, SC-2, SD-AL, TX-17, TX-27, UT-2, WA-2, and WA-3.

I think we should just delete these race's descriptions. If they become competitive, we can always re-add them. What does everyone else think?

--- CylonCAG (talk) 11:28, 01 August 2008 (PST)

CA-8 seems to fall in the "interesting even if it's not competitive" category, it's highlights an interesting and notable problem the Democrat party faces. The statement in the article "many believe this will be an interesting race to watch" is classic bad encyclopedia writing and needs a source though. I generally agree with the rest, I looked at CO-3, CO-7, FL-18 and the claims that it will be a competitive raise are nonexistent or not backed up by the references. --Rividian (talk) 21:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, let's keep CA-8. But unless/ until we have an independent source that classifies these other races as competitive, let's delete them. --- CylonCAG (talk) 16:39, 01 August 2008 (PST)
Sounds good to me. —KCinDC (talk) 23:51, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My expertise is only with Michigan. As the three districts considered competitive in Michigan were unchanged, I'm satisfied with the revisions. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:08, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, some of those (MD-4 at least) were there because of special elections earlier in the year. Maybe they should come back. —KCinDC (talk) 02:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we did that, we should include CA-12, CA-37, OH-5, LA-1, and MA-5, none of which are competitive. --- CylonCAG (talk) 20:06, 01 August 2008 (PST)
Yeah, I guess the special elections are handled earlier in the article. The reason MD-4 should probably be restored is that there was a competitive primary. In fact, it was so competitive that the incumbent lost. I don't think any of the other races had that happen (MD-1 did, but that's still listed). Since this is supposed to be a historical article, any race with a competitive primary should be included. —KCinDC (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying. Still, it is an incumbent running in a non-competitive election, and we do mention the seat was filled at the top of the article. I'll put MD-4 back, until we can all reach a consensus. --- CylonCAG (talk) 20:33, 01 August 2008 (PST)
Sounds good. MD-4 is a unique case because the incumbent was defeated in a primary and then resigned, resulting in a special election. So there are two different MD-4 2008 elections to discuss. The bit at the top of the article is about the special election and only mentions the primary, not giving any detail at all. It doesn't give any detail on the special election either, but that's fine because the special wasn't at all competitive. So I think we need to have some detail on the primary later, but we don't really need detail on the general because Edwards is expected to win easily. MD-4 definitely rates a place on this page because something noteworthy happened (Wynn's loss and subsequent resignation). —KCinDC (talk) 03:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio Eleventh[edit]

Not to be too soon on this with the body still warm, but what's going to happen in the Ohio Eleventh district, now that Stephanie Tubbs Jones has died? I'm sure a lot of people are wondering today. TJRC (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-From CQ: "Ohio election law calls for Democratic officials in Cuyahoga County to nominate a candidate to fill the vacancy on the general election ballot.

"A Democrat would likely succeed Tubbs Jones; she represented a majority-black district that gave President Bush just 18 percent of the vote in the 2004 election." http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000002939497&cpage=2 CylonCAG (talk) 22:13, 20 August 2008 (PST)

Pindell Report[edit]

I'm not necessarily opposed to adding the Pindell Report predictions, but I think it would be good to have a discussion first. How much is it actually being cited in the political world? I hadn't heard of Pindell until a couple of weeks ago (unlike CQ, Sabato, Cook, and Rothenberg), so I want to make sure this isn't just promoting Politicker. Also, he presents them as a ranking from closest to least close (which is not the same as most to least likely to change hands), and I'm not sure we can assume that everything he doesn't list is safe for the incumbent party (it doesn't specifically say that, as far as I can tell). —KCinDC (talk) 03:48, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pindell does seem legitimate (I think he worked for the Boston Globe). And Politicker.com is a pretty reputable site. That said, The Pindell Report is only a few weeks old (not sure if this is a good reason to include him or not, but worth stating). And Pindell doesn't seem to be as well established as our predictors, who have been reporting for several cycles, and have a track record. Other things I noticed: on Google, Pindell reports top hits are mostly among Politicker, which he edits, suggesting he's not very well established compared to our predictors.
The biggest reason I don't think he should be included is that it appears he only lists 59 competitive seats at a time. I've browsed the Pindell Report a bit, and there always just seem to be 59 seats. maybe it's a coincidence, but if Pindell is limiting his seats like this, it makes comparisons with our other predictors a bit weird. In short, I vote to be cautious and keep Pindell off, until we know more. What's everyone else think?—CylonCAG (talk) 23:43, 26 August 2008 (CST)
I noticed Pindell was added to the Senate predictions a while back, but at least he does list all 35 Senate races, so it doesn't have the problem of where the 59 limit comes from. —KCinDC (talk) 04:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swing State Project[edit]

I agree with CylonCAG's reverting of the addition of Swing State Project until there's been some discussion. It's the same issue as the Pindell Report discussion above. Does Swing State Project have enough of a record to be added here? How many people cite it? I'm a fan of SSP, but it is an openly partisan site, which seems like a problem. The only point in its favor relative to Pindell is that it doesn't have the weird "top 59 closest races" limitation. I'm willing to be convinced, but at the moment I'm against adding it. —KCinDC (talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I pretty much agree with what you said. Our predictors are all non-partisan, while SSP is openly liberal, complicating things. f we added them, then we'd have to add a conservative blog to balance it, and I think when we just start adding blogs, we open a pretty big Pandora's Box. Eventually, we'd be arguing about whether to include Random Guy's political blog ratings. I vote to draw the line with predictors, limiting them only to independent analysis with track records. But if anyone would like to argue for including SSP, I'd love to hear them out. —CylonCAG (talk) 12:04 (PST), 29 August 2008
One point is that the Senate predictions table does include Pindell, SSP, and FiveThirtyEight.com (another Democratic blog), and those have been there for some time. It does seem like the standards should be the same for both pages, but there need to be some standards. —KCinDC (talk) 20:23, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. I think there's a stronger case not to include either of those than to include them, on both pages (though personally do like SSP and 538). Let's see what arguments come up for either side, but until then, I think we should leave SSP out. Maybe on this page (and the Senate one) we should develop clear guidelines for what can be included and what can't be. —CylonCAG (talk) 15:42 (PST), 29 August 2008


New Jersey 1st[edit]

The latest news from the disrict is that retiring Rep. Rob Andrews will unretire [1]. The question for us is whether we continue to include this district in our summery. On one hand, it's no longer an open seat, and is not rated as competitive by any of our predictors. On the other hand, this is a very strange set of circumstances, and it would be a bit weird to just delete the entry on the race. I'm leaning towards deleting it when Rob Andrews is officially given the nomination, but I'd like to here from everyone else first. Does it stay or does it go? —CylonCAG (talk) 15:22 (PST), 3 September 2008


States with no competitive contests[edit]

While I wasn't logged onto this id, I added some basic info on the states that had no contests listed. Basically it was just saying that no incumbent faces a serious reelection challenge, and if the state has only one congressman, s/he was named. If anyone has any arguments against putting up this info, post it here. —CylonCAG (talk) 23:27 (CDT) , 1 October 2008

Do we need the "Factors" table?[edit]

I don't think we do. It's basically our un-sourced opinions of what could be a factor. Also, some of those factors are listed in the individual races descriptions. What does everyone think about keeping/ deleting this table? —CylonCAG (talk) 23:49 (CDT) , 19 October 2008

Sabato changes styles of ratings[edit]

Sabato has changed his structure for House ratings. He's listing the catagories simply as Dem/ GOP hold, pickup, and tossup. This basically eliminates lean/ favored in favor of hold/ pickup. Should we include this new structure, since its different from the others? (To my knowledge, only Sabato changes his structure this close to election day).

I'm changing the table to reflect Sabato's new ratings, with "pickup" being the "lean" colors, and hold being the "favored" colors, but I want to run this by the discussion board in case anyone feels differently. —CylonCAG (talk) 22:00 (CDT) , 29 October 2008

Small change, I've done "pick-ups" and "holds" in the same color. I think it's a bit confusing otherwise.—CylonCAG (talk) 22:27 (CDT) , 29 October 2008
Yes, the difference between pickup and hold has nothing to do with likelihood, just which party holds the seat currently, so it makes no sense to use different colors. Essentially Sabato has eliminated two levels of ratings, collapsing Lean, Favored, and Safe into a single level. I'm just not sure what color is best to use. —KCinDC (talk) 03:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "lean" is the better color. These seem to be races he thinks are going one way, but could still go the other. I'm not sure it matters as long as we're consistent, but lean seems a bit better for now. Also, races he doesn't rate are still considered safe. —CylonCAG (talk) 7:53 (CDT) , 30 October 2008
I'd tend toward using the middle, "favored" colors, since it appears he's taken his former predictions and simplified them down to yes or no rather than a level of likelihood. He didn't remove the ones he formerly had as safe from the list, did he? Listing his predictions for races like IL-8 with the "lean" colors makes it look like he's much less confident about them than the other predictors are. But there's no perfect solution. It's annoying that he's suddenly changed things. —KCinDC (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He said on Monday he'll get rid of the toss-ups and put them in one category or the other. How about this as a compromise: we keep the lean colors now, and for his final update, change them to likely? —CylonCAG (talk) 10:43 (CDT) , 30 October 2008
The issue of tossups is separate. The problem is that he's taken safe, favored, and lean and lumped them all together. If we color them all as lean, then it makes it look like he thinks all those safe seats are suddenly only leaning. Regardless of what we do, we'll have a bit of that problem, but at least if we use the favored colors for everything we'll only be off by one level at most rather than two. Another possibility would be to decide that his predictions don't really fit, and eliminate them entirely. —KCinDC (talk) 15:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any seat that isn't on any of his lists counts as safe, I believe. So he's only lumped together lean and favored. Regardless of which color we use, we may be one off, but we'd just be one off. —CylonCAG (talk)13:28 (CDT) , 30 October 2008
I'm thinking Sabato isn't so much dropping two levels of ranking during the "final word almost" and "final final word" as making bold outcome predictions on the races he regarded on the previous projection as tossup (and possibly leaners). (And making extremely bold predictions on the ones marked in "final word almost" as tossup on the "final final word".)(He's likely to do something similar in 2010; might even do so for runoffs in December so it's not a mute point since the 2010 article will look to this one for precedence.) Jon (talk) 18:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maps are wrong[edit]

I didn't want to put this in the 2006 discussion becuase I figured nobody would see it. The map showing pickups and holds in the infobox for 2008 is the same as the one in 2006. Comparison shows that 2006 has the wrong map. I don't know how to change it but I figured I could put it out there and someone else would. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.120.89 (talk) 20:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... they aren't the same maps. —Mr. Matté (Talk/Contrib) 22:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Races to include[edit]

Should we only include seats that switched parties? Or should we also include close races that were held by the same party (with close being, say, the winner receives 54% of the vote or less, and the margin between the winner and loser is 8% or less). —CylonCAG (talk)11:44 (CDT) , 6 November 2008

I'd sugest looking at the 2006 article for precedence. But I think it came down to how news worthy that race was. Anyway, seats that switched parties are no brainer to include. And races so close they still haven't been projected yet three days later are also obviously news worthy. (The two seats in the state of LA are likely to get a lot of attention even if it isn't close simply because the general election for those two seats is a month after everyone else since they had primaries on Nov 4th.) If a race not listed on this page has a winner receiving 54% are less, it sounds like a possible candidate to be added here. But if the race is already listed here from being predicted by multiple groups to be close and the final vote wasn't [possible example in my own state of MO-06], that may be regarded as news worthy in itself. Jon (talk) 18:57, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about we make a separate page, like was done in 2006? Races that switched party control (or have not yet been decided) remain here, while newsworthy races go to the other page? But at the very least, we should delete races that were open and not close (possible exception of races where the incumbent lost the primary), and races which weren't really that close and were only thought to have a small chance of being close (NC-10, GA-13, LA-1, ect) —CylonCAG (talk)16:40 (CDT) , 7 November 2008

Special elections should not be included[edit]

They were for the 110 congress, NOT the 111--Levineps (talk) 23:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree (at least for the special elections that occured in 08), this article's title is "United States House of Representatives elections, 2008" not "United States House of Representatives elections, 111st congress". Jon (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They might be in 2008, but everyone realizes they are for the 111 congress, not mainly for elections in 2008.--Levineps (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree for the same reason as Jon.—Markles 19:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Creating another page[edit]

Should this page be reserved only for seats that changed parties, with a new page being created for all notable races? I vote yes. What does everyone think? —CylonCAG (talk)12:44 (CDT) , 19 November 2008

As I recall, the main reason for doing that in 2006 was that so many seats changed parties. What's the range it could be for 2008? (General Elections for 2 seats in LA were postponed until December and in addition to 1 seat each in CA, VA, and OH have still not been called. [Recounts likely or ongoing]) And how many notable races are there that didn't result in a switch? Either way keep the unresolved races here until they are resolved. Jon (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hum, looks like 29 seats that changed hands so far, so I'm now in agreement with CylonCAG to create a new page for all notable races. Perhaps have a temporary section before the list of elections that changed parties that lists the races that are still ongoing / haven't been called yet. Jon (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good. On this page, should we separate GOP gains and Dem gains, or just list all gains by state? —CylonCAG (talk)13:41 (CDT) , 20 November 2008

VA-05[edit]

Virginia's 5th has been called for Tom Periello, shouldn't we change the map?Saberwolf116 (talk) 13:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox: seat changes?[edit]

As a result of elections held on November 4, there was a net change of +22 for Democrats and -21 for Republicans. A net of 21 seats changed parties from R to D, while one vacancy was filled by a Democrat in what was not a special election. Should the infobox thus read +22 for Democrats and -21 for Republicans, or +21 for Democrats and -21 for Republicans? Qqqqqq (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think saying the Democrats picked up 22 is deceptive since the Ohio seat was a hold and the special election, while held after the general election, had only a Democrat on the ballot. If we say 22, we need to note somehow that this was a Democratic seat.
Also, we need to talk about what "before" set of seats we should list and how to calculate the seat changes. The seat change should relate to the before-and-after numbers we use in the infobox. Currently, we list the seats from the previous election and the seats won at this election, but calculate the difference in seats going into the election versus those won. I tend to think we should add the seats before to the infobox rather than changing the calculation to this election minus the last election. -Rrius (talk) 23:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

VA-05 and LA-04[edit]

Should both be grey. There is going to be a re-count in VA-05, there are still ballots to count in LA-04 and it's a razor thin margin, and there may be a recount there as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.85 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some news orginizations such as CQ and CBS (I think) have called VA-5 for the Dems, while others haven't (CNN and AP). No one has called LA-4 yet. I think the argument can be made for keeping VA-5 blue (perhaps a lighter shade of blue) unless something changes, and graying LA-4 until its called. Anyone else have an opinion on this? ---CylonCAG 16:26, 07 December 2008 (CST)
A 745 vote margin is not likely to move, but it is in the range where it is conceivable. As a result, I think VA-5 should be grey. The LA-4 race is more obvious, it is within a few hundred votes, thousands are yet to be counted, and there will be a recount. -Rrius (talk) 07:48, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - both should be grey. OH-15, on the other hand, should not be grey anymore.--Mr Beale (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Democrat has no conceded in LA-04, so we can leave that red. But VA-05 should still be grey (recount on 12/16-12/17) and Ohio's 15th should be bright blue (The Republican has conceded). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.37.239.85 (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clarity on the Purple Party[edit]

Qqqqqq wants clarity on the Purple Party entry on the results list. I'm left wondering what information is sought. According to the source candidates of the Purple Party won X number of votes, which represents Y% of the total. The table needn't explain the tenets of each party listed, so I think some of us are confused at what information is required to get rid of the clarify tag. My attempt was to put the word "Party" after "Purple" on the theory that that is all the clarity we need, but I suspect that is not really the information desired. So, my question to Q and like-minded folk is what more do we need to say? -Rrius (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I can tell, this is the only, or one of the very few, references to this so-called party on Wikipedia. I, for one, haven't been able to determine where this party ran candidates or basically anything else about it. The cited source is reputable, but I question blindly reproducing a single source's data here. Is there any other source to corroborate? I don't think we need an explanation of the party's platform or anything, but a <ref>Party ran candidates in 5 districts in Hawaii, Idaho, and Nebraska.</ref> or something to give some idea of context. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree on some level, I don't think a {{clarify}} tag is the solution. The fact is, there were only 28,541 votes for it, so it will be hard to track down which exactly where they were without searching the results for each state. I'm not sure that we have to list where they ran any more than we do for the Independent Green Populists, Vote People Change parties. Frankly, it could be giving undue weight to them. -Rrius (talk) 02:23, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly understand what you mean about undue weight. But in the future, we're going to look back and have even less an idea of what these labels meant. If I'm overruled on this, I'm not going to be too concerned about it, but it seems that a lot of these groups might be (barely) here today and gone tomorrow, and it might be, in the interest of history, prudent to make some record their electoral efforts. Where these parties enjoyed relative success might be of historical significance. Or perhaps not. You're right—probably no need to clarify right now, but it might be nice at some point to provide a bit more context. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:30, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found it at Green Papers. There was one candidate, in the Wisconsin 4th, named Michael D. LaForest. He received all 28,541 of those Purple Party votes. The Green Papers page is here; just scroll down to the 4th district (won by Gwen Moore). -Rrius (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, nice work! I'd think that would be a helpful footnote to someone reading over the table of nationwide votes, but that's just me. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

State Pickups Graphic[edit]

The graphic is now outdated since the total pickups in Ohio are now 3. Ohio needs to be shaded dark blue on the map —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dollarfine100 (talk • contribs) 06:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

oh-15[edit]

We need to chang it to dark blue.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Light blue actually (since it was a pickup), but yeah. Why is this still grey? This should've been updated weeks ago.

Special elections in 2008 for the 110th Congress[edit]

All the information in United States House of Representatives special elections, 2008 is duplicative of the section in United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. We only have special election articles in old-numbered years because there are no regular elections at all in those years.—Markles 11:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; merge it. -Rrius (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. It should be a page for House elections for each year, with a section designed to separate the special and generals in even numbered years.--Muboshgu (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special elections merger[edit]

In spite of the above section I propose merging the 2008 special elections with the 2007 special elections in a new article. I have started a centralized discussion here. -Rrius (talk) 01:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Source for totals[edit]

Do we have a source for the two parties' vote totals in the info box and for the grand total upon which the percentages are based? -Rrius (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Defintion of swing[edit]

Swing is the average of the change between the two main parties, the figures quoted are change on the last elections. NOT the swing Harry Hayfield (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled[edit]

This is a complete list, sure, But it is a complete list of the 2006 election! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.252.162.226 (talk) 09:07, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type of Chart[edit]

Would it be possible for, once the state has held its primary, that state's chart would be changed to a colorcoded one with the official 2008 candidates? That would really make this page more useful.Star Garnet (talk) 01:09, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to do this, however my edits were called into question. I have no problem talking about the format change (I personally think that the colorcoded charts are easier to read), but I'm not sure why the charts would be considered POV. Let me know why you think this is the case. 128.253.43.38 (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating columns for each party seems POV to me - on what basis did you choose those three parties? Are we going to have a separate column for all parties whose candidates appear on the ballot? Just having the list of names seems more equitable. Qqqqqq (talk) 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it appears POV, but the columns are based on individual state parties that have ballot access. In Illinois, the Green party was granted the same level of access as major parties due to results of the 06 governors race. The same applies for the Texas Libertarian party only based on different statewide races. Because they have easier requirements to get on the ballot, they are able to field many candidates which is why I gave them their own columns.128.253.43.38 (talk) 05:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The expanded charts were actually much harder for me to read, since they ended up so wide they were partially covered by the states' pictures to the right (even without including the SWP candidates in Illinois). I much prefer just listing the candidates -- it's simple, flexible, and compact. (Maybe some color-coding could also be incorporated into this format?) It also eliminates the need to keep track of the different ballot access rules and status across the various states, which can be difficult.
What this page really needs now and in the immediate future is to be updated from 2006 results to the current 2008 situation. I would even prefer having a bunch of "primary pending" entries to having the results of the previous election hanging around. It may also be worthwhile to get good refs for minor-party or independent candidates. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2008 Illinois Congressional Elections
District Incumbent Representative 2008 Election Status Democratic Candidate Republican Candidate Green Party Candidate
IL-1 Bobby Rush Re-election Bobby Rush Antoine Members None
IL-2 Jesse Jackson, Jr. Re-election Jesse Jackson, Jr. None None
IL-3 Dan Lipinski Re-election Dan Lipinski Michael Hawkins Jerome Pohlen
IL-4 Luis Gutiérrez Re-election Luis Gutiérrez None Omar Lopez
IL-5 Rahm Emanuel Re-election Rahm Emanuel None Alan Augustson
IL-6 Peter Roskam Re-election Jill Morgenthaler Peter Roskam None
IL-7 Danny Davis Re-election Danny Davis None None
IL-8 Melissa Bean Re-election Melissa Bean Steve Greenberg None
IL-9 Jan Schakowsky Re-election Jan Schakowsky Michael Younan Morris Shanfield
IL-10 Mark Kirk Re-election Daniel Seals Mark Kirk David Kalbfleisch
IL-11 Jerry Weller Retiring Debbie Halvorson None Jason Wallace
IL-12 Jerry Costello Re-election Jerry Costello Tim Richardson Rodger Jennings
IL-13 Judy Biggert Re-election Scott Harper Judy Biggert Steve Alesch
IL-14 Bill Foster Re-election Bill Foster Jim Oberweis None
IL-15 Tim Johnson Re-election Steve Cox Tim Johnson None
IL-16 Don Manzullo Re-election Robert Abboud Don Manzullo Scott Summers
IL-17 Phil Hare Re-election Phil Hare None None
IL-18 Ray LaHood Retiring Colleen Callahan Aaron Schock Sheldon Schafer
IL-19 John Shimkus Re-election Daniel Davis John Shimkus Vic Roberts

This is an example of how I think states who have held primaries should look. 207.170.238.132 (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I mentioned above, it's too wide for my 1280x800 screen (it overlaps the state map to the right), and provides no place for independent candidates or candidates of parties without guaranteed ballot lines (including the three SWP candidates currently in the article, who you have removed). Also as I mentioned above, taking this approach will require constructing different charts for each state, since different parties have ballot access in different states, and different states have different ballot access requirements. From a more aesthetic standpoint, spreading the candidates in each race out across several columns makes it more difficult for me to figure out who is running against whom -- what this chart seems to emphasize is how many candidates each party has. -David Schaich Talk/Cont 04:17, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request[edit]

All the state results are here besides California, Colorado, Oregon and Washington. Can someone add them soon? I would, but I'm terrible at formatting this kind of thing. Academic Challenger (talk) 06:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States House of Representatives elections, 2008. 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) 21:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections&oldid=1196525174"