Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Missouri

Separate table for each polling agency
I've seen several other Senate race articles that have a separate table for each polling agency. The benefit of this approach is that every polling agency has different methodology and by having them on separate tables you can do an apples to apples comparison and see trends in the polling. What are everyone's thoughts on changing to separate tables for each polling agency? --Bobblehead 20:39, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a good idea. I think interesting things would come up. For example, I remember that for lots of the last year, Rasmussen polls would show McCaskill ahead, but Zogby polls would show talent ahead. Paulgaham 29 October 2006

= talent versus skill = If the candidates are Jim Talent & Claire McCaskill, is that Jim Talent versus Claire McCaskill?? & Catskill??

hopiakuta 17:09, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding designating partisan pollsters
Wouldn't it be better to designate all the partisan pollsters than none of them? I do, however, agree with PWilson's 10/25 edit, in that it's better to remove all designations than have only some. --Topher0128 21:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think so, but actually there seem to be very few partisan pollsters in any senate races. They are a real exception- I've looked and I can't find any new ones listed. (I looked through all the other 'notable' races, and I only found one other pollster listed.) I think we should make an effort to designate them as such, as partisan pollsters are not always as reliable... 27 October 2006

I've checked all the senate races. There are very few partisan polls listed anywhere, but those that there are, I have labeled. Paulgaham

I was never opposed in principle to the identification of partisan pollsters, but preferred to maintain uniformity throughout Wikipedia. However, in order to avert any further edit wars, I will accede to the growing consensus on this issue and studiously label ALL partisan polls in EVERY U.S. Senate race. Your comments are welcome on my talk page. --PWilson 22:49, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Talent win makes Democratic Senate impossible??
I take issue with the first line in the following paragraph:

If Talent does win, then a Democratic takeover of the U.S. Senate becomes almost impossible; the Democrats' need to win six seats to take control of the chamber with 51 seats. To do this, they would need to retain their 19 incumbent seats, win the four Republican-held seats of Montana, Ohio, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania (where Democratic chances seem above 50%) and two of the following three "toss up" races: Missouri,Tennessee and Virginia).

How is the notion that the Democrats winning the remaining two "toss up" races seemingly impossible? If I flip a coin twice I don't think it's impossible for it to come up heads twice. That line should be removed. Anyone disagree? Dary 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, Dary. I think it will be somewhat to fairly difficult, but far from "almost impossible".  -- Sholom 13:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on United States Senate election in Missouri, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060808190341/http://www.stltoday.com:80/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/8CD39743858142E086257197005F0EAB?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/8CD39743858142E086257197005F0EAB?OpenDocument

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 18:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on United States Senate election in Missouri, 2006. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061129111847/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/11410626/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11410626/site/newsweek
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061029015314/http://www.dfw.com:80/mld/dfw/business/13710191.htm to http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/business/13710191.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100517095318/http://www.usnews.com:80/usnews/news/articles/061026/26politicalwire.htm to http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/061026/26politicalwire.htm
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20061005190751/http://www.galluppoll.com:80/content/?ci=24358 to http://www.galluppoll.com/content/?ci=24358
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060808190341/http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/8CD39743858142E086257197005F0EAB?OpenDocument to http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/story/8CD39743858142E086257197005F0EAB?OpenDocument

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Missouri, 2006. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927021227/http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1192 to http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1192

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)