Talk:2024 United States Senate elections

Sorely tempted to...
... edit the California section to say Rep. Katie Porter is a lock for the election. Oh well... 209.166.108.199 (talk) 01:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Main Article Links
Texas has no declared candidate for election but the Main Article Link is active where as for Massachusetts and Nebraska both incumbents have declared their intentions to run for re-election and their Main Article Links just circle back to the main page. How does this get fixed? Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 05:15, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Pete Buttigieg
It states he moved to Michigan. Is there an article that says that or a tweet? Because it doesn't state on his Wikipedia or on any other page. 2600:387:F:5910:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Mike Braun
I'm totally wiki-illiterate beyond the basic typo fixes I've done sometimes, so I thought maybe someone with more skill could do this. Mike Braun has recently expressed interest in running for governor in 2024. I've seen Jim Banks and Todd Rokita, among others, mentioned as possible replacements if he does do so.2600:1700:9930:C110:3C6F:9E6E:ACF5:9DAE (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I fail to see why we should include that on the Senate elections page. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * For the same reason a possible primary challenge is mentioned for Sinema and the possibility of retirement is mentioned for Feinstein? If he ends up running for governor, then clearly he won't be running for Senator again.2600:1700:9930:C110:30D8:EAA3:58AE:7E7C (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I see that totally makes sense, sorry Przemysl15 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein
Considering a fairly prominent Democrat ran against her in 2018, there is little reason to believe that potential Democratic candidates for Senate wouldn't consider a run against her in 2024, so the "Should Feinstein retire" line in front of the potential non-Feinstein Democratic candidates should probably be removed. Atriskofmistake (talk) 01:37, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

what about the minority leader?
shouldn't there be a minority leader? (Mitch McConnell) why is he not included? Abdullah raji (talk) 10:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Number of seats up for election
I'm confused. The infobox says 34. Lead says 33. Table `Elections leading to the next Congress` has 33 entries. I'm probably missing something.DoctorCaligari (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I am assuming it is because of Nebraska's special election. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Independent vs TBD colors
The colors for races with independent candidates and races where the incumbent is to be determined are a very similar shade of gray

Could one of them possibly be changed to a more clear color Magenta + Bee (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Noun vs adjective in parentheticals
for the parentheticals after each candidate in the race summary section, does it make more sense to list the adjectival form or noun form of each candidates’ party? to my eye, listing the adjective [ eg Barbara Lee (Democratic) ] reads as much clunkier than listing the associated noun [ eg Barbara Lee (Democrat) ]. it feels more natural to how a reader would read the section [ ie. “Barbara Lee, who is a Democrat, is running”, not “Barbara Lee, who is Democratic, is running” ]. i made this change and it was reverted so wanted to bring up for discussion here. (i know misuse of the noun as an adjective [eg “Democrat Party”] is a loaded political usage, but this doesn’t seem to be a case like that]).

thoughts? Griffindaly (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Do Reliable Sources generally use the noun or the adjective? I would mirror presentation in Reliable Sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since any change to current practice would have to be implemented sitewide and not just a single article, I suggest that this discussion take place at WT:E&R or WT:USC. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

New Mexico Senate Race Image
If you click on New Mexico on the Map it redirects you to the 2024 Nevada Senate Race page could this possibly be fixed? Zepo123 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not just New Mexico; nearly all of the links point to the wrong state article. The links for the map are in a template within a template within a template.  It is probably a bug in the code and/or involves a complicated fix. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem appears to have been fixed, though I'm not sure how. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Gloria Johnson + Tennessee Three
This goes for the main page for the Tennessee Senate race too, but can we all just leave "a member of the Tennessee Three" as a part of Gloria Johnson's description. Any other wording that I have seen put forward is clunky, derails from the topic of the page, and confuses readers (I.e. "avoided expulsion by one vote"). That section is not meant to go into detail about the Tennessee Three, nor is it meant to diminish the situation by making it seem as a random part of her congressional career. I believe simply leaving it as a member of the Tennessee Three serves best as a way to highlight her gun reform solidarity while not making it sound out of place or random. Flames675 (talk) 03:00, 6 August 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't understand how writing that Representative Johnson is a member "who avoided expulsion by one vote" confuses readers, being that the term is specific to what event she was involved, and the title of the Wikipedia page (2023 Tennessee House of Representatives expulsions) about that event.
 * The only way I think a reader would be confused is if the link states that she was "a member of the Tennessee Three" is for an article that doesn't include that term in the title. The only article on Wikipedia that uses that title is about Johnny Cash's famous backing band. The sentence doesn't go into detail about why the motion to expel was voted upon, nor does it derail from the topic of the page. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * We link to a page that you also linked to in your argument that talks about the situation, so readers who are confused by the name can click the link to read more about it, so I don't see how the Johnny Cash argument works. I have full faith in readers to figure out the situation even if the title is not verbatim the same as what the hyperlink says. I still believe given the reasons above (clunky, off topic, etc) that "avoided expulsion by one vote" is too off topic for this page, and it diminishes the situation as well by summarizing a big topic (again, we have a whole page on this situation) into five words. While one could argue that "Tennessee Three" might do the same thing, it still allows readers to have an open mind going into the page when learning more about it. Flames675 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how writing that she avoided expulsion by one vote is "clunky" or "diminishes the situation," being that it accurately and concisely describes what the event was, and maintains consistency with the relevant article's title. I also don't understand how writing the sentence that way is "off topic" or prevents readers from having "an open mind going into the page" being that the expulsion vote is the central subject of the article and the sentence ("who avoided expulsion by one vote") uses nonjudgmental language. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Map of Incumbents Key Backwards?
Unless I'm missing something, the key for the "Map of Incumbents" is backwards.

California, Maryland, Delaware, Michigan, and Indiana all have retiring incumbents, but are darker shades of the party color. The remaining states without known incumbent retirements are the lighter shade of party color. The map key has the lighter shade denoted as "incumbent retiring" and the darker shade as "incumbent."

Should the key be edited or should the image be edited? Geistbar (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * At least on my end, the darker shade is listed as "incumbent retiring" and the lighter shade is "incumbent". ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 08:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinion polls?
Shouldn't there be a section on opinion polls, showing e.g. the results of generic ballot polls? 11:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 159.86.201.134 (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Manchin retiring
https://www.npr.org/2023/11/09/1211907129/joe-manchin-retire Can someone please update the map to make WV dark blue? I tried to do so but apparently don't have the permissions to change the file. Jfruh (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Someone has already requested an exception to allow overwriting of the file on Commons. I can understand why they implemented the change for normal files, but they need to make a blanket exception for election maps like these, because this completely throws a wrench into how we're used to dealing with these maps. OutlawRun (talk) 20:33, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Significant Differences From Ballotpedia
I live in Nebraska and used Ballotpedia for my address. Since all the differences I am commenting on are statewide, I do not have to say where in Nebraska I am. For the regular Senate election:

Ballotpedia: Republican incumbent Deb Fischer, Democrat Michael Janulewicz, and Democrat Preston Love Jr. Wikipedia: Republican incumbent Deb Fischer, Republican Arron Kowalski, and Independent Dan Osborn

For the special Senate election:

Ballotpedia: Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts and Republican John Glen Weaver Wikipedia: Republican incumbent Pete Ricketts, Republican John Glen Weaver, Democrat Preston Love Jr., and Democrat Tom Newbold

Of the six non-incumbent candidates on one or both sites, only John Glen Weaver is on both sites for the same election. Preston Love Jr. is listed for different elections. Wikipedia links to https://sos.nebraska.gov/elections/information-candidates which Wikipedia says is a "Nebraska Statewide Candidate List," but it isn't. It is a page for candidates with things like forms to file, but does not say anything about who the candidates are.

On another note, I suggest that next to each race it should have a column saying if the filing deadline has passed for all candidates, Democrats and Republicans but not write-ins/Independents/third parties that sometimes have a later filing deadline, or passed for no candidates, so that it is possible to know if there can be more candidates. Once all the filing deadlines pass, the column could be deleted. EvanJ35 (talk) 01:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell
We need to change Tennessee to red in the map, because reliable sources are reporting Mitch McConnell is retiring. 2603:7000:9C02:90F9:44E:557F:E484:344 (talk) 23:45, 28 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Oh, never mind, he’s retiring as Leader only. 2603:7000:9C02:90F9:44E:557F:E484:344 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Plus, McConnell represents Kentucky, not Tennessee. PrusBis6187 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Independent American the Same as American Independent?
There is normally a link to a page for a third party the first time it appears on a page. California has an American Independent candidate with a link for that party. Utah has two Independent American candidates without a link. Are these different parties, or are they one party with one of the names needing to be changed? EvanJ35 (talk) 16:59, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox Independent Color
In the infobox I have seen the normal Independent grey be used, but as of my comment it is changed back to the vanilla color, is there even a reason we need to use that color? Obviously this isnt the place to discuss whether that template should exist, but more to question why it is used in the first place, given there is no functional, legal, cultural, or partisan difference between someone who lacks a party affiliation in the US and in other countries around the world? Talthiel (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

NJ shading on the map
Heya folks, what color do we think we should make New Jersey now that Menendez is not running as a Democrat, but may run as an independent? He's not *currently* an independent, nor is he not seeking reelection. I think our options are these:


 * Keep it pale blue, incumbent running. That may be *technically* true but it's confusing.
 * Change to dark blue, incumbent retiring. That may not be quite what is happening. With this change we could change the wording on the key to indicate something like "incumbent not pursuing election as a Democrat" if that's what is indeed happening. Idk how to word that concisely.
 * Add an asterisk to the map, with a note explaining the situation. I can't find the file in question, but I'm pretty sure we've used asterisks before.

What are our thoughts? I think since the news is that he is definitely not running as a dem but *may* run as an independent we just change to dark blue and deal with the rest as it happens, but if anyone has other ideas lmk!  The Savage  Norwegian  16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I've changed it to dark blue for now btw.  The Savage  Norwegian  18:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I think this is definitely the right call. But I feel like we should put in an asterisks or a note of some kind (it's confusing that the shading shows he is retiring but in the big box with all the races it shows (incumbent's intent unknown). If we go with a note, we should put it in both the map and the big box if possible. Epicradman123 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * By big box, I mean the one in the change in composition section. Also I misspoke, NJ is currently listed as Undeclared, as opposed to incumbent's intent unknown. Epicradman123 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Manchin caucus
As soon as we have word that Joe Manchin is continuing to caucus with the Senate Democrats we need to update the infobox citation (which is currently out of date). Personally, I take it as a given that he will, because he'd be kicked off his committee assignments otherwise, but Wikipedia is not a WP:CRYSTALBALL.  The Savage  Norwegian  15:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Side note, it's still a point of contention whether Sinema caucuses with the Democrats, but she de facto does, so that's good enough for us.  The Savage  Norwegian  16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Washington Post article today explicitly says he will still caucus with Democrats. My hesitation comes from pages that still say Sinema doesn't caucus with Democrats like |over here at Inside Elections where it says "Senate Outlook: Democrats have a 50-49-1 majority with two independents (King and Sanders) caucusing with Democrats and Sinema not caucusing with either party. Republicans likely to gain 1-3 seats" I know it's in certain Independent candidates best interest to pretend that they don't caucus with Democrats, but you have to be in one of the caucuses to get committee seats, so we shouldn't always take candidate's word on this as seriously as their actions.  The  Savage  Norwegian  00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Menendez Independent Bid
Currently, NJ is shaded light gray on the map. However, Menendez did not actually switch his party affilation and elsehwere on this page he is still listed as a Democrat. Should the shading be light blue to show that a Democrat is running? Maybe add an asterisk that it is a third party bid? Thoughts? GigachadGigachad (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Though Menendez is still a Democrat, he is running as an independent (for now anyway), so I think this is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think the correct way to do it is to shade NJ grey and put the independent count at 4 (as it is now) RickStrate2029 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree? He is currently a Democrat, and is running as an Independent. So everything referring to the current state of affairs should number him as a Democrat amongst the Democrats, but on something like the map, which shows who is running and as what, I'm tempted to have it colored gray, with perhaps add an asterisk or something. I think our closest comparable race is 2006 United States Senate elections, where Joe Liberman ran as third party after losing his primary. It looks like the image they were using before that election had Connecticut labelled blue, not independent. (File:2006 Senate election map.png) I'm of two minds about whether our current incumbency map is more about the present or the future though. I think that's where we're running into difficulty.  The Savage  Norwegian  19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * If we are listing him as a Democrat everywhere else on the page, we should list him as a Democrat on the map, too. The map caption for these maps labels light blue as "Democratic incumbent running," and that is exactly what he is. He is an incumbent, a member of the Democratic Party, and he is running for re-election (for now). Labeling him as an independent on the map would be confusing. I could be convinced that there should be an asterisk, but he should definitely not be colored as an independent on the map. OutlawRun (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)