Talk:2020 United States Senate elections

270 to win, and other aggregators
270towin does not use polling to determine its "consensus" forecast. It's merely an average of the polls we're already citing in the adjacent columns. This differs from something like fivethirtyeight's "Deluxe" forecast version from last year, which used polling data as well as factoring in other handicappers' ratings. I think adding a column for 270towin implies that they do original research. If we want to average the ratings, we can do it ourselves right here. My opinion on this might change as the year goes on and 270 starts adding more handicappers to its average. I believe it got all the way up to 15 back in 2016. But for now it's just the big 4. It doesn't offer much utility at most, and at worst it's mildly deceptive.  The Savage  Norwegian  20:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

(Libertarian) or (L)
Just reverted a good faith edit, changing all the (Republican)s to (R)s, etc. While I think the sentiment is good, it could potentially make things unclear with Independents, Libertarians, and others. A compromise would be leaving Republican and Democratic abbreviated and having all others long-form, but that makes for an inconstant-looking page. This page's length problems aren't solved by abbreviation, so I think we're good the way things are.  The Savage  Norwegian  19:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Request to Add a Primary Completed Column
The primary dates and runoff dates that haven't happen yet are in bold. North Carolina is in between the original date of March 3 and the runoff date of May 12, but there won't be runoffs, and the table doesn't say that. I recommend a new column with five possibilities that will leave the other columns the same but would eliminate the need for bold:

1. Original and runoff done 2. Original done and runoff unnecessary or not applicable (you don't have to break it down into states that can have runoffs but where it was unnecessary and states that do not have runoffs because we could tell that from the runoff column) 3. Original done and runoff upcoming 4. Original not done and runoff possible 5. Original not done and runoff not applicable to that state

EvanJ35 (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think we already have that in a sense because only dates that haven't passed are bolded. I think it's pretty clear. Smith0124 (talk) 06:43, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

It would be clear if no states had runoffs. If it's in between the original primary date and the runoff primary if necessary date, and it doesn't say if the runoff is necessary, it doesn't tell if both, one, or neither party will have a runoff when it could say that. One way to change it would be after the original primary to put in the runoff date column "D," "R," "Both," or "Neither." Adding one letter or a word with four or seven letters wouldn't add as much width to the table as a new column would. The two states in between primaries are Alabama and Texas, both of which will have runoffs on July 14. Alabama will have a runoff for Rs, and Texas will have a runoff for Ds. Therefore, I would make Alabama say "July 14, 2020 (R)" and make Texas say "July 14, 2020 (D)." EvanJ35 (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that’s a good idea. I say go for it. Smith0124 (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Average Predictions
I don't see how averaging the predictions and then putting them in a chart is original research. It is completely based on the verified information already in the article. Smith0124 (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Setting aside whether there is utility in averaging predictions for the reader, how would we be defining "average?" I assume you mean something like a median. (A true average would give us fractional ratings between leans/likely, etc.) These ratings aren't exactly numerical. 270 to Win "averages" predictions, but their average formula has its quirks. For example, if any handicapper rates something as not safe, that will bring their average below safe, even if there is consensus among all the other pundits that the race is safe. Would that be part of the formula you propose? And if we are doing a median-like arrangement, how are ties resolved? To me, it seems like there are too many variables to contend with, all to give the reader something they can already get a feel for by a brief glance at the table.  The Savage  Norwegian  00:38, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, WP:SYNTH seems to imply that multiple sources should not be combined like this. Until we can arrive on a precise definition of "average," it's nowhere near qualifying as a Routine Calculation yet.  The Savage  Norwegian  01:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You do understand what an average is right? The average is the mean, not the median or mode. I can't believe this is even an argument, there's no debate over that, it's basic math knowledge. A median or mode is a completely different statistic. The formula is just the average. So if two pundits rate a race safe and two rate it lean, then the average would be likely. If three pundits rate a race lean and two rate it likely, the average is lean. The latter example isn't exact but it's the most accurate and it matches common sense. I'm not trying to go after you here but I'm not sure what is so complicated about this. Smith0124 (talk) 04:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Per the Wiki page on Average: "In colloquial language, an average is a single number taken as representative of a list of numbers. Different concepts of average are used in different contexts. Often "average" refers to the arithmetic mean, the sum of the numbers divided by how many numbers are being averaged. In statistics, mean, median, and mode are all known as measures of central tendency, and in colloquial usage any of these might be called an average value." I don't think questions relating to what method you're using to find the average in non-numeric data means I don't understand basic math knowledge. Not trying to attack you either, but there are problems that need to be addressed before we go adding averages to this page. How are ties rounded? I'm afraid having a method this opaque could be interpreted as editorializing. A Routine Calculation needs a consensus that the calculation is "obvious" and "a meaningful reflection of the sources."  The Savage  Norwegian  17:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was going with the most common use of average. And there can’t be a tie as of now because there are 5 predictions, but if there’s three leans and three likelys for example then put lean/likely. Smith0124 (talk) 21:32, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have questions. Do we really use arithmetic mean for non-numeric data? Is methodology of each prediction the same? Does each prediction define its rating the same? Noncommittalp (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * All these questions leads me to believe that making an average would be akin to original research, therefore it should be avoided. When 270toWin makes their average rating they follow rules like, when one handicapper rates something as not safe, the race automatically averages to not safe. When fivethirtyeight adds handicapper's predictions to their "deluxe" forecast, they inherently have to assign a numerical value to the rating based on an unseen formula they determine themselves. Wikipedia should not be performing this level of analysis, even if our formula is much simpler. On the other hand, if our averaging formula is so simple it has only two rules, is that simple enough to be a routine calculation? "Take the median value, and in the event of a tie, resolve towards less certainty." Those rules would have to be reworded for clarity, but it seems pretty straightforward. Even if we agree that that wouldn't be inappropriate, does it add anything to the article? I'm leaning towards not including averages just because it doesn't offer a ton of utility to the reader, when they can glean their own version of average by scanning the table themselves. One last point. Some of the handicappers listed are pretty clearly nonpartisan to any layperson, however others could be seen as having a political agenda. When you average "nonpartisan" ratings with ones perceived to have a bent you introduce accusations that the average is being tilted one way or the other.  The Savage  Norwegian  05:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This may require an Rfc, but I think those two rules work. Smith0124 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Removal of Niskanen Center ratings
Could you please provide any reasons why you removed the ratings of Niskanen Center/Rachel Bitecofer, @User:Skm989898? As of now, Niskanen/Bitecofer ratings have not been an object of complaint on the 2020 United States presidential election page. I do not see any point in removing them, Rachel Bitecofer appears to be a credible pundit working for a think thank relevant enough to have an own Wikipedia article. The presidential ratings have been cited by 270towin (the Congressional/Senate ratings not so far which could be explained by the fact that they have been out for only few days). -- Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not responsible for the revert, but there's definitely something to be said about the neutrality of a think tank's predictions vs a professional handicapper. Niskanen is a lobbying group, first and foremost. Their website is a bit hard to navigate, so I can't seem to find much in the way of actual election punditry there. I'm happy to be proven wrong. Let's get some consensus one way or the other.  The Savage  Norwegian  16:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Part of my point doesn't really stand if we're keeping Daily Kos ratings, on reflection. I think I'd lean in favor of keeping Niskanen if Kos stays.  The Savage  Norwegian  16:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * See your point and agree. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I guess my only qualm with putting in Niskanen is notability. All the other platforms are established and well-known. Every pundit on twitter has their own set of Senate predictions. If I can't find Niskanen's predictions easily from their home page, is this really notable? Doesn't seem like a top priority for them, compared to their wide array of policy recommendations and whatnot. I'm torn. I think I still lean towards inclusion though.  The Savage  Norwegian  00:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * 270towin now includes Niskanen Center's forecast while simultaneously excluding/non-including Daily Kos. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 07:27, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's good enough for me. I'll go ahead and add it back in. I'd welcome more POV about this from other editors, but more data points in the ratings never hurt.  The Savage  Norwegian  05:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

How about we remove both of them and save people the trouble. Think Tanks and Websites that show political bias in any way has no place on this page. Only professional unbiased predictions belong on this page nothing more nothing less.Wollers14 (talk) 03:05, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, should RealClearPolitics also be removed for being politically biased? --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 12:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * How do we define "political bias" and "Professional"? As soon as Fox News has Senate ratings, we're going to have a discussion about adding them here. I imagine a good number of folks take issue with their reporting, but the fact of the matter is it's possible (and necessary) to put a layer of separation between your reporting and your punditry. For instance, Fox News polls are highly rated (An A/B rating on fivethirtyeight). I added the Niskanen Center ratings back in because that same layer of separation appears to be there. Read the Bitcopher Analysis yourself and see. Everything looks above board and unbiased. Her model appears to be rooted in reality, not opinion.  The Savage  Norwegian  22:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The Niskansen ratings were removed again, seemingly for no reason. I can't undo the edit. Smith0124 (talk) 06:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Done. While I'm here, I'll just reiterate that I think this rating should stay. Yes, it is hard to determine notability with these things, but if 270toWin is using it, it passes whatever my threshold is.  The Savage  Norwegian  12:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we are going to keep Daily Kos, then I agree. I question the use of think tank predictions, but if Daily Kos is ok so is Niskansen I guess. Smith0124 (talk)
 * I mean, here's the thing. The only ivory tower, above reproach, 100% notable, "apolitical", highly-respected handicappers with Senate ratings right now are Sabato, Cook Political, and Inside Elections. However, there's no way for me to quantify that feeling. So what can we do but default to inclusionism. There's never going to be a list of ratings that makes everyone happy. Every rating on the list right now seems to meet my notability and neutrality threshold. Sorry to keep repeating myself, but sometimes the only way I can think clearly about something is by writing about it. So this reasoning isn't for you in particular, it's for me.  The Savage  Norwegian  19:48, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a new case to add here regarding Niskansen ratings not only are they outliers with their ratings that not even match the big three being Cook,IE, and Sabato. They even listed multiple house races as competitive even though some of them are safe seats. To me this is a huge red flag and a big no no. Allow me to give an example: In Texas's 25th District which is a ruby red district, they list that as a tossup when the big three all list it as a Safe R Daily Kos has it as a safe R as well as RCP. I don't know how someone can look at that district and say "That is a tossup". To me that is not professional and the reasons you give for these ratings being included are not strong enough to keep these on. Just because they are on 270toWin does not mean we include it we have to look on how professional it is and after seeing the House ratings which I also will add is not included on the House ratings page, I am beside myself because if they list Safe Seats as competitive then something is not right here with this. I will also add that they do not have a score from 538 which you mentioned regarding Fox News so reliability is also a issue. Now, having said all that I conclude with this: We need standards and the standards used here to justify the inclusion are just plain ridiculous. Wollers14 (talk) 04:05, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You shouldn’t have removed the ratings before anyone even replied, saying that there was “further review” was a total lie. That doesn’t encourage anyone to agree with you. You can tell that this discussion ended weeks ago and that the loose decision was to include them. I agree that the Niskansen’s ratings are optimistic for Democrats, and I also agree that think tanks like Daily Kos and Niskansen don’t give the same quality predictions as neutral sites like Cook, 538, and Sabato. But they are just an extra data points, it’s clear to any reader if they favor one side or another (Michigan rated as Safe D is easy proof). As Thesavagenorwegian said though there’s no way to quantify the potential bias. My feelings are mixed on the subject but I think removing them is premature. Smith0124 (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't you accuse me of lying I did look at the ratings I looked at the analysis that Bitecofer made and she offers no explanation of why specific ratings change she moved a blood red district into the tossup category whatsoever. If there is no explanation how can the ratings be trusted. She just doesn't do it for some reason which to me calls into question the professionalism used in this. Not to mention potential bias. At first I was fine with the ratings but after seeing the House ratings I almost thought I was color blind. We also should not make loose decisions like this. Also Daily Kos is NOT a think tank like Nishkanen is it is a blog and a website what focuses on center left politics. You want to know something else: They list one of the examples I already gave as a safe seat while Bitecofer says tossup. Look at Texas's 25th District and tell me that based off the info about it that that is a tossup. Besides when the 2010 midterms happened Bitecofer was just getting started in life. She needs more experience in this department some more years like Sabato or in this case more knowledge about how certain districts vote like David Wasserman of Cook. In this case I don't see any good reason to keep them because they seem not grounded in reality. Wollers14 (talk) 00:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This isn't worth arguing over because it is not a big deal, but saying there was "further review" implies a consensus which did not happen. I'm not disagreeing with you that their ratings are optimistic towards Democrats, but it is pre-mature to remove the ratings now. As I said I have mixed feelings about their inclusion, as they are just a data point. Smith0124 (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

When I said further review I meant that I reviewed it not anyone else and found that their explanations to not be satisfactory. I did not mean for it to imply a consensus I just meant that I reviewed it and read it over. Also due to the previously mentioned problems this seems like a data point that does not meet a professional criteria. Wollers14 (talk) 00:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Your words aren’t above all. You can’t just say that you personally “reviewed” the reasoning and declare they be removed. If the majority of the people here wanted them to remain you can’t just overrule that. Let’s wait for others to chime in. Smith0124 (talk) 01:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * There's a lot to unpack from your comments. I put off replying for a bit, then I just forgot. Ratings being an outlier doesn't necessarily disqualify them from inclusion. My instinct has been erring on the side of keeping for so long, because there are so few professional Senate ratings out there right now. Once things heat up in the fall we're sure to get Fivethirtyeight and CNN and Fox News (I'm aware of that last one's editorial bias, but if I recall correctly their polls and ratings have been fairly neutral) and what-have-you. Having a diversity of analyses seems important to the integrity of the page. Otherwise, one could be leaving the article with the impression of near-unanimous professional agreement of how the races will go down. That's where I'm coming from. I'll admit I hadn't inspected the Bitecofer House ratings closely. It is a bit concerning seeing those random tossups. I had read the Senate reasoning and everything seemed above-board. I'm not entirely against removal here. I'm just frustrated because it seems like everyone has different, ineffable, criteria for inclusion. (Also Wollers14, use colons to indent your comments so we can see who you're replying to)  The Savage  Norwegian  01:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah Savage I get where you are coming from. I think it's best to wait until the Fox, CNN, and 538 ratings come out which I am a bit surprised that they haven't yet. Also it is worth noting that Nishkanen is not used for the house ratings. Also you are correct about Fox News they are showing negative polls for Trump despite their bias. Wollers14 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Also Smith you should go and review the House ratings yourself before reverting edits. I apologize for acting quickly but the long response made me feel I was being ignored so I did this to get noticed. Also as a side note the approval ratings on the competitive elections section has still not yet been fixed. Finally you cannot determine whether the majority wants these or not. If you want to determine that then that's what we'll do. Wollers14 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

So knowing what we know now what should we do about it and why? Wollers14 (talk) 03:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I only reverted edits on the senate pages, no need to discuss their house predictions. I think the best thing to do is to wait and see. Keep the ratings in for now and see how things play out. Smith0124 (talk) 03:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for what to play out? Wollers14 (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know whether this might be a good compromise solution, but what about having an own page for Senate ratings just as for 2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings. By fall, more pundits will publish ratings (There is another forecaster called JHK who seems quite valuable, plus there is a pundit called Lean Tossup (very bullish towards Dems), The Economist published presidential ratings and Senate races thus are likely to follow, I suppose Fox News already published its ratings but it was not included? And Fox ratings were removed in the 2018 Senate election page...), therefore, the rating section would be kind of large anyways.
 * Compromise solution could be to have an own page for all ratings, with only the "professional" pundits Cook, Sabato and IE being directly visible here, maybe also 538. Could be POV, but one could argue that that is what 538 does for weighing their ratings: They include just the three professionals and neither CNN nor Fox. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: CN Analysis also has Senate ratings, and Fox ratings are out as well.
 * I've been following Chaz's ratings for a while now, I've just had trouble considering them notable enough for this article since he seems to only be famous within Election Twitter. I agree that Fox News and CNN's ratings have a home here though. (80% sure CNN finally made some ratings. I can find 'em once I'm on desktop.) But yeah, if we can find multiple news sources citing CN Analysis, I think that'd go a far way towards establishing notability.  The Savage  Norwegian  22:43, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

We can include Fox and have them or 538 replace Nishkanen on the chart but the reason they made their own ratings page on the house was to make the article shorter. There is no need to do the same here. Fox may be biased but they are professional with their ratings and do not skew toward anybody. I don't know why they were removed off of the 2018 page but whoever did would need a good explanation. Wollers14 (talk) 05:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Smith got blocked indefinitely so here is a question should we remove the Nishkanen ratings from the Senate pages? I might remove them from the House pages due to the lack of explanations for their ratings since there appears to be no dispute over them. So again do we keep or remove them and replace them with Fox since they already released their ratings. Wollers14 (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

and what do you guys want to do about the ratings Remove them and replace them with Fox or keep them?Wollers14 (talk) 05:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Bernie and Vice President
Bernie Sanders is not an Independent. The DNC made it so that no one can run in their party unless they are a Democrat. Also his locked wiki page says he is a Democrat.

Also please stop counting the 2 Independents as Democrats. You do this in the section of seats needed to gain majority. Just because they caucus with the Democrats doesn't mean they are Democrats. They are independents.

Finally, stop counting the Vice President as a senator. You keep saying that if there's a 50/50 split in the Senate the Vice President would give a party the majority. The Vice President is NOT A SENATOR, so stop saying that it's 3-4 seats needed to gain majority. If the Senate is 50/50 then no party has a majority no matter who the Vice President is.... Infinity2323236 (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Sanders ran for Senate as an independent. He also registered his 2024 Senate campaign as an independent and has not changed his party affiliation in the Senate. Both independent senators effectively function as Democrats in the Senate in terms of committee assignments and voting patterns. The VP is the tiebreaker in the Senate. --WMSR (talk) 06:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if they "function as democrats" they are officially Independents and should only be counted as Independents no matter how partisan they vote..... I know the VP is a tiebreaker. But the VPs political party does not count towards Senate majority. So if the Senate is 50/50 (which it can't be anyways because of the Independents) no one would have a majority... The template is counting the VP as a Senator which is wrong. Infinity2323236 (talk) 21:32, 20 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid that's not correct. While some state legislative chambers need to enter a power-sharing agreement in the event of a tie, the US Senate doesn't function that way. In the event of a tie, the VP tie-breaking power is invoked, effectively granting the majority to the VP's party. Rest assured, in the event of a 50/50 Senate, the Majority Leader elected will be of the same party as the Vice President. Now, regarding the two Independents. They caucus with the Democrats and vote with the Democrats on many issues, including picking the Majority Leader. This would be different if the Independents didn't officially enter into one caucus or the other. Then we'd be listing them differently, and the math for majority would be much more messy. However, both Angus King and Bernie Sanders have affirmed multiple times, again and again over the years that they remain caucusing with the Democrats in the Senate. Now a discussion about whether they're "Independents in name only" can be had, but this is not the place for that discussion.  The Savage  Norwegian  21:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I firmly agree with Thesavagenorwegian on this. They both caucus with the Democrats and vote with the Democrats most of the time. Most sites just count them as Democrats, and they would be part of a Democratic majority of the senate flips. Smith0124 (talk) 06:37, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the Independents should be noted as Independents who caucus with Democrats, and I think people know that the VP isn't a senator. The purpose is to show what the Democrats need to gain control of the Senate, which is black-and-white, and black-and-white statements are what Wikipedia does. The purpose is not to compare how Democrats and Independents vote, or to predict how senators will vote on a specific thing, which is not what Wikipedia does anyway. If the election results in 48 Democrats, 50 Republicans, 2 Independents, and Biden's VP, the Democrats will have control. Since every senator caucuses with Democrats or caucuses with Republicans, that's what Wikipedia should say. If you think the Senate rules are unfair to Independents, that's a separate issue. It's Wikipedia's job to say how the real world is even if the real world doesn't make sense. EvanJ35 (talk) 14:39, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This. The current note regarding independents who caucus with the Democrats is adequate, in my opinion. --PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Consistent Removal of Filing Deadlines and Candidates
I've had a problem with persistent removal of what I believe to be valuable information from this page. The removal of filing deadlines for independent and minor party candidates has been repeatedly performed by Californianexile without explanation, despite my suggestion that they discuss their preference for this on the talk page. I've reverted it again, and hope this can be a place to discuss the matter if there is still a resistance to its inclusion. I've also had a problem with the removal of candidates from this page's candidate list because they aren't listed by sources with incomplete lists of candidates who are running; as a compromise, I accepted the removal of candidates in elections for which only one source was otherwise listed, but I've seen others removed too. Smith0124 removed candidates because they didn't deem the Green Papers reliable (why?), but also removed candidates for whom there were other sources. I've also seen sources used to list candidates even when they don't actually list candidates (e.g. AL2020 not listing Doug Jones and KS2020 not listing Kobach and Lindstrom). There seems to be little rhyme or reason to it, and I'd like it explained if not halted. In the meantime, I have added an additional source to every use of thegreenpapers for candidates on this article. - PutItOnAMap 17:50, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The Green Papers isn't reliable, this has been discussed over and over. I wasn't trying to remove candidates like this other guy, I just didn't have time to fish out the couple of candidates with other sources. I appreciate you finding other sources, and so I have not removed them since. My issue wasn't the candidates, just the source. Smith0124 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Archiving
Some conversations on this talk page should be archived as they are outdated. Sections 1-15 are all due to be archived. I'm not really sure how to do it. Smith0124 (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

We Should Remove The Competitive Races Subsection
The subsection Competitive races subsection redundant. All of the points mentioned can be found either in this article's section about the race OR in the specific election's article. That is the point of these articles. It is also speculative arm chair punditry. The section is not, in my opinion, necessarily wrong in its conclusions, but it is clearly the opinion of the author and in some cases contradicts the above table. For example, it includes Kentucky, but does not include South Carolina. This is despite the fact that the table above gives them both identical ratings. I could just as easily speculate that South Carolina is a stronger case for a swing than Kentucky based on fundraising and demographics. However, that would not be appropriate for Wikipedia. I have marked the section as speculative and added other inline clean up tags--Mpen320 (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, especially as some of the comments are directly at odds with the cited sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.22.57 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't mind keeping this section, but only so long as can agree on a standard for inclusion here. E.g. if a certain number of the forecasts we list here rate a race as 'lean R/D' or 'tossup', we write about that in this section. If some want to trial keeping the section, I'd propose having a short write-up for each seat that has at least one 'likely R/D' rating (as opposed to the pundits we've listed unanimously agreeing that it is safe). --PutItOnAMap (talk) 17:38, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I favor moving the cited information (v.s. opinions) to either the section that covers the state's election or to the article about the state's election.

I will give the author of that section 24 hours to make their case why this section should be kept. To me it reeks of bias. If the user who made the section fails to respond I will remove the section. Wollers14 (talk) 16:53, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As the initial poster, can you give them a longer period of time. A few days maybe? Also, I took the liberty of posting to User talk:Smith0124 they should respond to your post. Also, I favor moving some the better cited information to either the articles on the states or the section of the state rather than a full deletion.--Mpen320 (talk) 16:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

I see no reason to delete the section. It's relevant. I tried my best to be unbiased, stating the facts only and using the same data points for each race, but obviously it needs editing. Just throwing the entire thing out isn't productive, lets just make it better. Smith0124 (talk) 17:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * My goal is not to completely delete your contributions. I believe that the cited information should go into the section on each state. The speculative information would likely be removed if you could not find a citation for it. As I have said, I agree with some of your conclusions that do not have citations (e.g. Trump's negative impact on Republican Senate incumbents). That agreement does not make your section encyclopedic. I also find it redundant to have a section with forecast predictions, state breakdowns based on "likliehood to flip," and then state breakdowns again.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Listen I like the suggestion of moving the information to the states sections where they should be that I believe PutItonaMap made. How about we just remove the section and put the information onto the state's sections with some things like North Carolina trending purple and unpopular incumbents due to Trump support removed because this is information that is not necessary and to some extent not proven facts. So I will support that suggestion because it follows more closely with previous pages. So Smith I believe that is a reasonable compromise. What say you?Wollers14 (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * This was my initial idea. I don't know if PutItonaMap agrees with me.--Mpen320 (talk) 06:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't mind a section of the page specifically for competitive races. Perhaps next to, or included in, the "ratings" section? --PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:12, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen multiple articles about how Republican senators fear Trump is hurting their re-election chances. Smith0124 (talk) 04:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I have read those articles too which is part of why I agree with it. However, you don't cite a political scientist, political observer, political pundit, newspaper editorial, or polling when you make that assertion. If you did that, it would become encyclopedic.--Mpen320 (talk) 06:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

I can find some of those articles to cite. They are written by political scientists. Smith0124 (talk) 07:07, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have too much of a problem in theory in that case, although I see where it could go wrong if we (on this talk page) disagreed with the analysis cited as there is probably a lot of it, including contradictory pieces by different authors. If we cite useful analysis, we can probably paint a more representative picture than the Cook "Colorado is a tossup" Political Report. I think it'd be good to have a short summary for each race that had at least one lean R/D rating - perhaps even at least one likely R/D rating. --PutItOnAMap (talk) 09:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

So far no changes have been made. If we end up not reaching a compromise then I will take the section down until we do since we seem to not have agreement. If we did and I missed it let me know I do not wish to do this but we still have information that is not cited still on the page. Also don't focus on the ratings that's a different discussion. We need to deal with the section asap because it still has issues and nothing has been done yet. Wollers14 (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, let’s do it then. Tell us what you’d like to change. Get the discussion going. Smith0124 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Good timing. I was about to do it. I will list the problems in detail.

Listen Smith I just don't see a section like this fitting well on this page. I think the most logical solution is to take down the section and integrate the information to the states sections. This will cause curious minds to want to actually read information inside the individual articles rather than look at that and say "That's all I need" and leave when more information can be found in the articles. There are problems but this in my view is the most logical solution. Wollers14 (talk) 20:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Approval Ratings due to Trump are the only reasons listed for low approval ratings. There are many other factors that go into a Senator's approval ratings.
 * North Carolina trending purple it's always been purple with Democrats and Republicans elected to different statewide offices
 * Montana and Iowa being Tossups Only Nishkanen says that and they as of right now are outliers in the ratings board RCP lists Montana as a tossup but that is an outlier as well.
 * The fact that a section like this is present only on this page and not others like previous pages for Senate elections or on the House or Presidency pages.


 * Let me address each issue you bring up one by one.


 * 1. I totally agree. We should get some sources together and elaborate on low approval ratings. Smith0124 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 2. At the state level North Carolina is purple, but that the federal level the state leans Republican. The state has two Republican senators, a majority Republican house delegation (though part of that is due to gerrymandering), and has only voted Democratic in a presidential election once since 1976, and that was in 2008 when many typically red states like Indiana and Missouri flipped blue because of Barack Obama.
 * 3. Montana is in the tossup section because polling has Bullock as much as 7 points ahead of Daines, a pretty significant number. Larry Sabato said that outside the "core four" (ME, AZ, CO, NC) Montana is the next most likely pickup for Democrats. I agree that Iowa can be moved to the Could Flip section since the polling is neck and neck and most forecasters rate it Lean R.
 * 4. Just because something hasn't been done in the past doesn't mean it can't be done now. We just have to do it right.
 * 5. I think it's a good thing to have this all in one place. What the reader does is out of our control. We can break up the info and put it in the state pages, but let's also keep it all together. Best of both worlds.

I hope that addresses everything. Smith0124 (talk) 20:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Missouri never went blue in 2008. The federal level and the state levels can both determine a state's tint. It's elected Dem Governors which you mention in Kentucky's reasoning. Also Montana's polling is out of date since no poll has come out since April. Listen it's out of place and you do not seem to be budging putting all information in the states sections is a solution that sees the best of both worlds because the information listed would still be there and it would not be gone. So I just want to clarify that I do not look to destroy the information you put on just moving it to the states sections because they would be in one place if they were moved in them because the reader would see the ratings then wonder why they are a tossup and look in the states section and find out why. That is what the states section is for which makes the section you made kinda redundant with all due respect. Wollers14 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The Montana senate page is outdated, there have been polls since April that have shown Bullock ahead. Smith0124 (talk) 00:04, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. The polls taken during April are the only ones there. There are no polls listed on RCP or 538. Wollers14 (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I’m telling you the page is outdated. Smith0124 (talk) 00:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

The page is up to date. There are no new polls available. RCP and 538 don't lie when it comes to polls. Now back to the section. I will place a 12 hour time limit. So back to the subject. Wollers14 (talk) 03:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think keeping Montana as tossup and moving Iowa down to could flip is a good compromise. What issue should we tackle next? Also, here is the poll that I referenced showing Bullock up by 7 points. It’s from May 5th so a little older than I thought but the point still stands. https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-news/msu-poll-bullock-leads-daines-in-senate-contest Smith0124 (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

You still realize that I will not budge from taking the section down and moving the information to the states section. Also that poll was conducted in April. It is out of date since over a month has passed. Remember the time limit. Wollers14 (talk) 05:27, 9 June 2020 (UTC) Actually wait scratch that. Including the time limit. Let's put it up to a vote with other users. Option 1 is to keep the section. Option 2 is to take it down and put the information listed into the states section below. We'll leave the vote open for one week. Whoever votes type one of the Options 1 or 2 and leave your name. Smith I think this is the best way to decide the fate of the section. Wollers14 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That is called an Rfc and it can take months to be closed. You can't just "have a vote" on Wikipedia, it's a long and awful process. Also, this "time limit" isn't a standard, it's just your personal rule that you have no consensus for. The data is still relevant, and you're going to need to compromise on some stuff if you want to keep this discussion going. The section is going to stay unless there is overwhelming support to take it out, you alone can't decide that it's going. I'm willing to add the same information to the state pages, but I'm not willing to remove the section. I'm trying to be collaborative with you here by addressing all the issues you have with it, so let's just work together to improve it instead of imposing "time limits" and ultimatums. Exercise some patience here. Smith0124 (talk) 05:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Listen, we can have a vote. But not a Rfc. Let's ask both and  since they are a part of this conversation too. They should voice their opinions on the matter at hand here since they contributed to this talk. Also be careful when negotiating I could have easily taken down the section if I wanted to and then we would have gotten into a edit war but I don't want that and neither do you. I do apologize for imposing the time limits and ultimatums and seemingly making this difficult. But remember this talk is about the fate of the section not about making it better that should be a separate talk this talk is about whether the section should be there or not. Now, since you are not budging and I am not budging I'm bringing the users who also contributed in this talk to break this impasse. Now let's wait and see what they have to say about it.Wollers14 (talk) 06:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * They've already expressed their opinion, they support putting the info on the state pages but not necessarily getting rid of the section. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here besides deleting the section, something that is off the table. We should improve the section instead of just throwing it out. Why not try to improve it yourself first. Smith0124 (talk) 06:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't agree with keeping the section of the "top 12" at all.--Mpen320 (talk) 22:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Fine. But after the election is over it's gone because there would be no point in keeping it any longer after November because the results at that point would be in. Also I will leave it to you to fix the problems mentioned above since this is your section. Also I was not trying to accomplish anything else besides the section being removed because a section like that was not what I was used to. I'm the kind of guy who doesn't like change that much. But let's just end this damn talk it's taken enough time already. If you cannot find the sources to explain approval ratings just say that their approval ratings are low and nothing else it will make it look less biased that way. I'm sorry if I acted hostile sometimes if you fail to achieve a goal you get a little upset and I try to be respectful but I was not. So go ahead and make the changes we talked about before and Montana is still a Lean R the poll you showed me was taken in April but released on May 5th normally polls "expire" after 1 month and as of right now it's June 9th. Enjoy and don't mess up. Wollers14 (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Totally fine with me. And it's ok, I didn't see you as disrespectful just hasty, but thank you for the apology. I will get some sources for approval ratings soon. Smith0124 (talk) 06:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I'd like add to this some issues I've seen with the section (Haven't edited the page as I'm not quite familiar with how Wikipedia editing procedures work yet.)
 * Colorado & Montana - Hickenlooper has raised more money than Gardner for the first quarter of 2020, not the entire race - there, Gardner still holds a small advantage. The same goes for Bullock vs. Daines. Qualifiers should be added to give a more accurate picture. Link to FEC: https://www.fec.gov/data/candidates/senate/?election_year=2020&cycle=2020&election_full=false&is_active_candidate=true
 * Alabama - The Politico article (from May 3) given as a source says that Jones has raised $8 million, more than 10 times more than Tuberville or Sessions; that's hardly "struggling for money". The same article also notes notable "Democratic establishment" people such as Sen. Murray or the spokespersons for the Senate Majority PAC and DSCC all saying that they think he still has a path to getting reelected. Now that might not reflect what they actually think, but the article does not back up the statement that Jones is thought of as a 'lost cause'.
 * Iowa - If Greenfield has already won the Democratic nomination, is it relevant how her primary opponent was doing in the polls? Also, she's not a first-time candidate. She ran in 2018 for Iowa's 3rd, though she dropped out early.


 * Every race listed has only a single article cited as a source, some of which barely mention the specific state and do not touch upon any of the points made in the paragraph. For example, the Guardian article for North Carolina just mentions the state as a competitive race without even either candidate's name or discussion of the deeper issues. Articles that go more in depth on the details would be nice. Should each claim have a specific source?
 * Polls are often updated - there should either be a note as to when the poll data is from (say, polls from Jan. to May of 2020 or polls up to June 9). When is "most recent"?
 * I still think that we need more objective guidelines for the "Most likely to flip" "Tossup" and "Could flip" labels. If Kentucky is on the page, South Carolina and Texas should be as well (or none of them is also fine with me). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.47.202.57 (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we should remove the section and put it in each states section. I think it is good, but wrong place. Noncommittalp (talk) 11:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

MAYBE EXPLAIN WHAT "(flip)" MEANS? THAT WOULD BE USEFUL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.211.162.71 (talk) 16:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Everyone I have news: Smith0124 the author of the section has been indefinitely blocked by an admin. So a new consensus may be required regarding the section. Since Smith is gone he will not be able to improve the section like he promised. So here is a key question do we keep it as is, make changes to it, or remove it completely? I'm asking anyone who is willing to answer. Wollers14 (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll start it off by saying that we should remove the section entirely and I can support moving a modified version of the paragraphs to the states sections. There are multiple reasons for this 1. Bias: Smith said he tried not to be biased and that may be true but this is thinly sourced and written based on assumptions rather than actual research. 2. Forms: No other page has a section like this and there is really no need for a section like this because it takes up space and there is none on the House pages or Governors Pages. 3. Necessity: This section isn't necessary at all it takes traffic away from the state's sections which the information should have ended up in the first place. Wollers14 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I was sorta staying out of this conversation because I wanted to pick my battles. That and I'm a recovering Inclusionist. In any case, I'm in favor of removal as well. Mostly because WP isn't for punditry. All the analysis in the section I'd consider wholly spot-on, but the image of an encyclopedia commenting on the likelihood of such and such candidate winning doesn't look above-reproach. I mean, we don't even use prediction map for crying out loud. It's super easy to find analysis elsewhere.  The Savage  Norwegian  23:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

North Carolina is not "growing more purple"
If you look at the twentieth century list, you will see that Democrats and Republicans are both fairly likely to win re-election to be elected in North Carolina. Hell, that Senate seat has flipped back and forth every election this century (Dole to Hagan to Thillis) by slim margins.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * North Carolina has only voted for a Democrat for president once in the last 30 years, and until 2018 Republicans had supermajorities in both houses of the legislature. They also have two Republican senators and (due in part to gerrymandering) have a majority Republican congressional delegation. So yes, it is a Red state. It has long been a competitive state with a red tint at the federal level, but that is changing because of the suburban vote. North Carolina has a lot of suburbs that are becoming more blue. Smith0124 (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

North Carolina has always been a purple state it has elected officeholders statewide that are both Dem and GOP. The trending purple argument has holes in it.Wollers14 (talk) 04:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Alabama Senate race
The Politico article linked states that Jones has raised over $8 million, yet the article itself says that Doug Jones "sturggled to raise money." Also, the Republican runoff is becoming very negative. I pointed those things out and someone deleted the edit without even bothering to check. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RemovedAgain (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Louisiana primary or jungle primary?
So the Georgia special election links to Louisiana primary, but the Louisiana election links to jungle primary, which redirects to nonpartisan blanket primary. The two systems apparently have subtle differences, and the two pages have hatnotes to each other. Shouldn't the Louisiana election link to the Louisiana primary page? Is the Georgia special election really a Louisiana primary? Mdewman6 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Ballotpedia has a good article explaining the Louisiana majority-vote system, which is the term they use for a Louisiana primary. The Louisiana one should definitely point to Louisiana primary. For the Georgia special election, the source uses "jungle primary" so I changed the reference to that. Carter (talk) 20:33, 19 July 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) 05:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Theresa Greenfield.jpg

Senate Ratings: Remove 270towin, Add DDHQ?
If I format something incorrectly here, please let me know as I am new. I personally don't think the 270towin ratings are appropriate for this page because they are based purely on polling, as stated on their site. It says they update them 3x daily so the ratings could shift a lot every time a new poll is released, which is something I've noticed-- I don't think a model based purely on polling is really as reflective of the state of the race when other rating sites (cook, sabato, even rcp I believe) take other factors into consideration.

On that note, I was wondering if it would be appropriate to add in the DDHQ (Decision Desk) ratings they just released? They use an extensive algorithm/methodology for their ratings that I felt more appropriately compares to the other prognosticators. I wasn't sure if DDHQ is considered reputable enough in political spheres outside twitter, so I wanted to check in before I went in and started adding/deleting things.

Yrg8033 (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Deprecated syntax
I’m pretty sure your edit Special:Diff/976307615 and the surrounding ones introduced deprecated image syntax. Infoboxes aren’t supposed to have link syntax around the images anymore. I think. DemonDays64 (talk) 14:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, but it's the only way to disable the media viewer, so it should still be used in the infoboxes using blank images. See MOS:BLANKALT. —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 18:52, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * oh. could implementing an alt text parameter in infobox election solve this? DemonDays64 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps; I wouldn't know. But that would be very helpful! I think there'd have to be an image_link parameter to disable the link to the blank image, as well. Ping me if you're able to get that working. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 00:04, 3 September 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) 18:43, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Chris janicek (cropped).jpg

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) 19:22, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Mark-Curran (cropped).jpg

FiveThirtyEight forecast model
Which FiveThirtyEight forecast model is being used? Can we include this in the reference? Banak (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Does 538 have more than one forecast model? Pentock (talk) 15:29, 22 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, click in the bottom left corner "Lite","Classic" or "Delux" and you'll see all the numbers and some descriptions change. Banak (talk) 00:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The page said we were using the classic model, but people were consistantly changing to the Deluxe model. I've changed the note to match the reality that we're using the Deluxe model, I only care about the note being consistant with the table. Banak (talk) 19:56, 30 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I definitely think we should be using the Classic model, as it doesn't depend on other forecasters' ratings already stated in the table, and has been said by 538 to be the "true" version of their model. However, I have definitely changed the ratings to the Deluxe version by accident at least once, because I assumed Classic was the default on 538's page instead of Deluxe. I think we should continue to use Classic, but maybe add a note that people should be sure they're looking at the Classic version before updating the ratings.Sbb618 (talk) 19:59, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Consistent with the discussion at Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings, I am going to switch the FiveThirtyEight model on this page from Classic to Deluxe. FiveThirtyEight defaults to Deluxe, so it makes sense that we should be using that here too. Inks.LWC (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

DDHQ Link Goes to a Generic Page
DDHQ means Decision Desk Headquarters. The link at the DDHQ prediction column goes to a page about decision desks in general. This should be redirected to Wikipedia's page for DDHQ if there is one. If there is not a Wikipedia page for DDHQ, should somebody make one? If a source is notable enough to have its predictions cited, isn't it notable enough to have its own page? If DDHQ doesn't have a page, the link should be deleted because the link to the decision desk page isn't specifically about the source. Having the DDHQ link go to a decision desk page would be like mentioning Fox News with a link to a generic page about news. EvanJ35 (talk) 02:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The DDHQ column should be removed. It's a cool site, but not notable or citable. --WMSR (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

538 Predictions Forecast Dispute and lack of citations
Could someone please cite the source where 538 specifically state these predictions leans, likely and safe specifically. @Ygr8033 has said that there is a prediction model that specifically says that but there is no citation. I am using the forecast that has been cited. I am using the same labels as the one on the presidential election page. I assume that the edits were made in good faith. @Ygr8033 as a wikipedia editor you’re obligated to cite your sources. As a reader I am confused as to where you are getting your information from. So try to explain it to me with a source with the predictions you’re referring to. If this is not addressed as a Wikipedia editor I feel obligated to use the predictions that are cited above. Pentock (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Hovering over each state on the map on the front page of the linked 538 source gives every race as tossup/lean/likely/safe.Sbb618 (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sbb618 thank you. I was using my iPhone so I did not see the map. Now that I used the computer I see the map now. I just assumed that the map was not cited. @Ygr8033 I’m sorry that I assumed that the source was not cited. Pentock (talk) 19:15, 22 September 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) 22:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Corky Messner.jpg

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) 23:53, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Gross Headshot (cropped).jpg

Shrinking the Predictions Table
With the addition of VoteFerret to the projections table, we now have eleven different sets of predictions for the Senate elections. I think we ought to narrow this list down a bit - it's getting to be a bit much to read, and is also getting kind of redundant. The House ratings page for 2020 has already taken similar action, removing Niskanen, Politico, and The Economist. I personally wouldn't be opposed to removing Niskanen, due to the fact that their ratings are rarely ever updated and I've heard the model is rather dubious. Any thoughts? --The Banker of Seville (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Declaration of winners based on AP projections
It seems like a mild overreaction to remove the entirety of the information on the winners based on AP projections. The time to remove them was perhaps after the first few results were put on this page, not after 30 results were added. To revert that now seems disruptive. The RfC that you referred to seems to only concern the presidential elections and is not binding on all 2020 elections, such as the ones for the House and the Senate. If there were an intention that they would be binding on other elections, that would have been made clear.

Sdrqaz (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , often consensuses for the presidential election apply to lower races if there aren't superseding discussions for those races. My revert was not disruptive; there is no consensus for this. If you believe there is a consensus for declaring winners based on AP projections, please provide me with a link to the discussion establishing that consensus. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 02:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * In one of the discussions on that talk page, I made clear that I thought that whatever the consensus was for the presidential election article, should be binding on this article as well. Prcc27 (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that's what I'm saying. Whether to use AP projections or some other metric to call races is still under discussion in an RfC at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 02:45, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Point taken. But I'm not sure that there were other users that agreed to that point. If there were, please alert me to where because it was a very long discussion and it's quite likely that I may have missed it.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * But like you pointed out, there wasn't a consensus and therefore there was nothing to apply to 'lower' elections. I will happily refrain from adding further race calls to this page, but I think that 's objection is not unreasonable.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

We not just remove the AP projections instead of the entire table that showed clearly what seats was up fo relection this cycle? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.251.193.12 (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2020 (UTC)


 * That seems like a fair suggestion. Removing the whole box seems like overkill.
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no problem with it being restored without winners being declared. I only sought to remove all declarations of winners from the page. If I removed other information about which seats were up for election, that was a mistake. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 20:22, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, understood. I will restore the table without AP projections. Actually, I've seen that you only made them hidden text; I thought that you had deleted them outright. Should I still make updates to the hidden text?
 * Sdrqaz (talk) 22:00, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , that sounds fine to me. ― Tartan357  ( Talk ) 22:32, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: There is now a consensus to call races in the presidential election that have been unanimously called by news networks, so Senate races can now be called on this page if they have similarly been called unanimously by news networks. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Vice President-elect
Seeing as Kamala Harris has already been declared VP-elect, would it not make sense to change the amount of seats that Dems need to reach a majority from four to three? I'd do it myself but it's restricted Hellodiot (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

No, I think it's relevant to say that if she had lost, then Democrats would have needed four.

47.139.40.127 (talk) 21:57, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
1. In article lede:

Change "Republicans will be defending 23 seats in 2020, while the Democratic Party will be defending 12 seats.[9] Democrats will need to pick up three or four seats..." to "Republicans were defending 23 seats in 2020, while the Democratic Party were defending 12 seats.[9] Democrats needed to pick up three or four seats". because election has already happened, verbs should be past tense, not future tense.

2. In note a:

Change

"Thus, assuming that the two independents continue to caucus with the Senate Democratic Caucus and if Kamala Harris is elected vice president in the 2020 election, the Democrats will have to gain at least three seats to win a majority. If Mike Pence is reelected vice president, Democrats will have to gain at least four seats to win a majority. Democrats would also need 51 seats to control the senate at the beginning of the new congress, which is seated at the beginning of January, while a new Vice President would be sworn in on January 20."

to

"Thus, assuming that the two independents continue to caucus with the Senate Democratic Caucus, because Kamala Harris was elected vice president in the 2020 election, the Democrats needed to gain at least three seats to win a majority. If Mike Pence had been reelected vice president, Democrats would have needed to gain at least four seats to win a majority. Democrats will still need 51 seats to control the senate at the beginning of the new congress, which is seated at the beginning of January, while Harris will be sworn in on January 20."

because Harris won. 47.139.40.127 (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ - this page is no longer protected, you may edit it directly as appropriate. — xaosflux  Talk 15:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020
CHANGE In the regular election, incumbent Republican David Perdue will face Democrat Jon Ossoff, who won national name recognition while losing the most expensive House race in U.S. history in 2017.

TO In the regular election, Democrat challenger Jon Ossoff, a documentary film producer and investigative journalist, will face incumbent Republican David Perdue.[144] Ossoff, who won national name recognition while narrowly losing a race for the U.S. House in 2017. Since the November 3, 2020 election was too close to call, a runoff election for this Class II seat will be held January 5, 2021.[146] 174.99.50.168 (talk) 23:54, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I speak not only as a long-term editor but also as a pink regular Democrat, in saying that the suggestion to mention the challenger first is bizarre favoritism. The other details seem, offhand, deserving of specific discussion of which should be included, subjecting details abt them to respective evaluations of which are worthy of mention. I suggest that the year in question will be mere dust in reader’s eyes, since the section will be due for revision in about the 5th-7th interval;WP:NOT/WP:NEWS-the-news. —2601:199:C201:FD70:3C44:5C2F:FE98:7351 (talk) (ex-User:Jerzy, ex-User:JerzyA), 07:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ - this page is no longer protected, you may edit it directly as appropriate. — xaosflux  Talk 15:40, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Dates in Infoboxes
Hello! I see that there is a date in the infobox for the two special elections (AZ, GA) but not for any other elections. Is this just protocol or something? (Sorry, I'm new around here.) Thanks. Twassman (talk) 19:58, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

list of Senate races
What happened to the summaries of all of the original races? This page looks like somebody sliced off a huge chunk of it for no reason whatsoever. SRD625 (talk) 17:20, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

...And it happened again SRD625 (talk) 13:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Randomly happens every now and then, no idea why it happens Jackprice1 (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything we can do about it? SRD625 (talk) 15:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Independents and DFL
Bernie Sanders and Angus King are independents, not democrats. Tina Smith and Amy Klobuchar won under the DFL (The Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party). In conclusion, democrats have 44 (subtracting those four senators) and republicans have 50. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

The DFL is part of the national Democratic Party, just like how the Maryland Democratic Party is part of the national Democratic Party; Democrats officially hold 46 seats, independence hold 2 but they caucus with the Democrats, Republicans hold 50, and two more seats are still up in the air SRD625 (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 18 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. There is a strong consensus against moving the article at this time. (closed by non-admin page mover) OhKayeSierra (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 United States Senate elections → 2020–21 United States Senate elections – I think this article should be renamed by having hyphen between the year 2020 and 2021. The reason is the Senate elections aren't over as there is with Georgia ones that need to be contested which will be held in January. So this doesn't make sense especially if the article refers to all Senate races. Another thing is that the separate articles about Georgia senate races already have hyphen between the year numbers, so why can't this article be as well? ShadZ01 (talk) 04:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be past practice for similar naming schemes, see 1912 and 1913 United States Senate elections, that should, at the very least, be addressed if the consensus here is not to do such naming schemes. SecretName101 (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak support given the aforementioned precedent. I also wouldn't mind the alternative scenario: a brief mention of the Georgia Senate races at the 2021 United States elections article. Love of Corey (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There is no established practice of this. Up through 1912–1913 the Senate was chosen through indirect elections, with different states sending new senators at any time before the start of the Congress based on when state legislatures met to choose a senator. Since the ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment in 1913 there is a mandated national election for selection of senators. That occurred in November 2020. The January 2021 runoff is a Georgia-specific policy, based entirely on Georgia state law, and not on any national law or electoral regulation except that the U.S. Constitution delegates extensive authority over the conduct of elections to the states. Sladnick (talk) 22:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Quite right. Amendment of the US constitution is very rare, and here is a supervening event that blows any precedent out of the water.- Adam37 Talk  14:04, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Love of Corey (talk) 08:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Pinging the following to stimulate further discussion:
 * This feels like the "avengers assemble" of wikipedia politics nerds - I'm not sure where you have the list from, but could I be on it? I'm very active in wikipedia u.s. political articles. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The election in Georgia is separate from all other elections. We should make a redirect from 2021 United States Senate election to 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia instead. --  Manasbose   (talk &#124; edits) 09:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The election in Georgia is separate from all other elections and this article is mostly about list of all Senate elections happening in 2020. We should make a separate article 2021 United States Senate election mentioning 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia and 2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia instead and that would also help in including any future Senate elections that may take place in 2021 due to resignation, death or any other cause. --   Manasbose   (talk &#124; edits) 09:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - as these aren't pre-17th amendment US Senate elections. GoodDay (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I see the logic for a move, given that the Georgia runoffs are in 2021, but on the other hand it could be undue weight on the Georgia elections in particular. No strong feelings either way on what would be best. Chessrat  ( talk, contributions ) 16:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know: This seems hardly worth the move, BUT I've been working on a lot of earlier articles which I've moved to Year1 and Year2 United States Senate elections.  There are many elections in which run-offs (or multiple ballots) make the elections span two-or-even-three years when only one of the races went to multiple ballots. See, e.g., 1790–1792 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, 1800–1801 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts, or 1848–1850 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts. —GoldRingChip 18:03, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose since only one election spills over to the next year.73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sladnick. The previous elections that had multiple years I don't believe make them a precedent to the elections in this case as others have explained. Given that only the Georgia elections are affected and are happening in 2021 it does not make much sense to change the title for one election.  Jay  Jay What did I do? 06:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This isn't the same issue as with 2021 United States elections, as per, and this page should not be renamed. I'd also opposed the suggested 2021 United States Senate election, although if a future Senate special election happens in 2021, then including mention of the GA race might be appropriate. Carter (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONCISE as totally unnecessary. A title need not include every relatively trivial detail in the article. Station1 (talk) 23:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I think that we should change it to that, because the Georgia runoffs are still elections. Bunnyisgreat (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)Bunnyisgreat
 * Oppose - I don't think this is needed. YoungstownToast (talk) 04:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Even with the Georgia run-off, these are still the 2020 elections. -- Netwalker3 (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't really make sense since only two elections extend into 2021. KingSkyLord (talk &#124; contribs) 03:59, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it's an election season centered around 2020. The title should be precise and concise. The GA run-off is just an extension of the 2020 election season. ♫ Hurricanehink ( talk ) 14:52, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: These two Senate elections are only runoffs and are a part of the 2020 elections cycle. CountyCountry (talk) 22:25, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Usually for elections held after the ratification of the 17th Amendment the year is single; this election on January 5 is a run-off (the definitve 'round') of the main election held on November 3 (open to all candidates, while this is not). --Foghe (talk) 15:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: If the articles on the Georgia senate elections are listed as "2020-21", implying that the runoffs are a cohesive part of the election process (and I think the 17th amendment supports that), I see no reason why this main article should not be classified as the same. Theleekycauldron (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:CONSISTENT with other senate election titles. The Georgia runoffs are still part of the 2020 election season. Rreagan007 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment the appropriate discussion at alk:2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia might be relevant to determine if either move was appropriate.73.110.217.186 (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everyone else. The alternative scenario that I suggested in my earlier vote has been implemented. Love of Corey (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, the article title should be consistent with all other post 17th Amendent Senate election articles.--TommyBoy (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just have 2021 redirect to this page. Should add @Theleekycauldron - College Football Playoffs are in January, yet it's the 2020 NCAA Division I FBS football season Jakobees (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose I think we know what the consensus is now can someone remove the template. Wollers14 (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This is borderline-WP:SNOW. Love of Corey (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a significant backlog at WP:RM. An uninvolved editor will come along sooner or later to close this up. There's no rush, especially if the title is not going change. Station1 (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support I know a consensus seems to have been reached but there is a point in renaming this article to 2020-21 especially since calling it only the 2020 election is incomplete and misleading. The argument that this is only a George thing makes little sense to me since all elections are determined by state law, basically implying that state law doesn’t matter for some reason here. The average reader won’t know that this election involved an election in 2021 because they aren’t a Wikipedian that is well informed about topics like this unless they specifically look for the Georgia election. Put yourself in their shoes and perspective. Fluffy89502 (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, just because it is not consistent does not mean that the other article names cannot be changed too right? The other elections that spanned multiple years before the 17th amendment was ratified were also part of the same election cycle for terms that started every other year. I think that if anything it is overly confusing that this article doesn't state that this election went into 2021 because the current title implies that it did not. Plus there is an inconsistency with the fact that the titles for the Georgia elections state "2020-21" while the title for the national overview does not. ~ Fluffy89502 (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose They are part of the 2020 election cycle. No need to make things overly confusing. Also, as others have said, not consistent with other election articles. --Inspector Semenych (talk) 18:26, 6 January 2021 (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.

Still assessed as "future class". Is this correct practice?
Most of the elections are over. I don't think this is what the "future-class" assessment is meant to encompass. Shouldn't this be reassessed? SecretName101 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A bit late to reply, but I changed the assessments to C Class. Diff. OhKayeSierra (talk) 03:31, 8 January 2021 (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) 05:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Https bucketeer-e05bbc84-baa3-437e-9518-adb32be77984.s3.amazonaws.com public images f09d95a2-cca6-4571-8900-4caa1596ac3f 1000x937.jpg

Ossoff Projected Winner
Ossoff has been projected as the winner by several major news outlets. I think we should color in the map. GeraldFordsEconomics (talk) 21:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)GeraldFordsEconomics

The article indicates both Georgia wins, but the infobox does not. Can we update the infobox? Difbobatl (talk) 14:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Control of the Senate
Hi, There has been some confusion surrounding which party has control of the Senate as a result of the Senate Election. According to my logic, the Republicans should be noted as having retained control of the Senate as a result of the Senate election. This election has an effective 50/50 split between Republicans and Democrats, similar to what happened in the 2000 United States Senate elections. Thus, the general precedent used on the 2000 page should be followed. In 2000, Republicans were in control before the election, but due to the 50/50 split Democrats won control for a few weeks because Al Gore had tie-breaking power. This change in control (albeit temporary) was still reflected in the article. After the Bush administration was sworn in, control reverted back to the Republicans as Dick Cheney had the tie-breaking power thereafter. This year is different from 2000, in that Republicans have technically retained control of the senate (albeit only temporarily) as a result of the senate elections because of the Republican administration still being in office and able to break ties. Democrats will take control of the senate only after Kamala Harris becomes vice-president (and thus gains tie-breaking power). That would be an event related to the presidential election, not the senate election. As a result of this complicated procedural logic, the Republicans should be listed first in the infobox, and McConnell should be noted as remaining majority leader after the senate election because the change in partisan control will technically happen in the middle of the Senate's term. Let me know if you have any questions. Brycecordry (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this line of thinking. I understand that Republicans will retain control of the Senate until Harris is inaugurated, and certainly this fact should be communicated in the infobox (e.g. via a note). But infoboxes are designed to communicate the most important facts of the article in a concise manner, and ultimately the most important fact is that Democrats will gain control of the Senate for the vast majority of the 117th Congress as a direct result of making gains in the 2020 Senate cycle. We shouldn't obscure the key facts over relatively minor procedural issues. Orser67 (talk) 00:58, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you look at the precedent set for 50/50 splits in the article for the 2000 election? This is a similar situation to this year. In the two years following 2000 (107th congress), there were several changes in partisan control due to the administration change and a mid-2001 floor crossing. None of those changes were reflected in the article for the election; not even a footnote explains the procedural logic. I don't really have an answer for what should happen for this as both schools of thought are appropriate, but whatever we do, the approach taken on the 2000 election page and this page need to be consistent. At the very least, we should keep the page as-is until the inauguration. Thanx. Brycecordry (talk) 02:37, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep it consistent with 2000. I agree with user Brycecordry. The Republican Party won enough seats to hold a majority in the 117th Congress term, which is different from the presidential/vice-presidential term - Senate result should reflect the initial congressional term and not Harris's term. The infobox should reflect this and the article lead should describe the short-lived nature of this majority. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:5DAD:B588:83B2:3810 (talk) 03:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed that we should keep it consistent with 2000 (i.e. either change 2000 or follow its existing precedent), and it's a fair point that it might make more sense to list McConnell as the majority leader for now even if we ultimately change it after Schumer officially becomes majority leader. Orser67 (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Most listings for voting bodies indicate coalitions, especially when they indicate a threshold for control. It would make more sense if the 2 independents were listed with the democrats or next to them with a note that they caucus with the democrats and therefore count with them.  Difbobatl (talk) 20:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The elected majority is 48 democrats, 2 independents, and the vice president. Wikipedia specifically refers to the elected majority leader at the bottom of the infobox. It doesn't matter if the elected majority takes office on the 20th, they are still the elected majority, just like the president is the president-elect from November to January. Readers who don't know of this technicality will be confused and I agree that the infobox should convey the most important points. It comes off as misinformation to those not as informed. Again, the infobox is just a summary, explaining technicalities is what notes are for and they are already there throughout the article. I do thinkwe need to reformat the infobox to better communicate the winning coalition. 172.58.231.77 (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * See here. The problem is the elected majority will not become official until at least January 20, 2020. What criterias should we use? That in the case of a tie, the incumbent party should go first as we do for the 2000 United States Senate elections? That in the case of a tie, the winning party in terms of popular vote should be first? In both cases, the first party would be the Democrats for 2000 and Republicans for 2020. Also what to do when the Democrats are de jure 48 but de facto 50? If we consider Democrats as 48, Republicans should be bolded as they hold more seats. If we consider both as 50, neither should be bolded, as it is a tie; and the way to solve who goes first depends on whether to put the incumbent party or the new majority party first. Either way, we currently have a discrepancy between the 2000 and 2020 articles; we should be consistent. Another inconsistency is that we have independents in an fourth category in other articles while here it is now removed and we consider Democrats as holding 50 seats. A solution would be to include the two independents in the Democratic column and not including when they ran for re-election, as their vote count would not go to the Democrats. Davide King (talk) 01:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The independents could just be omitted, and mentioned in a footnote with asterisks or something next to the Democratic count. I believe this was the solution after inconsistency was pointed out in different Senate election pages, where some stated the Democratic caucus total with footnote, others stated the pure Democratic total with footnote. I'm not sure why in subsequent years Wikipedia editors decided to change it to make independents a third party grouping. Independents, almost by definition, do not form a parliamentary bloc, but are a group of individual members that may or may not side with one another.
 * It might be worth taking a look at election pages parliamentary election results for some other countries. Those (if I'm reading them correctly) typically have parties/blocs listed by the size of their seat counts. So the highest plurality is listed first, even if the governing coalition agreed upon is different. I suppose you can look at the Democratic Caucus as a single bloc and not as an individual party that forms a coalition with two independents post-election? Perhaps considering this comparison is something to revisit later?
 * But I believe this is moot in this particular case. The congressional elections are not the same as the election for President/Vice President. The congressional elections by themselves, even counting the two Georgia runoffs, resulted in a short-time Republican majority. Mitch McConnell remained Majority Leader, and Chuck Grassley the President Pro Tempore. The infobox should reflect this with ample asterisks or footnotes to explain the context, and the article lead can get into the subsequent turn of events. This is the same standard as in 2000 election where the situation was reversed. 2603:8000:A501:9B00:C93E:168D:F902:368F (talk) 05:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Regardless of who you put first, the independent numbers should be added to the democrat numbers. Also, I still have a question about what votes are listed in the vote count.  Does this just include the current election cycle?  Does it include the runoff?  Difbobatl (talk) 15:09, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the logic that republicans should be listed as winning control.

Remember, we report what reliable sources say, not what we personally think. Reliable sources all say that Democrats won control of the senate, so that’s what we need to say. One could also make the case, BTW, that since the VP is President of the Senate, their election is part of the senate elections overall. But I think the key here is that RS say Dems will control the senate for the 117th congress, so we must too. Cpotisch (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Follow the precedent at 2000 United States Senate elections. -- GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Cpoticsh brings up a good point. Could someone look back to archives and see what the reliable sources said after the 2000 election? That said, some so-called "reliable sources" are biased (toward one perspective or the other). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus should be free from any "spin", be it from us Wikipedia editors or from the news reporters that contribute to the "reliable sources"; it is our job as Wikipedia editors to interpret the "reliable sources", get rid of any "spin" or over-generalization and then report the facts neutrally and impartially, for the purpose of reference and archival. I believe that following the internal precedent is important, so that consistency is maintained between the articles and thus a uniform Wikipedia style guide can be implied. This precedent should be influenced by looking at similar situations and interpreting the by-the-books procedure to determine the outcome of the senate election. Based on my interpretation, Republicans did indeed maintain control of the Senate as of the reorganization on January 3. There will be a change in partisan control after January 20, but changes in partisan control can and have happened in the middle of a Congress. Appropriate footnotes can and should be added to explain this, because the official outcome of this election may defy logic when compared to the perceived outcome. To eliminate this confusion, many media outlets may just report the perceived outcome and not get into the nitty-gritty detail that an encyclopedia should. This brings up another question: is the existing precedent the best option? Or is there sufficient reason to change the precedent, and adjust the 2000 article accordingly. I believe the existing precedent is appropriate. As the Anonymous IP user stated above, we need to accurately discern the difference between the senate election and the presidential election. As we see this year, the presidential election can certainly impact the senate due to the inherent structure of the chamber, but the two elections are distinct. Keeping the two elections separate can help strengthen the difference between the different branches of government, which I feel have degraded over the years, in no small part due to online and social media, where users consume information in quick bites versus the (sometimes necessary) deeper explanations. Lastly, I would like to digress that user GoodDay appears to be Canadian, as per her user page. I also exhibit a Canadian-like political culture; most of my political article editing is actually on Canadian/Westminster system pages. I have observed that Canadian/Westminster politics places much more value in precedent and tradition than does American politics. As such, the argument about precedent and logic may be moot when applied to an American political article (where American political culture should prevail). Thanx. Brycecordry (talk) 05:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, which are you arguing for? FWIW, I'm male. Furthermore, if the 2000 & 2020 US Senate elections have the 'same' type of result (whereas the winning party, doesn't assume its majority upon the opening of the new Congress, but in both cases 17-days later) then we treat both articles the same manner. GoodDay (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree. Here, Cpoticsh bolded the Democrats but I do not think we should bold either, as it is effectively a tie, only broken by the Vice President. If we are going to bold someone, it should be the Republicans by the mere virtue they have more seats, as long as we consider the independents as separate; which I think we should, since the Senate website considers them as independents, they are independents, were elected as such, their vote totals do not contribute to the Democratic Party and in theory they could caucus with the other party (in American politics-related articles, we generally consider only the party and not the coalition because that is how American politics and system works and they do not really have coalitions). I believe the "51 seats needed for a majority" qualifier (which I had to revert here in consistency with all other articles and because 50 is a tie, not a majority), the various notes and the clarifications in the lead should make clear it is bolded only to represent that they (still) have the most seats; after all, we do bold when a party wins the popular vote, even though they lost the elections and bold the party with the most seats, even if they did not gained an actual majority. For now, I removed any bolding regarding seats. Davide King (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

A tricky situation indeed, with that 17-day gap. If we're going to have Tom Daschle (D) listed at 2000 United States Senate elections infobox, as the elected majority leader? Then we must have Mitch McConnell (R) listed at 2020 United States Senate elections infobox, as the elected majority leader. Otherwise then, we use Trent Lott (R) & Chuck Schumer (D) respectively. GoodDay (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

GoodDay is right. This consistency is what I have been arguing all along, just could not think of the correct words. I personally believe that we should put Tom Daschle and Mitch McConnell for 2000 amd 2020 respectively, but I couldn't care less what ultimately is decided as long as stuff is consistent. And sorry about the incorrect pronouns. Brycecordry (talk) 17:54, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support Schumer First and McConnell Second: I make a comment about this on Talk:2000 United States Senate elections. I believed that Trent Lott should be listed first and Tom Daschle second because Dick Cheney was elected to break the tie as George W. Bush's running mate in the concurrent presidential election. I believe that in this case, Chuck Schumer should be listed first and Mitch McConnell second because Kamala Harris was elected to break the tie as Joe Biden's running mate in the concurrent presidential election. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I guess the question this discussion has come to is whether we (as Wikipedia) should write the articles according strictly to the laws and procedure (Daschle/McConnell), or whether we should ignore the procedural oddities and reflect only the final outcome (Lott/Schumer). As mentioned before, I advocate to retain existing precedent (Daschle/McConnell). According to my interpretation, the senate election is over as of January 3 when the Congress reorganizes. Whichever party controls the chamber at that time should be listed as the "winner" of the election. Even though partisan control will change only a few weeks later, that is nothing alarming as there can be other mid-session changes in control for other reasons (e.g. June 2001). These factors external to the senate and election should be noted if required but should not affect the "outcome" of the senate election. Besides, doing things this way reflects the separation of the different branches of government by keeping executive branch issues out of the article for the senate, a legislative branch institution. Brycecordry (talk) 04:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that consistency with 2000 is absolutely a secondary matter. The fundamental idea of Wikipedia is that we report what reliable sources say. We don't interpret the world ourselves. ALL reliable sources say that Democrats won control of the senate in 2020. See, , , and. The Georgia races were part of the 2020 Senate elections and the Presidential race took place on the same day in November. This is the result of the 2020 election. And as I said before, I would argue that the election of the vice president is part of the senate elections because the VP is President of the Senate. So, because there is no policy saying I should do otherwise, and because it is the unanimous consensus of reliable sources that Democrats won the senate in 2020, I am going to have the infobox say just that. We can discuss it further here, but in the meantime, the article simply has to reflect RS. Cpotisch (talk) 05:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Don't use the 2000 election being listed wrong as an excuse to list 2020 wrong. If republicans had a majority once the elections were completed in 2000, then it should list that - with clarification about the 17 days that the democrats led. Similarly, the most important thing now is that independents caucus with the democrats and as of the inauguration democrats will have the majority. Rather than leaving it wrong and pointing to 2000, fix both of them! Difbobatl (talk) 13:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

It appears that this discussion has turned into a question of generalization versus specificity, and may also be starting to involve individual users' partisan connotations. I have no real answer for this question of logic, and may be best decided by the Wikipedia higher-ups who can make a decision to formulate this sort of precedent. This way clear style-guide standards can be documented for the next time a situation like this year or 2000 happens. As such, I believe that I have little else to contribute to this discussion. I encourage a continued spirited debate around procedure and fact (not around partisan opinion) to hopefully get this question settled with the least hard feelings possible. Thanx. Brycecordry (talk) 16:54, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Majority/Minority leaders are not elected by the US Senate
IMHO we should change Elected Majority Leader to Majority Leader after election in the infobox. Truth is the only official in the US Senate who gets elected or is the somewhat equal to the House Speaker in this situation, is the President pro tempore. The US Senate doesn't elect the majority leader. He/she merely becomes majority leader, because their party has the majority of seats. GoodDay (talk) 17:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's true that, unlike e.g. the Speaker of the House, the Senate leaders aren't constitutional officers, and they aren't elected by the entire Senate. But each leader is still elected by their respective caucus, and thus it isn't inaccurate to use the term "elected majority leader". See e.g. this article Orser67 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But they're not elected to those positions by the US Senate. Therefore, the proper office in the infobox would be president pro tempore. GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Adding the Senate president pro tempore might be worth considering, but in terms of control of the Senate the Majority leader should be the position highlighted here. Changing the phrase "elected ML" to "ML after election" is fine, but it's also fine as it is. Carter (talk) 16:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Votes per party
Where are we getting the total votes for each party, as seen in the infobox? And does that include the runoffs? I want to make sure this is up to date, and update it if it's not. Thanks. Cpotisch (talk) 03:01, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, does this just count the votes in 2020/2021 or all the votes for sitting members of the senate? It's not clear. I think it is the former, which is confusing for a chart about all members of the senate. Most people would read it as a majority of votes for all the members of the senate going to republicans, which isn't true. Difbobatl (talk) 20:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Removing Independent Section
I noticed that a recent dispute on the content of the article was resolved by removing the independent column. I'd like to open this resolution to a discussion because this decision would impact the precedent of all articles on the US Senate elections since 2002 (I think), which all involved independent candidates. We need to have a unified consensus on this treatment of independents. Should we apply the new solution, to merge independents into the party with which they caucus? Or should we undo these changes and maintain the current precedent? I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I completely agree. I just wrote the same thing here. As things stand, the IP's edits should be reverted but they reverted me three times and I do not want to revert them a third time. Davide King (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I looked at exemptions to the 1RR policy and I think I would be permitted to restore the consensus because the involved editor was an IP violating consensus. I sort of teeter-tottered about whether or not I should retract the report I made at WP:AN3, but I decided to keep it. The page's remedies and restrictions must be upheld. I hope the IP discusses the changes here, edit warring honestly makes me tired. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree that independents should be counted with democrats, because they caucus with them. For the purposes of this chart the most important thing is the caucus numbers.  Difbobatl (talk) 05:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Independent's should remain their own separate column as is precedent. Any other year there is a Independent column for the Independent senators. They are not part of the Democratic Party so they should remain their own column. JayJay</b><sup style="color:black">What did I do? 04:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * With no comment on the party control issue, I agree with . Independents are not Democrats, even if they caucus with the Democrats. In all other countries, members of a larger caucus or coalition are listed as separate parties, with this coalition clearly noted in the prose of the article. I prefer that we continue this precedent. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:01, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I also agree that Independents should be in their own column (same with Libertarians, etc., if any end up serving in the House or Senate in the future). Carter (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Independents should keep their own section. Either two, can easily vote with Republicans on any bill or resolution. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

If you look at most countries, while independents may be "seperate" they are listed under a subheading with a total of the governing coalition. We have caucuses, rather than coalitions here, but the point remains. The independents should be added to the dems. The same would be true for any independents that have or will caucus with republicans - they should get added. If you want a separate column that's fine, but they should still be added in an obvious way. As per above comments, independent sources do add their numbers - on both sides of the spectrum, so this isn't biased. Difbobatl (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Chiming in to voice my agreement that the independents should keep their own section. They are not Democrats, while they do contribute to the Democrats' majority. It's an important distinction that something like an encyclopedia should be showing. I get that it can be confusing at first, but that confusion is fleeting.  The Savage  Norwegian  18:01, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe there is a misunderstanding of what "independent" is in this context. The two members being discussed caucus with the democrats, who are usually listed as having 48+2* members. For Senate organizational purposes, and definitely for determining a majority, they are part of the democrat's senate organization. The two at the center of this discussion sit as democrats on committees. The committee assignment is done by parties within their caucuses. If they didn't caucus with the dems, then it would make sense to not add their votes. Sen. Murkowski has indicated she is considering going independent, but would not caucus with the dems. In which case, she should either be part of 49+1* if she caucuses with the Republicans or a truly separate line if she does not caucus with either party - though that is unlikely, as she would then not sit on committees. Difbobatl (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

2020 United States Senate election in Louisiana
I feel like the Louisiana section needs to be completely rewritten. That, or converted back to how it was about a week ago. Originally, it talked about how Bill Cassidy had defeated Mary Landrieu in 2014, was running for reelection, and got over 50% in the jungle primary. It was also noted that shreveport mayor Adrian Perkins was endorsed by the democratic party. The bit about Cassidy defeating Landrieu should be clarified to say that he defeat her in 2014 because that’s not what it looks like right now and the bit about Perkins being endorsed by the Democratic Party also seems kind of important. SRD625 (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021
"change Due to election laws in Georgia that require candidates to win at least 50% of the vote in the general election, both races advanced to runoff elections in January 2021. Democrats won both seats, and the partisan balance in the Senate was tied for the first time since 2001 after the 2000 elections. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris's tie-breaking vote will give Democrats control of the chamber by the smallest margin possible after the new administration takes office[14]15]"

to

"change Due to election laws in Georgia that require candidates to win at least 50% of the vote in the general election, both races advanced to runoff elections in January 2021. And both Democrats won the seats with the Support and Endorsement of Stacy Abrams. the partisan balance in the Senate was tied for the first time since 2001 after the 2000 elections. Vice President-elect Kamala Harris's tie-breaking vote will give Democrats control of the chamber by the smallest margin possible after the new administration takes office[14]15]" 193.188.123.25 (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Nope. That’s improper grammar, capitalization, and punctuation, and it’s not relevant here. We don’t list the key endorsers or strategists for all the other senate races, so why should we here? Cpotisch (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed SRD625 (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Though I do think it would be fair to mention Abrams in the section specifically about the Georgia Senate elections; after all, if it hadn’t been for the voter mobilization she’s been working on for the last two years, Republicans would still have control the Senate. I agree that mentioning all of the organizers for every race is overkill, but I feel like Abrams is important enough to at least be mentioned once or twice SRD625 (talk) 00:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't take issue with talking about Abrams on the Georgia Senate election pages, but this is a broad overview article and I don't think we need to mention allies/endorsers barring some truly extraordinary circumstance. Orser67 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Very Minor Template Adjustment
Chuck Schumer has become Senate Majority leader because of John Ossoff's and Raphael Warnock's victories in the Senate runoffs in Georgia. Typically when a party secures the majority in the Senate, in the main Wikipedia template the at the time minority leader is placed on the left because of the fact they have secured the majority as a result of that year's senate elections. Right now McConnel is currently on the left side of the template, when he should be on the right since the Republicans have lost their Senate majority. Can someone please go fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:8701:7040:F91F:CAF3:4C48:1F50 (talk) 04:56, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We are currently in a discussion about this because the precedent regarding 50-50 splits is controversial. The idea behind the current order is that McConnell and the Republicans took the majority at the beginning of the Congressional Session, and that majority directly resulted from the Senate Elections. However, Democrats taking a majority would be a mid-Session change and would directly result from the Presidential Election, not the Senate Elections. It's finicky logic and I welcome you to go discuss the issue in the pertinent above talk page sections. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2021 (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) 01:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merav Ben-David.jpg

repeated linking to daily kos/gdocs
is a brand new user and I can't quite figure out what they're doing but they continue to add links to google docs as a source here as well as Daily Kos which is not considered generally reliable but they don't seem to be reversing their edits despite the breach of 1RR here (which I didn't realize, and have self reverted myself) so opening this for discussion. BEACHIDICAE🌊 18:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

reposting
My mistake. I'm new to editing Wikipedia and did not realize that I was violating a rule when repeatedly reposting an edit. Additionally, I did not realize Daily Kos was considered an unreliable source.

I understand how Daily Kos could be considered a concerning or unreliable source. In the article I'm mentioning, though, the proportions are created using election results and census data. That data is aggregated, shared, and manipulated in a google docs spreadsheet. There is a methodology page as well. So I think, despite the reputation of the website, the information of that article seems both transparent and accurate.

Additionally, there are similar edits regarding proportions to many of the US House of Representatives elections wiki pages. These edits only cite a .gov page with election statistics.

I can come up with a more detailed argument for the edit, but I just wanted to post this before I received some sort of ban. Also, sorry if I'm making some sort of error in posting this, or in how I'm detailing this post, etc.

WhatANiceDog (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

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) 22:52, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Rik Mehta.jpg

Problem with having Popular vote swing sections on the infobox
I feel that there is a serious problem with including Popular vote swing sections on the election infoboxes in US Senate elections. The core of this issue is that there are different sets of states up each cycle, and said sets have different partisan characters to them. It makes the data appear skewed based on which sets are compared.

So the math can be explained quite simply. For the class 3 Senate seats (last up in 2016) and class 1 Senate seats (last up in 2018), the states that are up are more Democratic overall than the nation as a whole by modern partisan metrics calculated based on results from Presidential elections. But the class 2 Senate seats (last up in 2020) are way more Republican overall by the same metric. So what this means is that Trump (while losing the national popular vote by 4.45 point) in 2020 actually won the Presidential vote if you leave out the states that the class 2 seats exclude, and Biden wins it by quite a bit more than the size of his national win if you leave out the states that the class 1 seats exclude. This has serious and simple implication when it comes to calculating swings in the US Senate vote. When you compare a popular vote of class 1 seats to a popular vote of class 2 seats, the class 2 seats will be produce a more Republican national tally barring a massive national opinion swing on a scale that almost never happens. There is also an issue related to uncontested seats that can skew the numbers more, especially when caused by Republicans failing to get a candidate through the top 2 primary of California, which also makes the swing seem even bigger in this case.

I have actually ran numbers myself towards figuring out the average outcome of how the popular vote likely goes in 2016, 2018, and 2020 if every state were to have a seat up, and if both Democrats and Republicans were to have a candidate in every race, and here are the results I got:

2016: Dems win by 1.77 points

2018: Dems win by 10.18 points

2020: Dems win by 3.44 points

Overall the swing still exists from 2018 to 2020 towards Republicans, but its quite clear that its far far away from being the seismic 20 plus point shift that you get from taking face value popular votes as used by the infobox in this page, and its also a misnomer to say that Republicans won the popular vote in the 2020 US Senate elections on the same metric, given that such a win was only achieved by leaving out a set of states that Democrats would have won by a huge amount.

MappedTables (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2022 (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) 05:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Mark Ronchetti.jpg