Talk:2018 United States Senate elections

Competitive seats
After looking over the competitive seat map, Florida and Ohio are not highlighted, and I'm curious as to why. I would think that the Democratic candidates (whether they're incumbents or not) would have tough fights since these two states are truly competitive. Thoughts? Mlaurenti (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with you. Same argument goes for (at least) the states of Michigan, Virginia, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania as well as Ohio and Florida. These are all competitive purple states. Should I add a request for comment here? Classicalfan626 (talk) 15:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Michigan and Pennsylvania, at least to me, seems slightly more Democratic than to be considered "competitive." (Although, that argument could go right out the window since Patrick Toomey won the P.A. Senate seat in the 2010 GOP/Tea Party wave.) But what do I know? In any event, I've never actually tried that "request for comment." Could be worth a try... Mlaurenti (talk) 15:30, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, Pennsylvania went red for Pat Toomey in the Senate race during the 2010 Republican/Grassroots Movement wave. And Michigan has recently elected and reelected a Republican governor. Michigan may become competitive again, especially now that the Grassroots Movement is gaining ground all across the nation, and the Obama administration is being riddled with negativity over Obamacare and scandals far worse than Nixon's Watergate.


 * On the other hand, our election system has become about as corrupt as that of Russia, being based in Washington, DC, a largely communist (or near-communist) city/district. But if Grassroots people are willing to fight back against the abuses of our election system, we can easily take Senate seats in those two states, given principled and/or strong candidates.


 * In any event, I will make a request for comment as soon as possible, unless someone else beats me to the punch. I'm really sorry though if my argument sounds opinionated to any degree. Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)


 * The reason none of those states are highlighted as competitive is because no reliable source has called them competitive (or at least, no source that is currently referenced on this page). If we didn't use reliable sources, we'd be in violation of the crystal ball policy, and more generally, the policy against original reserach. Hope that clears things up. Orser67 (talk) 19:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, it does clear things up a bit. Maybe if someone comes up with a reliable source that includes the states mentioned above, things can change. But then again, for now, we still have a long way to go until 2018, right? Classicalfan626 (talk) 14:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * P.S.: I won't even bother with making an RfC. Classicalfan626 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Happy to help. Predictions regarding 2018 will probably be pretty rare until after the 2016 elections, but it's possible someone will write an article on the 2018 Senate elections in the next couple of years. Orser67 (talk) 23:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Just include them. Macraesam17 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I believe that we should include Tennessee's open seat aswell. Macraesam17 (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I created a draft for the Senate election for NJ.
Its right here here. Winterysteppe (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Change map to list Sanders as a Democrat
Bernie Sanders is now registered as a Democrat and says he'll run as a Democrat in the future. His page says this. Can anyone please change Vermont to blue on the map? 173.67.106.134 (talk) 19:13, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

no. He hasnt changed his Senate affiliation and he was last elected not being a Democrat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.183.161.142 (talk) 20:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

senate.gov website lists him as "I-VT" no question he should be listed as an Independent until he changes and that change is reflected officially in the senate.--Ldurkin (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

"Undetermined Democrat" and "Undetermined Republican"
The map uses the caption entries "Undetermined Democrat" and "Undetermined Republican." These are not defined. What is an "Undetermined Democrat" or an "Undetermined Republican" ? Geoffrey.landis (talk) 20:22, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I believe the captioner is saying that it's undetermined whether or not those incumbents are running for re-election. I agree that the wording is unclear and needs revising. Orser67 (talk) 21:00, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

This has been fixed. Macraesam17 (talk) 09:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Alabama special election
U.S. Senator for Alabama, Jeff Sessions, is likely resigning to become Attorney General under the Trump Administration so won't their be a special election to fill the remaining 2 years of his term? Cake8325 (talk) 14:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Once his resignation (or the announcement thereof) is confirmed by a reliable source, then we need to go to a source to determine if there will be an election, an appointment, or both. (Depends on Alabama law, which I'm not going to research at this early stage.)  It still isn't certain he will be confirmed by the Senate, thereby necessitating his resignation. Ergo, we have to wait.  But if/when a special election is announced, it could be in 2017 or 2018.—GoldRingChip 14:37, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Luther Strange has been appointed by the Alabama Governor to fill part of Sessions' term. There will be a special election in December, 2017. SlowJog (talk) 01:33, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It appears there may be some disagreement on whether the Special election should be included in the 2018 election page. The House page includes special elections from 2017 so I see no reason to not include. Special clarification should be noted to make clear that the election is not lined up with the general elections. -RaySwifty18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty18 (talk • contribs) 23:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Alabama race should be included in the summary of the 2016 elections. That's how all the elections up to 2002 have been done.  The 2002–2016 elections, meanwhile, are under revision to bring them up to that standard.  I will move it there.—GoldRingChip 14:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Election predictions table
Why do you prefer combining the two tables of election predictions in the 2018 Senate elections? That's a fairly big edit to make (and then un-revert) without leaving any sort of rationale. Orser67 (talk) 19:25, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm combining them for the fuller picture. No reason to have them separate.—GoldRingChip 19:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer keeping them separate to emphasize the races that reliable sources have said are competitive. These races tend to get the most coverage. Orser67 (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Well I guess you're an administrator so you get your way. Good for you. Orser67 (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That comment was seriously unnecessary and uncalled for. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  05:55, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * It was necessary, because this isn't the first time that s/he's just done what s/he feels like without trying to do get a consensus or take into account the views of other editors. Orser67 (talk) 15:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That is just a naive prejudice. It was truly unnecessary to state that comment. First of all, not everyone has the time to reply. Secondly, they maybe forgot about the discussion. Three, only one person actually answered your concerns (doesn't qualify as consensus). If that's how you feel about Wikipedia, you shouldn't be here. It is unfair to say admins get their way when you haven't taken into account other factors. It was frankly childish of you to say that. And frankly, I agree them. Making two tables is clutter and unnecessary. Putting them in one table and is much more organized. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  15:17, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I like Wikipedia. I don't like when a "more powerful" editor decides that his/her way is better and changes an article I've been working on without trying to get the feedback of me or anyone else, and then to have no recourse because that editor is an admin. I don't expect to get my way all of the time or even most of the time, but it would be nice to actually feel like my opinion is being listened to, as opposed to having some third party come in and accuse me of being childish. Orser67 (talk) 15:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Main map
This may be a small thing, but shouldn't the colors be reversed for Running/Undeclared?  Nevermore27  (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

The Democratic Incumbent Senators of Maryland and Delaware have both announced they will run for reelection. While the text in the article takes note of this, the map colors do not. I do not know how to fix it, I just wanted to make note of it.  Mikeb0728  (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Map categories unclear
What does this mean on the map, when states are listed as "Democrat running", "Republican running", "Democrat undeclared"? I'm sure the meaning of this is perfectly clear to whomever created the map, but it's absurd to list a state as "Democrate running", when we all know that in every Senate race there will be both a Democrat and a Republican running. I'm guessing that these labels have something to do with incumbency, but that is not at all clear, and without clearer labels, the map should be removed. I'll wait a bit for someone to clear this up before I do anything major. Un sch  ool  06:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. As far as I can tell, "Democrat Running" / "Republican Running" mean an incumbent Democrat or Republican Senator is running for re-election. SlowJog (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. —GoldRingChip 11:45, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

PVI in predictions table
I added a citation needed tag to the PVI column of the table under what is currently called "Most recent election predictions". Previously those numbers had been the 2014 PVI numbers, but they no longer are. This is not to say that the numbers are wrong. I think that they are the 2018 numbers (the changes are consistent with what I'd expect). But those aren't publicly available, so I can't confirm that. The source of the numbers should be properly cited, as the ratings are. Such a citation could lie behind a paywall. This is also a problem on the Cook Partisan Voting Index, but this was the page I was reading. Mdfst13 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey under table
Should that survey under the table of partisan composition be there? It seems pretty unencyclopedic to me, alphalfalfa(talk) 03:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Ranked choice voting in Maine
We need to clarify this. My edits to improve the description keep getting reversed by one editor. As it is, the edit suggests the advisory court oppinion has an impact on US Senate and US Housee races, but it does not. It only is about November elections for governor and state legisaltors. The law currently stands in full, and the house has passed legislation to keep RCV in place in 2018 for all legal uses, including US Senate and U.S. House. While the legislature might repeal RCV, they certainly might not- and it would be because of politics, not law.

I would ask that someone step in and resolve this. It affects three articles. Note that the person doing the undoing even keeps undoing the correction to his/her mistake in the year of the reference,  wsich  is 2017, not 2016. The person also took out the new reference to what's actually gone on since the ruling. So I'm going to once again "undo" the editorial change, and have that persson work within the new edits, not reverse to go back to patently false information about the impact of the legal ruling. Thanks.RRichie (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tried to discuss this with you and posted to your talk page, but you have not replied to me directly. The fact that it might be repealed and is not being implemented is enough to say it is unclear. Whether it is legal or political is irrelevant, it is still unclear; I don't just refer to the legal issues. Anything more than that can be put on the Q5 article. I'm happy to discuss this with you directly to reach a mutually acceptable arrangement. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The date thing was an error on my part and I fixed it. 331dot (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Everything in my edit is consistent with facts on the ground. Your edit wrongly suggest thath the court opinoin affects its use for US Senate and US House. The fact that politicians may repeal it is true, but they may not repeal it. As new referenced added shows, the house has voted to keep it in place, and it is in place for now. So what's wrong with the edit has now written? The article is certainly more accurate than it was before (and the other ones you've reversed. RRichie (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't suggest anything other than the fact that the advisory opinion has thrown the whole law into uncertainty, be it legal or political. It is not being implemented for any election by the SOS and The legislature is in conflict over it. The details can be on the Q5 article. I believe the way I wrote it is the clearest way to say that. 331dot (talk) 17:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no real need to discuss RCV in this article, either way. Furthermore, please see WP:OR about original research. —GoldRingChip 19:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I wasn't sure if you were addressing me? 331dot (talk) 19:07, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * In any event, RCV should be mentioned as it is a significant change to the election format in Maine, as well as a notable statewide first for the United States as a whole. It isn't original research to state that things are uncertain, because they are. 331dot (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many issues that are interesting, but this article is no better for its inclusion of RCV. That is, the article can omit it and be just fine.—GoldRingChip 19:11, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I respectfully state that I think you are underestimating the notability of this; it isn't just 'interesting'; but a significant change in election law and format. I think this article is much improved by mentioning this change, a first for the whole United States. Not mentioning this would suggest to readers that this election format, if implemented, would be like any other, when it would not be. 331dot (talk) 19:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if it's true that it shouldn't be mentioned here, it certainly should be on the pages about the elections. 331dot (talk) 01:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Ambiguous/Confusing list of "I" and "D" for Independent Senators in election predictions section
I believe the usage of "I" and "D" along with the blue shading is confusing and misleading under the election predictions section for the two Indp. Senators. In my opinion, the listing of "D" or blue shading implies that a Democrat is predicted to run against King and Sanders and possibly win. In my opinion "I" and yellow shading should strictly be used for Sanders and King unless they switch parties or declare their candidacy for a parties nomination in the 2018 Senate election as opposed to running as an Independent/Unaffiliated. --Ldurkin (talk) 04:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Announced candidates vs. potential candidates
Only announced candidates belong in this article. Potential candidates with journalistic citations are allowed in articles for U.S. Senate races in individual states, but are not allowed in this article. So Kid Rock under his real number of Robert Ritchie (due to state law) can be listed as a potential candidate in the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 article, but not here. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you link to where that determination was made? 331dot (talk) 14:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry meant to ping you . I ask because it leaves out quite a bit of the picture from this summary of races if major potential candidates can't be listed. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This article is intended to be a summary of the various U.S. Senate races in each state. Just three states had potential candidate mentions with Arizona, Maine and Michigan which were deleted.  We should try and keep the sections for each state uniform.  Listing potential candidates is fine for the various individual U.S. senate races in each state. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You state that doing so is "not allowed". Can you link to where that determination was made or where it is written down? 331dot (talk) 14:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Listing just one potential candidate is unfair to all the potential candidates with linked journalistic citations. In the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018 article, there are a dozen potential Republican candidates for the U.S. senate seat.  It would be unfair to Sandy Penzler who is also considering a run as shown at  because he is not a celebrity. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Instead of removing them, then others that are missing should be added. It leaves out a significant part of the picture to not include these people in the summaries.  Virtually all of the summaries at United States gubernatorial elections, 2018 have potential candidates and have for some time.  If you cannot cite a specific policy or discussion reaching a consensus for what you claim as I have requested, then I see no reason to remove them. 331dot (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Even the United States gubernatorial elections, 2019 and United States gubernatorial elections, 2020 pages do, as does United States Senate elections, 2020. 331dot (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Those races are far in the future. We are concentrating on the next election cycle.  As for the details, that is where the articles for the individual U.S. senate races in each state come in.  Otherwise, this article would be even more unwieldy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steelbeard1 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree that once the time for candidates to enter the race is over for each race, that there shouldn't be potential candidates listed, but not mentioning them before that point leaves out important information that readers who might not want to leaf through each individual article might be interested in. So you cannot cite a specific policy or discussion that reached a consensus where this is "not allowed"? 331dot (talk) 14:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's let others chime in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So that's a "no" on the policy/discussion. I then request that per WP:BRD you revert your changes until this discussion establishes a consensus to do what you are requesting. Since many other pages do this as well you may want to establish a much broader discussion than just this page. 331dot (talk) 14:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, right now it is a two-way discussion which means we are in a stalemate. That is why we need to have others chime in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's disappointing. I'm not going to edit war over this, but it is standard procedure in a content dispute for the page to be returned to its predispute state during the discussion, especially when no policy or consensus related reason is offered for a change as you have not done despite my three requests above. As I've indicated above, if the issue is fairness to other potential candidates, then those potential candidates should be added, not the existing ones removed.  Leaving them out leaves out a significant part of the picture for readers, much as if 2016 Major League Baseball season left out the 30 teams that didn't make the World Series.  331dot (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. There may be potential candidates we do not know of that could be considering running but did not let that be known to the media.  So, once again, let others chime in on this discussion. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not relevant, as we only mention information found in reliable sources. If someone hasn't told a reliable source that they might run, or if a reliable source doesn't otherwise mention a potential candidate, they shouldn't be listed here or in any article. We can't put what isn't written about in an article.  Waiting for others to "chime in" is a given and doesn't prohibit me from discussing this. 331dot (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So we are. But right now is just you vs. me.  Still need to wait for others to chime in. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I am curious as to what criteria you are using to solicit others to come to this discussion. 331dot (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * To get a consensus. Right now we have no consensus. Steelbeard1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:47, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand why you are doing it; I am asking what criteria you have used to select the users you are asking to come here. Are you picking them at random? Is it others who have edited the page?  Are they part of a certain WikiProject?  331dot (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * At random from this talk page. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I looked at the revision history for the 2016 Senate elections, and I noticed (much to my surprise) that all "potential candidates" were listed in earlier revisions. While I understand what 331dot is saying, potential candidates would best be just listed in each state’s individual Senate race page.The biggest problem I have with listing “potential candidates” is it creates unnecessary clutter (especially if there are numerous potential candidates), and it thus distracts from the main point, which I believe is to list the officially declared candidates. Another concern I have about listing potential candidates is that some of these sources are just listing people who could run and why they might be strong/weak candidates. Yet the candidates (themselves) may not have made a public decision as to whether they are exploring the possibility of running. (Even if potential candidates did publicly say they’re interested, it wouldn’t be wise to include them because they could suddenly decide to drop out. Do we then have to say here that he/she dropped out?) Mlaurenti (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. I suggest just announced candidates on this page as it's a summary article. Go into greater depth and speculation on the article specific to that election.  —GoldRingChip 18:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On the gubernatorial page, I've simply removed names from the Maine entry if the named person was not running. I don't believe potentials should be listed as having dropped out or otherwise be mentioned once declining to run. In the Maine entry, I've tried to only include people with articles and not those without them(as merely being a candidate does not merit an article). 331dot (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The rule of thumb from my experience regarding potential candidates in the various articles from each state is when they announce they are not running, they get in the Declined section. After the filing deadline passes and the official list of candidates is released on line, the remaining potential candidates not in the official list are simply deleted.  Those who did declare but decided to withdraw go in the Withdrawn section. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the additional comments. I would point out that United States gubernatorial elections, 2018 has had potential candidates on it since shortly after it was created in November of 2014 with AFAIK no issue.  Same with 2017 which was created initially with potentials listed. Same with 2016. Looking at some of the past Senate election pages, it took a little longer for potential candidates to be added, but they usually were.  I guess I just don't see why this page should be treated differently than other similar pages.  It's helpful for readers who might not want to leaf through 33-34 pages on Senate elections to learn more about who might run, or 38 or so pages on gubernatorial elections.  331dot (talk) 18:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The issue came to a head with a celebrity thinking about running and being listed in this article without mentioning others considering because Robert Ritchie (aka Kid Rock) was considering running. He initially declared himself a candidate, but then backtracked saying he was considering.  In the United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018, he was inserted in the Candidates section after media reports that he was running and so was listed in this article.  But when he backtracked, he was inserted back into the Potential section in the Michigan article and his mention was deleted in this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I definitely favor having the potential candidates listed on this page when the article on that particular election (e.g. 2018 California Senate election) hasn't been created. The pattern seems to be that such election-specific articles aren't usually created until a couple years before the election in question, which makes sense to me since there's usually relatively little to cover until a couple years before an election. Ideally, even when an election article has been created, I would favor listing the "most important/notable" potential candidates, e.g. Kid Rock (who's getting lots of media coverage), Kyrsten Sinema (the preferred candidate of the DSCC), and Rick Scott (a high-level office holder). In practice, though, I think finding agreement on the "most notable" potential candidates would be difficult. Orser67 (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * That's just about my position. I've generally put potential candidates where the person already had an article.  I don't think those that don't have or merit articles(i.e. merely being a candidate does not merit an article) need to be on this page. 331dot (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Kid Rock
Kid Rock already sead he will be running he sead it at his consert the other night. I am from MI and I know who's running. As a Republican. https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/videos/10154790212356135/?hc_ref=ARRX-vM4nIFx6XCQjp8dklZWHEOPwMyMe5w_6kw88Nl8HecznNM77yobIKoFXBUhPIY&pnref=story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.36.68.29 (talk) 04:16, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose this was a suggestion to mention another candidate in the article. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Senate election 2018 majority
Hi, you reverted my edit on the United States Senate elections, 2018 on the number of seats required for a majority. I won't start an edit war on this, but surely the majority indicator refers to which caucus will become the majority caucus in the Senate? See how the Senate majority changes, despite a 50-50 split in the 107th United States Congress, which would make it fair to assume that the Republicans only need 50 seats to be the majority, whereas Democrats need 51? MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 13:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That's a good point, actually, and thank you for avoiding an edit war. What I think I was trying to convey in my edit to United States Senate elections, 2018 was the actual visual majority of seats since.  However, now that you mentioned it, in United States Senate elections, 2002, I (as editor at the time) noted that the Republicans had a "Majority with Republican Vice President." Note, however, that I've only noted it when there's been a split that required a VP vote, not when there's a clear/outright majority.  As there are currently 51 GOP Senators, they have a clear/outirght majority so there's no need to mention the VP vote.  I understand that they can technically control a majority with 50+VP, but it's not necessary here and I think it's best in this case to keep it simple.  If they are left with 50 GOP senators post-election, then it should be noted that they control a majority as it was in 2002. Is that OK?—GoldRingChip 17:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree with GoldRingChip. Noncommittalp (talk) 18:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. —GoldRingChip 13:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Zak Ringelstein.jpg

Colorado missing
^Tables appear to be missing information about Colorado.

I have no idea how to fix this problem and have a broken hand so this is not the time for me to learn how to edit properly, but could someone please add Colorado to this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plostroh (talk • contribs) 22:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

There is no Colorado election this year. Redditaddict69 05:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC on Russian Interference

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the article include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead?Casprings (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Include As nom. Clearly WP:N and one of the more important aspects of this ongoing Senate election.Casprings (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:53, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Include a short section on it with a link to the full article, as I said in the other RfC, which we should probably link to. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: Related RFC for the U.S. House Election and US Election.Casprings (talk) 23:09, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude as UNDUE, especially for the lede section. A brief mention may be warranted in the body text (not as a full subsection), duly attributed to cited intelligence sources. — JFG talk 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment – This should have been formulated in only one RfC. You're making triple work for commenters and for the closing admin. — JFG talk 12:54, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Include as a subsection and briefly in the lead. Closeclouds (talk) 13:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude for the reasons stated here in the related RfC. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Exclude - It does not suit WP:Lead as it does not have much coverage in the article or major influence. It seems mostly WP:SPECULATION at this time, until factual events show up.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Other milestones in Senate control
Presently the simple majority is indicated in the diagram, but there are a couple of other interesting thresholds, not least 60 votes (for cloture) and a 2/3 supermajority (for impeachment and a few other things). The simple majority has the advantage that it only needs one indicator, but the other thresholds would need one each for R and D, so maybe it would get cluttered to add all of them. Also, my table-fu is too weak to do this myself anyway. Thoughts? 82.31.82.76 (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Patrick Morrisey Official Campaign Portrait (cropped 2).jpg

Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Josh Hawley 2016 May 9 (cropped).jpg
 * Mike Braun 2017 Nov 6 (cropped).jpg

Idea
Will all FEC accepted parties have their person for that state shown, where one is running? (In the lower section.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:a000:1014:c2fc:0:5837:b088:a394 (talk) 02:53, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add pictures for all senatorial candidates including Mike Espy in Mississippi, Jane Reybould in Nebraska (she looks remarkably similar to Deb Fischer but they are different people), and Jenny Wilson in Utah, 14:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.242.80.218 (talk)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Flanders Headshot (cropped).jpg

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2018
Hey! I am requesting edit access for this. I will not vandalise. I am always active and i like this kind of stuff. I already am waiting for 3 edits to make and change the ratings as i wan't people to get the most up-to-date information. Doverdoebo (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The edit request template is for suggesting specific changes in the format of "change X content to Y content". If you have specific changes you want to make, please suggest them in that format.  If you just want to edit the article, you only need to be autoconfirmed to do so(account must be four days old with at least 10 edits). 331dot (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be very precise, not imprecise.
The day after the election, there are all these checkmarks showing the winner. No, that the is news media declaring a winner. Well, I declare George Washington the winner so why not make it so?

The state election commission or office is the certifying body. Otherwise, it is just an exit poll or preliminary result. There should be a footnote stating the check is the latest results.

Actually, TV news is very deceptive. They know which races are hopeless. Then they "call" it the moment the polls are closed but it is based on no results or maybe 1% of results reported. So dishonest.

But for Wikipedia, we should note if the result is not a certified result but only the latest partial data or the latest count of most of the votes. Voterama (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Realclearpolitics has called Florida for Rick Scott, the Republican
Republican number should be moved up to at least 52 seats.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2018/state/fl/senate/

46.93.244.85 (talk) 21:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it heading to recount?. Real clear politics is not Florida Secretary of State.Noncommittalp (talk) 21:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Florida and Arizona now has winners
Rick Scott won in Florida and Kyrsten Sinema won in Arizona https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Florida,_2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Arizona,_2018


 * Neither race has finished its initial count, and recounts will likely mean final winners will not be certified for some time. Florida especially seems likely to be tied up in court. 331dot (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * What's the threshold we're using on whether someone has won an election? Once it has been called by the media or is it another metric? David O. Johnson (talk) 18:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * AP race calls. Mélencron (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! David O. Johnson (talk) 19:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Popular Vote
I was reverted for removing all popular vote counts from all senate election pages i believe its misleading as only a third of senate seats are up for election a large portion of the population doesn't vote and in the case of California it was democrat running against a democrat so both their totals are counted this is misleading for people and it's even used as a talking point that the party that got more votes lost seats so there's some problem with our democracy so I now propose removing the popular vote from all senate election pages as it is meaningless and misleading עם ישראל חי (talk) 00:26, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's a third of the seats but two thirds of the states have a state-wide election. I think the popular vote is interesting information and should be kept. All sorts of information can be viewed as misleading if you don't know the circumstances or how to interpret it. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * not everything interesting belongs and 1/3rd of the states don't vote so its highly inaccurate especially as california all votes go to the democrats עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It is quite clear that not all seats are up for election, I fail to understand what is confusing or misleading about this. Of course one party may win more votes but lose seats, it's a comparison to the previous election outcome. You could certainly put a footnote on it to clarify the California situation but do not simply remove this from every article including those that did not have any unusual top-two primary results. This footnote could also provide information about what the popular vote of the CA primary that included Republican candidates was. Reywas92Talk 06:02, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Reopening request to remove popular vote data from all House and Senate election pages for historical reasons. The reasons given to keep the popular vote on a count of the California situation has merit, but there is a larger, overarching reason the popular vote data should be removed for two major reasons.

(1) The United States is not a parliamentary system where the cumulative number of votes cast corresponds to which party holds majority power -- and readers should not be mislead into believing a disparity between seats and votes is consequential. The United States is a bicameral legislature, one of the few with an upper chamber that wields significant power and the only one in which that upper chamber, The Senate, is representative of independent states, who share their sovereignty with the federal government, but elect representatives to represent the state, not the nation and not the people. The American Senate is distinct in this from any other country in the world.

Wikipedia should refrain from using a template that applies with many Western legislatures onto the United States' unique system of divided power.

(2) Each state is equally represented in the Senate. The size of the electorate in these states vary rendering "national" popular vote data meaningless as the disproportionate number of votes cast in some states that increase the popular vote does not fairly represent the votes of all states, nor does it acknowledge the sovereignty of each state. Rs24 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)Rs24Rs24 (talk) 18:51, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that this is a reported data point that readers may want to know. What it might imply is not relevant, our job is to present information found in reliable sources. 331dot (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

What "readers may want to know" is relative. The question is whether the selective data point is critical to understanding the election outcome, and moreover whether the data point is misleading. Popular votes in Senate elections are not relevant data points to understanding the outcome of Senate or House elections.

Wikipedia should stop applying Western parliamentary data templates to the United States.

Rs24 (talk) 19:17, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that the popular vote totals have no bearing on the number of seats won in House or Senate races, and accordingly should be removed from the infobox about the overall election. — JFG talk 10:53, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

National Results
The map in the National Results section needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlambe3 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Favorability of a Senate map
The article (including the lead section) talks about Democrats having an exceptionally "unfavorable Senate map". However, it does not explain what a "Senate map" is or how its degree of favorability can be measured. Can the reader be expected to understand what this is saying? (I do not.) —BarrelProof (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * number of seats up and of those, number up in states won by Trump עם ישראל חי (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The article should explain to the reader what it is saying (or at least link to another article that explains it). Without a clear explanation of what it is saying, the statement is meaningless and adds only confusion. Explaining it only to me is not sufficient (and that wasn't a very clear explanation). —BarrelProof (talk) 02:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be good to add "Democrats had to defend 26 seats out of 35, including ten seats in states won by President Trump in 2016 whereas Republicans only had to defend one seat in a state won by Hillary Clinton". The text on the favorability of the Senate map HAS to be in the article and in the lede, as it's crucial context to understanding the results. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

"The total popular vote count for the Democratic Party is misleading"
This needs to be reliably sourced. I don't think it's wrong to add an asterix about how a jungle primary works and how that affects the popular vote count, but it's not correct to say that the total popular vote count is misleading. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * it is especially since all votes for de leon are counted in the democrat total that is one of the reasons I recommended deleting all popular vote counts for senate see above עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to see how RS handle this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See this Washington Post story. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey User:AmYisroelChai, you know what's really misleading? Presenting a statistic that excludes the biggest state in the country! I said above you could provide a stat with the primary data, but saying Democrats actually only won 53% because California doesn't count because you feel like it is bullshit. I have changed it to more neutral wording that shows the primary vote that included Republican candidates for comparison. Reywas92Talk 23:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not for removing the whole california I'm for deleting the popular vote entirely based on my reasons in the section above עם ישראל חי (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The total popular vote is a static statistic, and it should be displayed to be consistent with articles for senate elections in other years. Just because it's a statistic, does not mean that it should be displayed without giving proper context that millions of people in California who would have preferred to have voted for a Republican could not. Here is what the Washington Post said about it. Given California is by far the biggest state, that badly skews the national “Senate popular vote.”.
 * Having said that, we cannot extrapolate the primary results because the primary had only 6.6 million votes, whereas the general elections had 13 million voters, and 11 million votes for Senate (about a million voters decided not to cast a ballot in that race). Therefore, since California badly skews the results (as it is such a big state), the only way to treat this in the footnote is to show what the result would be without California. BarbadosKen (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. If you want to badly skew results then sure, ignore an entire massive state! You can note what happened in California but you cannot pretend it does not exist. We can acknowledge it's skewed but do not attempted to "unskew" it. Your WaPo source at least reasonably estimates what would have happened if there were party primaries instead, though that isn't quit fit for WP. This calls back the people who said Clinton only won the 2016 popular vote only because of California - yeah, that's millions of people, you can't just neglect them because they're in a single state that Republicans simply conceded! I'll note that in 2006 Democrats didn't nominate a Senate candidate in Indiana, nor did Arkansas Republicans in 2008 (and surely others earlier). Perhaps those years' totals should have a footnote as well, but we cannot masquerade those states and those votes cast do not count. Reywas92Talk 06:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * that's why I proposed eliminating the popular vote from all senate election pages because of this and the fact that only a 3rd of the seats are up so a large portion of the population doesn't vote עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Your math may be a little off. Although it's true that only 1/3 of the seats are up, since each state has two senators, 2/3 of the states do get to vote. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that a large portion of the population doesn't vote, as the percentage of states that vote is much greater than 50%. BarbadosKen (talk) 16:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * if 1/3rd the states don't vote that is a large portion just look at the difference between house races and senate races total votes for the house 110 million vs 80 million for the senate that's about a third of the voting population in other years the difference can be more עם ישראל חי (talk) 17:04, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That's right. In 2020, when California will not be voting for a Senator, there will be a much bigger difference between the House popular vote and the Senate popular vote. But that does not mean that there is no merit to displaying the popular vote. BarbadosKen (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no "uskewing". This is all in a footnote. The main data still shows the total popular vote. By removing California, it shows the impact that the state had on the national vote. That's it. It does not "pretend [that California] does not exist".
 * The examples of Indiana and Arkansas do not skew the results as much since those states are much smaller and are not as significant of the US population as California. BarbadosKen (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * So how do you decide how big of a supposed skew is okay? What if the Texas race was uncontested? How about if millions of votes in New Jersey are excluded? You cannot say that Democrats "really" only won 53% percent of the votes cast rather than 58% because none in California are counted at all. That, or the subtracted raw numbers, does in fact remove the existence of millions of votes, even if in a footnote. 08:26, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The point is that you cannot present the popular vote without adding footnotes to explain that voters in California, which comprised 22% of the total votes, were unable to vote for a Republican. BarbadosKen (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with the inclusion of some kind of note explaining the impact of CA on the popular vote, but starting off that note with "the popular vote is skewed towards Democrats" is clearly an NPOV violation. And the note doesn't need a long explanation of why the blanket primary was established, nor does it need to mention how many votes a Republican candidate won in 2012. Orser67 (talk) 07:49, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you raised several points, I'll respond in a list fashion
 * The word "skewed" is in the reference at the end of the note. Hence, not an WP:NPOV violation
 * The footnote does not say WHY the blanket primary was established. It says WHEN and HOW the blanket primary was established
 * The Republican vote count from 2012 is a reference point to give an idea on the magnitude of the skewness
 * BarbadosKen (talk) 14:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will grant you that it is in the reference, but the note should still be worded better. For example, "some sources contend that the popular vote is skewed." That, or include several references to show that the Senate popular vote being skewed is 100% a consensus position among reliable sources.
 * Including WHEN and HOW the blanket primary was established in one state is too much detail for a note in the infobox of the 2018 Senate elections. All you need to do is say that both Democrats won a nonpartisan blanket primary.
 * The 2012 Senate race isn't mentioned in the source, but the 2018 governor's race is. I see no reason to deviate from the source. Orser67 (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is a need to include multiple sources nor water down the language (unless there are references that do not think the popular vote count is skewed). A single reference should be sufficient for a footnote.
 * Since California, which accounts for 13% of the total popular vote, has a system that is anomalous relative to the rest of the country, I think it is worthwhile explaining how it got that system
 * No objection to using the 2018 California gubernatorial election to provide a point of reference for the magnitude on the amount of skewness. BarbadosKen (talk) 19:40, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, now the size of the note has gotten even more out of hand. All of that information really isn't necessary. Orser67 (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * How else would you explain the skewness in the national popular vote? BarbadosKen (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I clicked on the talk page because I thought that the comment was definitely not neutral. You don't need to explain the "skewness" of the poll. The United States isn't a direct democracy, therefore pointing the "skewness" of the popular vote is superfluous. It's also presumptuous. It's presumptuous because the Republican in the California primary only got 8% of the primary vote. That's less than 1 in 10. Even if you had a forced two-party primary, it would be like an Oklahoma or Wyoming % split where Dianne Feinstein gets at least 67 - 75% of the vote against her Republican challenger. The footnote also diminishes the fact that 11 million people voted for Democrats by insinuating double-dipping in the popular vote count; in addition, the comment also assumes (with no evidence) that a two-party Senate race would produce results that would be significantly "less skewed".  I repeat, no evidence is put forward to say that a nominee getting 8% of the primary vote would have generated as many votes as the Democratic challenger to Feinstein. Further, the footnote never considers the most simplest explanation: Californians do not want to a Republican representing them in the US Senate, if they did so, the Republican nominee would have earned more than 8% in the California primary. 24.178.22.85 (talk) 18:38, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The 8% that you cite for a Republican candidate receiving in the 2018 US Senate primary election in California is a false statistic. There were 32 candidates on the ballot, 11 of them Republicans. The 11 Republican candidates combined for 33% of the vote. The reason that the top Republican candidate received only 8% of the vote is that none of the 11 Republican candidates was strong enough to put away the rest of the pack to earn the right to advance to the general election.
 * This 33% is on the same order as the number given in the footnote that the Republican nominee for governor received (38%). 33% or 38% of 12 million votes is between 4 and 5 million votes, a quantity large enough to skew the national popular vote which totaled 90 million votes
 * There should be no question on the neutrality of the footnote. The footnote uses the same language found in the Washington Post reference provided.
 * The fact that the United States is not a direct democracy means that the national popular vote is a meaningless statistic. None the less, since it's a statistic that is displayed, when this statistic is skewed, a footnote to explain the skewness is merited.
 * BarbadosKen (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, the footnote lacks merit precisely because you're making a presumption. You're making the presumption that if a Republican senatorial candidate were on a ballot for the General Election in California, he or she would have garnered 33 - 38% of the vote.  Why would you use the Governor?  The spirit of split voting is alive in well.  It is alive in Wisconsin (where I live) where the Democratic Governor barely was elected (1%) while the Democratic Senator was easily re-elected (10%).  It is also alive in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Vermont where the voters elected Republican Governors - Baker, Hogan, and Scott - at respectable margins (31.9 (MA), 13.4 (MD), 14.6 (VT), respectively) while similarly electing Democratic Senate candidates - Warren, Sanders, and Cardin - at wider margins(25.5% (MA), 33% (MD), and 40% (VT), respectively).  If you look at the data, the overall trend is clear: coastal states vote for Democratic Senatorial candidates at a wider margin.   Here, click on this link and flip back-and-forth from Governor to Senate.  Again. the trend is clear.


 * But, for now, let's set that aside. I want to talk about this "skewness".  First, let me reiterate that the United States is a direct democracy.  There are no footnotes in the presidential election talking about the "skewness" of the national popular vote or any such nonsense.  We know the rules. What's next? Will we have a footnote explaining the nuances of staggered elections in US Senate races? Six year term limits? Enron, Davis, Schwarzenegger and the alteration of California politics? The whole footnote thing goes too far by implicating California as the culprit of this imaginary problem; it is totally npov, imo.


 * Second, the assumption of the footnote doesn't make sense mathematically. Let us be extremely generous and give the hypothetical Republican candidate 49% against (6 million) Feinstein's 51 (6 million).  Now, our adjusted total is 40,948,225 to 47,044,160. You still have a skew (not as big as 2008, but still pretty big). If we had a realistic hypothetical it'd be 36 - 39 million vs 49 - 52 million. Still large, but thin, saccharin and unsatisfying. We (you, me, and the footnote) are making assumptions and presuming that the electorate would've voted the way we think they would. It's the equivalent of magical thinking with few drops of Google.


 * Third, you acknowledge but the footnote doesn't address the fact that the lack of advancement had to do with the Republican candidates' inability to "put away the rest of the pack and earn the right to advance to the general election" not the jungle primary system that the footnote alleges. Furthermore, Feinstein had Republican challengers in every election including most recent 2012; this is important, the footnote alleges that the implementation of the jungle primary system in 2010 is the reason for the skew, yet 2 years after the jungle primary, Feinstein (as she had did every other year) went against the Republican candidate.


 * Lastly, in my opinion, a more neutral exploration of this idea would be the addition of other times in US history where the Senate had a majority vote but failed to regain the majority. 24.178.22.85 (talk) 17:04, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The footnote merely states that the popular vote count is skewed because voters in very a large state were unable to cast a vote for a Republican candidate. The footnote does not speculate how many votes a Republican candidate would have won had a Republican candidate advanced to the general election. The footnote merely provides the gubernatorial elections as a point of reference to have an idea on the magnitude of the skewness. The footnote does not suggest that had a Republican candidate been able to compete in the general election that candidate would have received exactly the same number of votes as the gubernatorial candidate. The skewness is supported by references in WP:RS and is written in a neutral point of view. If you think you can rewrite the footnote to improve the language and make the footnote even more neutral, go ahead and give it a shot. BarbadosKen (talk) 17:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

RfCs: uncalled races, open seats, "seats before"/"seat change"
Please comment:


 * RfC closed. Result: "There is a clear consensus for option 3: an article should state that a candidate has won an election when the election is called by reliable sources (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?) for United States elections. Some editors expressed support for requiring that more than one source call the election. There is no consensus owing to the lack of discussion by a number of the RfC participants on this, so there is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss this further."
 * RfC: Definition of "open election" or "open seat"
 * RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"

Thank you. Levivich (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

"tipping point" note
What is that "tipping point state" written in the red bold font in #Close_races supposed to mean? --Diblidabliduu (talk)
 * The Democrats and those who caucus with them had 47 senators after the election. They needed four more for a majority when the vice president is Republican and decides a tie. That means the tipping point state is the fourth closest state they lost, in this case Indiana which they lost by 5.89%. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert G. Flanders, Jr..png

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:37, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Robert G. Flanders, Jr..png

Removal of text that relates to holders of seats prior to election
The editor RaySwifty18 is edit-warring change to the lead and body which remove text that note the electoral map was unfavorable to Democrats (as described by every RS) because Democrats were defending an enormous amount of seats (the seats won in the 2006 and 2012 elections). That Democrats were defending an enormous share of the seats has implications in terms of interpreting and understanding why Democrats lost seats on net in the Senate despite winning the House and getting a massive majority vote share. The editor should seek consensus here before continuing to edit-war out this longstanding text. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The removed text is "as Democrats were defending 26 states while Republicans were defending nine". There are three citations supporting that part of the paragraph; of them, only one talks about why the map was unfavourable: this one.  The relevant text in that source is "The path, however, remains difficult.  Democrats are defending two dozen Senate seats this cycle - including 10 in states Trump won in 2016, some by huge margins."  I read this as supporting the removed text, but it's not the main point the source is making -- the real challenge facing the Democrats was that they were defending ten states Trump won, and, as the source says elsewhere, only had two reasonable pickup options.  That would have been a challenge even if the Democrats had only been defending 15 states.  I think the removed text was OK, but I don't think it's a big loss as we still make the main point. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That some of the states lean red and others lean blue is pertinent info (and I've no qualms about including it), but it's not the whole picture. If one party holds every seat and the other doesn't hold a single seat prior to an election, then it gives a lopsided understanding of the outcome of an election to say that one party lost a massive number of seats and did not make any gains without noting what the distribution was prior to the election (i.e. one side could not make any gains and was bound to lose seats). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I think some form of the text should go back in, but it could be better phrased -- right now we have The map was widely characterized as extremely unfavorable to Democrats, as Democrats were defending 26 states while Republicans were defending nine. That's not quite true to the source, which makes more of a point of the partisan leans. I think it would be better to give the leans as the primary reason.  As you say, the number of states is also relevant, but it should be mentioned second. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 09:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Matt Rosendale (cropped).jpg

National popular vote totals
In the revision prior to this post, there is a discrepancy in the Democrats' national popular vote between the infobox (52,260,651) and the #Results summary table (52,265,346). There is no indication whatsoever where these derive from, so, basing on the results from page 57 of the Clerk's report, I am using the following standard:
 * 1) The California total only includes the run-off (between two Democrats, Feinstein and De León) votes in the national tabulation.
 * 2) The Mississippi special (Class II) also featured a Jungle primary election that occurred 6 Nov 2018, but, in the first table, (For unexpired term ending January 3, 2021), Hyde-Smith (R) and Espy's (D) totals from the runoff are listed first.

In light of this, the D + R national vote totals that ought to be presented are a combination of the A) totals from page 57 (which only account for the regularly scheduled Class I elections), plus the B) runoff votes from MS special; C) votes from MN special (Class II, where Tina Smith won election to complete what would have been Franken's second term). Caradhras Aiguo ( leave language ) 04:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Predictions, polls, etc.
Do we really need such extensive content about predictions and polls after we have actual results? It makes it harder to find what people are much more likely to actually be looking for, which is the results.
 * I've personally found this whole section unnecessary, but that's another issue to discuss. However, I am in favour of removing the section in its entirety, or at least hide it after election results are certified. Callmemirela  &#127809; talk 19:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Massive Issues
Hello, I don't have the time or expertise to fix all of the problems on this page, but there are some glaringly obvious errors in the first part of this article. Hopefully someone can amend that soon. 209.196.113.85 (talk) 18:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Problems with the third paragraph
"Despite receiving less than 40% of the popular vote in this election, the Republicans increased their majority . . . ."

The popular vote is not a thing when it comes to Senate elections. Only one third of Senate seats are up in any given election, and depending on the map, the result can skew heavily Democratic or heavily Republican. There is no correlation between the popular vote for 1/3 of seats and majority control of all 100 seats.

"[T]he Democrats would win the Senate the next cycle, making Donald Trump the first US President since Herbert Hoover, who served from 1929 to 1933, to lose re-election and have his party lose both Houses of Congress in a single term."

This is irrelevant to the article. This would belong in an article about the 2020 Senate elections, not the 2018 Senate elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)