Talk:2006 United States House of Representatives elections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notable Races

I removed the statement concerning the election to replace the near iconic Marchi helping mobilize Staten Island's Republican vote and thus ensure Fossella's re-election, because it won't. If anything it partitions the party.

Marchi handpicked his chief of staff and former Staten Island Republican Party chairman Robert Helbock to be his successor, but councilman Andrew Lanza has decided to run as well. Helbock already has the Conservative party nomination and has said he would run under that banner in November even if he loses the Republican primary to Lanza. Helbock despite being an insider, doesn't have much of a base and is expected to lose to Lanza. If Helbock manages to prevent Lanza from getting 40 percent of the vote in the general election, the once long shot Democratic candidate Matt Titone could sneak in with an upset.

The openly gay son of a prominent Staten Island judge, Titone was originally drafted to be the sacrificial lamb against Marchi, and many expected him to lose 80-20. By the time he formerly accepted the nomination however, Marchi decided to retire and suddenly because of lack of Republican unity, Titone has more than a fighting chance at replacing Marchi. 24.168.108.195

Removing NY'13th district from the list of competitive races, which I restored was an act of partisan vandalism. This is a highly competitive race despite the editors removing and stating that its not.

Without even factoring in recent media coverage of campaign finance misdeeds and use of tax payer money for promotional mailings by the incumbent Fossella, this probably going to the closest race Vito has had to face.

Fossellla won by only 33,000 votes in 2004 in a presidential election year, which usually yields 40 percent greater turnout than in off years. All things being equal (and there are many variables that indicate all things are not equal such a Bush's low approval ratings) the margin shrinks 20,000. Despite low voter turnout even in presidential years, there are 500,000 adults 18+ residing in the district, which means a 20,000 vote margin is not difficult to overcome if some of the non voting 330,000 turnout. If the negative media coverage continues, Fosella may be in serious trouble.

I am going to fix this article into what it was meant for, competitive races and not their primaries. This means that not every state will be represented because not all races are competitive.72.84.30.102 07:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

State Organization

I believe that this page and the U.S. Senate election, 2006 would be much better organized by alpha state. Any comments? --Noitall 03:15, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

I approve. - The Kooky One 00:09, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I also agree, but I'm wondering if we can create a page that is a complete list of all 435 races. This page is good for open seats and notable races, but we need somewhere people can go for a complete list. Chadlupkes 01:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I'll start it myself. I'm going to follow the pattern from the 2004 elections, and create a page that can be renamed or merged with the existing article after the election is over. I'm going to copy over the 2004 list, and start to modify it with those election results. I'll probably need some help with that  :) Chadlupkes 00:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Not a daily news source

This article is not a news source. We don't need to have every minor tracking poll listed. Wikinews is more appropriate for daily tracking polling.

"There are lies, damned lies and statistics." Mark Twain

--8bitJake 19:28, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed.

Virginia's 11th district

Please note: The information about Virginia's 11th district is misleading; the race won't be competitive as Davis is highly popular and Longmeyer is considered an idiot even by democrats. Just look at his election margins in other years. Noting this, I suggest deletion.-A Fairfax, VA resident —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.106.127.101 (talk • contribs)

A poll might be helpful, but you make a good point. --Ajdz 05:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed it after no other response to the original (1-29) note for over a month. --Ajdz 04:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to constant pressure from contender Andrew Hurst[1], Davis is starting to sweat. He and his wife showed up at an Equality Virginia " (gay rights group)event--something highly unusual for either of them. Hurst continues to hammer Davis on ethics, or, rather, Davis's lack of them, with points such as, "We’ve all grown tired of a Congress that lacks any degree of accountability. In so many ways, Tom Davis has come to embody a sloppy and uncontrollable Republican majority—whether he is seeking to protect Tom Delay from legitimate inquires or whether he is threatening Major League Baseball simply because a Democratic fundraiser tried to purchase the Nationals." This strong candidate has, as of the end of March, raised more money than any previous challenger's entire campaign. He also has over 150 dedicated, energetic volunteers, and more signing on each week. Andrew has also received a remarkable amount of press coverage, and has Davis asking, "Who is this Hurst fella?" In addition, Davis' formerly broad support appears to be waning as he scrambles to distance himself from the Bush scandals. Tom Davis is in trouble, thanks to Andrew Hurst. It is time to put VA's 11th Congressional District back in the "races to watch" category! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.22.55 (talk • contribs)

Recent FEC fundraising totals:

Davis, Thomas M. III-R $1,574,264

Hurst, Andrew L.-D $104,099

Longmyer, Kenneth-D $51,892

Davis won his last election by 21 points. You'll need something more than how excited his opponent is. --Ajdz 03:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Terri Schiavo as Rorschach Test

I added this article to the Category:Terri Schiavo and User:Marskell removed it. Terri Schiavo is an excellent tool for studing the candidates, but User:Marskell, who is a Canadian, would prefer that we U.S. citizens vote in ignorance. I am adding the category back in and I expect the admins to intervene and stop this crazy man if he continues to destroy my work. I note that, while a Canadian citizen, he prefers to live in country that does not know Democracy. Perhaps his time over there has effected his judgement in some adverse way. -- Pinktulip 14:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I, an American citizen and registered voter, do not think that this article should be in the Schiavo category. Let individuals or institutions related to that affair be in the category, but not a future event. I will remove this article from the category. It seems to me that your POV regarding Canada and regarding American politics may be affecting your actions in this matter. NatusRoma 01:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Under duress, I came up with a more creative, and condescending solution for which you have no reasonable means of resistance: Category:Terri Schiavo minor players . -- 71.198.189.137 04:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Condescension is hardly appropriate here. Nor is Wikipedia a place for "Rorschach Tests". The involvement of politicians such as Frist and DeLay in the Schiavo case is noted in their articles. Including this article in a Schiavo-related category presumes via a crystal ball that her case will prove to be a major issue in these elections. That cannot be effectively judged until after the fact, and original research cannot be what leads us to include it before or after. NatusRoma 04:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I want the extra functionality of STARTING at the Terri Schiavo page and then browsing to the other people. Kinda of like that review of Watergate that the Washington Post did with all those profiles. In politics, you start with the ISSUE, and then you hunt down the PEOPLE who DID anything about the issue. Not all, but a LOT of it works that way because it is ISSUES that get traction, drag a lot of people into them and go kablooy. Like the way Terry Schiavo attracted all those religious, right-wing politicians to make fools of themselves with them passing unconstitutional laws and whatnot. -- Pinktulip 07:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly valuable, but it is not a valid function for this encyclopedia. Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case has links to the prominent figures involved if you want a place to start. NatusRoma 21:39, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Vand Edits from 24.164.148.158

A non registered user from 24.164.148.158 is hell bend on taking out text and is being disingenuous with his edits with claiming that his is not taking text out. I suggest locking the article for a while. --8bitJake 00:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Speculation and POV

Fair Balance

Democrats being perceived as being weak on security is a valid reason for possible Republican wins. This fact should not be edited out.24.164.148.158 23:33, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Current Speculation"

The "Current Speculation" section is horribly written and unencyclopedic. I suggest that it should be deleted, but for now I'm going to move it to the end of the article so it doesn't get in the way of the actually useful information. --Ajdz 05:06, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest there needs to be something somewhere about major factors that might influence the parties and election, however I don't know where it should go. 68.39.174.238 08:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's better at the end so people get to the actual races first. Another concern with this page is the fact that it is more than twice the recommended article length. Currently: "This page is 73 kilobytes long. This may be longer than is preferable; see article size." I'd try to cut some of it back but I don't want to deal with the misplaced outrage from editors attached to their favorite parts of the litany of POV attacks. --Ajdz 05:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I can see leaving it @ the end with a link somewhere in the heading to it. I've done some work adding citation signal tags to the (vast majority) of speculations that need them and formatting the ones that have them. Personally I'm not so strongly annoyed by its presence, just its near total lack of backing up. 68.39.174.238 13:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Neutral?

This article seems a little too left-leaning. Does anyone have some thoughts about this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Yves (talk • contribs)

The "Current speculation" section is definitely bad, as I noted above. It so poorly written as to hardly be worth fixing. The rest is probably a result of the leanings of the editors. It is far easier to trash a candidate than to come up with anything good (or to recognize unencyclopedic trash if you're not from the district). --Ajdz 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes i totally agree- that section is very poorly and biasedly writen and I wonder if it is even worth working on. This is supposed to be a source of information though, not a political blog so I might work on fixing it up over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Yves (talk • contribs)

Good luck. --Ajdz 06:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been researching and thinking a lot about this lately and I think that this section should be totally removed. In addition to being inaccurate, it is inappropriate for what is supposed to be an enclyclopedia. Also, the word "current" seems to convey the intentions or a need to frequently update this section, which isn't happening. Lastly, who is to say how or even if any of the items listed will affect voters? It may seem like common knowledge that some of these will have a certain affect on voters, but an encycolpedia would not have such a section within it. If some one is really set on having this type of information availible on Wikipedia why don't they create a section something like: "events of 2005 and 2006 influence on voters in the 2006 midterm election"( kind-of a long title but the contents could be something to that affect.)?

I hope I am not standing alone in saying that this section should be removed. Eveyone who works on this and other pages needs to be dedicated to making useful and appropriate information availible in an encyclopedic way, not to attempting to make a subtle political movement on an online information resource. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betty Yves (talk • contribs)

It is definitely questionable, and to be complete it would have to be far too long for the article. After all, all politics are local. I initially moved it from the beginning to the end so that it wouldn't get away of the truly useful information, but with the article already more than twice the recommended size (currently 79k) something should go. --Ajdz 04:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by User:Adjz to comment on my recent reversion. Upon further review, I have no problem with the edit. It appears as though the edit was made after discussion on the talk page. I was doing RC patrol and noticed that a huge chunk of text was taken out of the article (a signature of vandalism). The edit was also made by an edit without a user page (another signature) with very few edits (yet another signature). On top of that, there was no edit summary regarding the rationale for the change, considering the text removed appeared to be significant to the article's content (signature #4). Usually, when there are four signs of vandalism, as there were in that case, that means it is vandalism. Unfortunately, that was not the case in this incident. Feel free to remove the content if that is what you see fit (although an edit summary would be helpful to those looking through the history in the future). joturner 04:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I do apologize, my actions were not appropriate. If you, joturner, visit this discussion again soon, please realize that I have determined this section to be totally unencyclopedic and in violation of several of the Pillars, so I had deleted it. I am going out-of-town in the morning and will not return until the 26th of this month, so I will follow-up then. I am going to delete this section again, and while I am gone I strongly encourage discussion as well as action as to the appropriation and preferably permanent removal of this section from the article.

Current Speculation

There has been discussion lately about the appropriateness of this section. I will be going out-of-town for the next 5 days, but in my absence I highly encourage the frequent editors of this section to realize the need (and act upon it) to permanently remove this section. Its existence violates:

 NPOV (nuetral point of view)

- No one can truly say how or even if the listed items will affect voters

Types of bias include:

Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism. Corporate bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media. Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions. Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party or candidate. Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others. Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings. Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

The presence of this section is biased on several of the basses listed above

Wikipedia articles are not:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.

This article is adversely some ones' political movement.

Please permanently honor my deletion of this section of the article.

It's impossible to "permanently honor" anyones edits to anything, barring extraordinary intervention (Which has happened probably less then 5 times total). 68.39.174.238 07:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The need for SOME commentary on influences

I appreciate the last attempt at that was riddled with citation(-needed) signals, but since we list the possible local influences for "notable" races, there should be a corresponding discussion of the global (I.E. Nacional) influences on this election. I'm going to re-add the properly cited "speculations" with a more neutral tone (Hopefully avoiding the word "speculation" ;)). 68.39.174.238 07:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Avoiding the word "speculation" doesn't prevent it from becoming that. --Ajdz 16:50, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Still though, this whole page is full of little else besides the same thing at district levels: speculation. If you want this articel to have non of it, then it should probably list EVERY race in EVERY district, and mention nothing besides who'se running for it. Since noone seems to have problems with the localize speculation (Enough to remove it), I'm still interesting in knowing how a more global (In this case, country-wide) picture can be painted without violating peoples tastes. 68.39.174.238 02:02, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of the local speculation should probably be removed too, but it is hard for people outside of the individual districts to tell how valid it is. Usually it seems to be something like whether a candidate's comments on some issue are actually causing controversy or if it is just coming from the opposition. National speculation is another step away from the race.

Among other things, the fact that the U.S. has district elections instead of proportional representation works against national speculation. There doesn't seem to be a precise formula for including races here, but in practice it has been something like open seats, races where the incumbent was only elected narrowly, and races where local events have made the race notable. Something like 97% of incumbents are normally reelected, making inclusion of all races unnecessary.

I would also compare this article to United States Senate elections, 2006 and United States gubernatorial elections, 2006 - neither of which have the litany of one-sided attacks that developed in this article. --Ajdz 05:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Granted, your comment on single member pluralities does have a strong point, however I'm still in favor of a legitimate (I.E. Not "one sided" as you put it) summarization of overreaching nacional "political winds"; unfortunately the original attempt to do so in this articel was derailed by poor citation and even poorer inclusion(s). 68.39.174.238 05:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the plurality rule does not undermine national trends. Political scientists have known since the 70s that national trends (especially presidential popularity and economic growth rates) have an exceptionally strong correlation with national swings. See especially the work by Tufte (on Google Scholar). Turns out that there's a good reason for the correlation: Whichever party the national trends favor has a much better time recruiting candidates and raising funds, while the unfavored party has no such luck. (See Jacobson's The Politics of Congressional Elections, and also Kernell and Jacobson's Strategy and Choice in Congressional Elections.) Don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I just finished some intense exams about this for my graduate program. Along the lines of making (national) speculations, these books provide excellent data for making informed predictions about what will happen in November. Unfortunately, making such a prediction requires plugging in current data into their historical models; the predictions aren't included in these books. As such, I have included a reference (in the "Summary" section) to a PhD student who has been making these predictions based on the books I just listed. The reference is to his website, though the data (as mentioned on his site and in the reference) is based on the analyses in these books. 71.154.210.210 23:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, state level?

OK, while the nacional level section has been voted down (For now, I suspect it'll revive as October approaches), what about state levels? I'm thinking of Ohio: It is/was a "swing-state", however the fact that its representation is more Republican then not and that said party is currently involved in scandals at the state level (See Coingate and Bob Taft) is probably important enough to be mentioned. I suggest the following:

Races in Ohio are likely to be extra-competitive as the majority of Representatives from that state are from the Ohio Republican Party, which is currently involved in "Coingate" and Bob Taft's convicted underreporting of lobbyist gifts.

Suggestions? I think we'd all rather agree on it beforehand then editwar over it. Thanx again. 68.39.174.238 03:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

That would make more sense if Ohio had it's own article (like Maryland Congressional election, 2006). I'd be against including that here for two reasons: 1. this article is already more than twice the recommended length and 2. even statewide issues don't necessarily have a significant impact on local races (guilt by association isn't going to take down a congressman who won his last election by 40 points).

In Ohio, a recent poll shows Taft's approval ratings down to 6.5%, but Republicans in general even with or ahead of Democrats. The quick overview would leave things like that out. --Ajdz 06:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I notice any references to Corzine's fiscal meltdown in Nj are airbrushed out, while the impact of Eliot Spitzer's expected landslide is left in and Bob Taft's scandals are left in, too. If wikipedia wants to be taken seriously, such one sided partisan editing can't occur. If a state level event is good for the Dems it is as newsworthy as one which is bad for the Democrats. and if a state financial disaster is irrelevant, please explain the 1990 NJ senate election

Tom Cole

Ajdz,

It wouldn't bother me if the Hitler thing was removed. The prior edit was inflammatory and inaccurate in my opinion, so I figured I would make it acceptable to those who might feel its necessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Montco (talk • contribs)

Thanks, your revision[2] was an definitely improvement. I just went beyond that after reading the details in the Cole article. I'm not sure if Cole should even be mentioned in this article without an opponent. --Ajdz 00:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Lewis

I'm not entirely sure I see how he deserves to be on the "vulnerable incumbents" list, as a long time resident of Lake Arrowhead, planted firmly in the 41st district, I've heard nothing that hints at his being vulnerable. Can I get any justification for his being on the list? Imdugud 22:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Do you know what the unsourced claim of "misconduct" is? The Abramoff reference is probably dubious as well. --Ajdz 00:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me like the original points were lifted from a Daily Kos post here [3] and I've heard no connections to Abramoff. The "major" opponent's website is rather scant, [4], with its last update in early December of 2005, and I see very few references to him on the web, aside from a Daily Kos posting or two and a short DCCC action page [5]. Considering the sheer size of the "Inland Empire," the length of the incumbent's term of service, and how very Republican the area has been for many years, I see no current evidence for even a close election.Imdugud 01:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and delete it since no one is stepping forward to give good reasons for this to be a vulnerable seat. --Ajdz 06:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Influences

I tried to rewrite but ultimately removed this section because it doesn't seem to say anything relevant.

Influences
Since the only nationally directly elected office in the United States is that of the President (Who still has two more years of his term), much of the influences of the outcomes of the races is based on a state level for Senators, and regional/district level for Representants. In sparsely populated states such as Wyoming or Vermont, this IS the state.

It could be summed up as "Statewide races are influenced by statewide issues." Is there something we need here, maybe to explain better to people that aren't very familiar with American elections? --Ajdz 06:54, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Morelike "Races are determined more by local or at most state issues rather then national issues because all Federal legislators are constituency based." (Rather then say, party list proportional). That and the "all 435 are up" would make a pretty fair summary for this page. 68.39.174.238 05:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Mergefrom United States House election, 2006 complete list proposed

It should be merged here under the new section heading, "Complete List".—Markles 12:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Only if all the content and commentary in United States House elections, 2006 is deleted. Both articles are already excessively long (United States House elections, 2006 - 79k) (United States House election, 2006 complete list - 78k, not including district maps). --Ajdz 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. All the speculative stuff will be eliminated after the election, anyway. The maps can be deleted now, and a link to List of United States congressional districts provided instead.—Markles 15:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the length of the pages as well. I originally created the complete list page to help us put it together, with the intention of switching 'complete list' with this page, and this page to an archive or comment page about the important elections on this page. Chadlupkes 02:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think there is great value in having separate articles, one that lists all races in a table and one that gives summaries of some of the more interesting races. Each is of interest to a different audience, and there is no benefit to having them in one huge article.--RichardMathews 19:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Chad and Richard. There is great utility to keeping the pages separate. It may be worth discussing how they are named, though. -Pete 20:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

New York races

I propose eliminating NY-227 from the list of notable races. No Republicans or Independents have yet stepped forward to challange Higgins and almost all area Republicans who could launch a serious race this late in the year have publicly denied runs. If there are no comments to the contrary, I plan to delete NY-27 by the end of May.

Also, I feel that NY-19 is worthy of inclusion. Unless someone more worthy than I steps forward to write it, I guess I'll do it.

Cheers CJS56

Incumbents

What I would like to see is a simple list showing which candidates are standing down in 2006 Harry Hayfield 18:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry, such a list would be easy to compile from United States House elections, 2006 complete list. There is a column that lists whether the incumbent is running in each district; if not, it says "Retiring", "Running for Senate", etc. -Pete 20:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I corrected NJ 7. Neither Gore or Kerry won the district.(See 2006 Almanac of American Politics) Ferguson may be in some level of trouble as the GOP margin for error is slim, but let's leave history alone.

Once again, someone is adding hanging chads and pretending Kerry won NJ 7. Wishing won;t make it so

More inacurruate NJ voting statistics were posted. I se the 2006 Almanac of American Politics for voting states. Not the Moveon.org website

Open races?

It says that there are 30 open races, but I can only find 29: Jim Kolbe, Bill Thomas, Joel Hefley, Bob Beauprez, Michael Bilirakis, Jim Davis, Katherine Harris, Ed Case, C.L. Otter, Henry Hyde, Lane Evans, Jim Nussle, Ben Cardin, Martin Sabo, Mark Kennedy, Tom Osborne, Jim Gibbons, Major Owens, Sherwood Boehlert, Michael G. Oxley, Ted Strickland, Sherrod Brown, Ernest Istook, Bill Jenkins, Harold Ford Jr., Bernard Sanders, Mark Green; and two vacant seats. Am I missing someone out? Jack Daw 17:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Jack Daw, I think the thirty is a leftover from when the California-50 was open awaiting the special election to replace Randy "Duke" Cunningham. I could be wrong though. User:CJS56

Why is South Dakota listed?

Does anyone really consider this race (at-large seat) to be at all competitive? Here's the biography of the Republican candidate, running against a very popular Democratic incumbent. Seems like a slam-dunk, and thus not a race to be listed (the page needs shortening, yes?). John Broughton 21:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, hearing nothing, I've deleted it. John Broughton 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Problem With Description

Richard Pombo's district description is incorrect, "The eleventh district is located in the San Joaquin Valley well east of the San Francisco Bay Area, and leans Republican." A portion includes the cities of Danville, Dublin, Pleasanton, and San Ramon which are all considered Bay Area Cities. It's shown here. http://www.house.gov/pombo/district/district.htm - Another map showing it's location relative to the bay is here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CA_11thCD_clip.png User:BRivera

Why is Florida 4th listed?

I have never heard this district being circulated as a target by Democrats. Additionally the added commentary has nothing to do with the 2006 Elections. At the very least it should be cleaned up. Massrepublican 27 July 2006

Alligators will ballroom dance before the Democrats win this district or Texas 2nd. I notice someone revmoved PA 12. Now I suspect Murtha will win that seat, and perhaps by a wide plurality, but it is a far more interesting race than some unknown Netroots guy running a hopeless race in a 65% opposition party district on party line talking points. Diane Irey is certainly drawing national media attention from the right side of the spectrum. But does that matter here?

Alright, I suspect it was just anti-Crenshaw properganda. Im going ahead and removing it. --Massrepublican 16:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

So who wants to add back PA 12 to the list?

FWIW, CQ Politics rates FL-4 as "safe GOP", and PA-12 as "safe Dem". [6] -- Sholom 04:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I would argue PA 12 is "notable" because of the incumbent being prominent and a credible opponent (i.e. a local officeholder) stepping up.

Fossella race (Staten Island, NY)

Karlhungus21 has been trolling and pro-Fossella vandalising anything critical of the Staten Island Congressman and leaving only pablum. He removes references to the on going NY Daily News, which is among the largest circ Newspapers in the country, expose on Fossella ethics violations, with the latest piece running on 8/13. His ethics violations have also been covered by the NY Times, Staten Island Advance, NY 1, CNN.com. The ethics charges against Fossella could affect the Congressional race.--24.168.108.195 09:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Here's the text you want in, that he wants out:

A recent New York Daily News[7] weeklong expose on alleged Fossella campaign finance and constituent mailing rule violations should help Harrison in what has long been a Republican stronghold despite having more registered Democrats than Republicans. However, many of the registered Democrats are Democrats In Name Only (DINOS) who generally vote Republican.

If you had a BETTER link(s) than just one to the newspaper in general, then people could look and see if what you are saying is substantiated. Citing the paper's home page ISN'T providing a verifiable source. Technically speaking, you're putting negative information about a living person into an article without providing a (detailed) URL, which is a violation of wikipedia policy; that policy calls for immediate removal of the negative information. If you get into a revert war over this, by the way, you lose - removing negative info doesn't count toward a 3RR violation.

The other problem with what you want to insert is that your claim about DINOS really requires a citation, which you've not provided. Otherwise, this is just your personal opinion, a violation of wikipedia's policy against no original research.

When you can provide adequately sourced info, you should get a lot more support from others. John Broughton 12:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Text inserted by someone named Mass Republican cann not be NPV. There is no link to the CQ rating of the ditrict, which merly parrots ill informed conventional wisdom concerning this race, which is highly competive because of a variety of factors. 1. Fossella scandals. 2. Negative public opinion concerning Bush and Iraq. 3. Greater traditional media and blogospherE coverage of this race than any other for this seat since Fossella took over Susan Molinari's seat. 4. Fossella won by only 33,000 votes in 2004 against a candidate that was invisible on Staten Island in a presidential election year which traditionally means 40 percent greater voter turnout in the district. All things being equal (and there are many factors favoring more democratic gains)his margion shrinks to 20,000, not a large deficit in a district with 500,000 adults over 18. --24.168.108.195 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

And if these aren't sourced well, nothing can be claimed. The link to the CQ rating is at the top of the article where the various rating systems are discussed, and, I double-checked, they have the race down properly reported here on this page. Making a big fuss over this is going to do nothing good other than make you seem like a zealot, well-intentioned or not. Hate to say it, but most of what we have to work with is "conventional wisdom" - most non-conventional wisdom is often original research, wishful thinking, or with a certain POV axe to grind. -Souperman 06:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Congressional Quarterly still doesn't explain its logic for describing the district as safe, when there's a ton of evidence contradicting this. If my evidence from census data, past election data, current polls indicating Bush unpopularity, the blogosphere doesn't qualify as proper sources, then CQ citations should have its picks subject tot he same criteria before citing it as gospel and thus causing prejudice against the viability of the Harrison campaign.--24.168.108.195 10:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Deleted CQ rating. I don't care if CQ is an unbiased source, this is Wikipedia not Congressional Quarterly and their race assessment should include an explanation for their predictions. Otherwise it is prejudicial against Harrison and such prejudice has a habit of becoming self fulfilling prophecy. Stop reinstating the CQ rating unless you can include a link to not just the rating but an actual justification from CQ for their rating. There are many sources out there that think the 13th isn't safe Republican.24.168.108.195 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Fine, then put some of these "many sources" in the article and attribute them - if done right and with the right sources, this can be done without violating NPOV. However, realize that CQ typically does know what they're talking about (and notice that none of the other reports have this race in play, either). Being an edit warrior doesn't help things at all - improve the encyclopedia instead of simply blanking things you don't like, especially properly sourced non-partisan reports. We've reached consensus that the ratings, where applicable, are to be put at the end of each race, and fighting against that consensus is going to do nothing but get you banned again. -Souperman 21:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What consensus? The CQ ratings are a relatively new addition to this section. Although I agree that Congressional Quarterly is an objective publication (I've received the last couple of issues by mail although I don't remember signing up for a trial subscription) its race predictions aren't necessarily so. Until I see someone show CQ's justification of its rating I will not allow it. And you should be banned for vandalism, not me, for making this the CQ guide to Congressional races. Start a separate entry if that's what you want. I would gladly accept the CQ rating as gospel if they can counter the following facts.

1. Fossella is scandal ridden, with his campaign finance violations be covered by The Staten Island Advance, NY Daily News, New York Times, NY1 (NYC 24 hour cable news station)MSNBC's the Most and CNN.com

2. The Staten Island Republican party is broken into 2 factions; Fossella and his supporters and the Molinari/Molinaro wing (although borough president James Molinaro is technically a not a Republican, but a conservative). Although Guy Molinari is a former Fossella mentor and Vito replaced his daughter in this Congressional seat, the two now hate each other's guts. The two factions run rival candidates in primaries such as Marchi's vacant state Senate seat and Molinari was rumored to have been the Daily News's Deep Throat for his travel related scandal.

The animosity between the two camps has risen to the point where members of the rival faction publicly stated that they wouldn't support Fossella this November in the Staten Island Advance letters to the editor section.

3. Fossella took a private poll and refuses to release its results. If the results weren't much closer than expected he'd release the poll.

4. Fossella won by 33,000 votes in 2004, a presidential election year. District voter turn out is typically 40 percent greater in presidential election years. This means expected turnout in non-presidential 2006 should be 40 percent lower. All things being equal (and my next point will explain why they're not)Fossella's margin is reduced 40 percent to 20,000, not a large amount in a district with 500,000 adults 18+ (granted only about 70 percent were registered as of 2005).

5. Public dissatisfaction with Bush and Iraq has helped Democratic candidates nationwide, so the trend is Democratic.24.168.108.195 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that one just a minute ago was the first time I've reverted one of your edits, unless I'm mistaken, and the CQ ratings (along with the others) are a good barometer of whether or not a race is notable - we're not using them as gospel truth, only as one way of looking at races. One easy way to check consensus is if you're the only one with a certain opinion - notice that nobody else has brought up the arguments you have, on any of the races on this page. Also notice that I never called you a vandal - I suppose that next you're going to call me a Republican oppressing you or something (which is, by the way, patently untrue). But the things you list sound to me to be decent information if framed right - instead of wasting your energy on the inclusion of ratings (and probably getting banned in the process), why don't you improve the article? -Souperman 06:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Again I stress this is not the CQ or Cook's guide to the 2006 house races. The CQ offers no support for their assessment. Yet, I can't include my evidence contradicting their assessment without support. Their ratings are mere opinion and have no place in this article until the ratings counter some of the points I brought up above.24.168.108.195 05:44, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

24.61.29.237 self admittingly AKA Mass Republican (Certainly not unbiased based on that name) restored the unsupported CQ rating a couple of minutes after I removed it, so I removed it again. He accused me of vandalism but I consider people reinstating so called expert opinions without explanation in a race that has plenty of evidence to the contrary. I repeat CQ ratings don't meet Wikipedia standards because they offer no support for their race assessment and have no place here. A few editors who think they're useful does not mean a consensus, even if I'm the only person objecting at the moment. If the CQ ratings are allowed in without explanation, then the following points countering the assessment should be allowed without support.

1. Fossella is scandal ridden, with his campaign finance violations be covered by The Staten Island Advance, NY Daily News, New York Times, NY1 (NYC 24 hour cable news station)MSNBC's the Most and CNN.com

2. The Staten Island Republican party is broken into 2 factions; Fossella and his supporters and the Molinari/Molinaro wing (although borough president James Molinaro is technically a not a Republican, but a conservative). Although Guy Molinari is a former Fossella mentor and Vito replaced his daughter in this Congressional seat, the two now hate each other's guts. The two factions run rival candidates in primaries such as Marchi's vacant state Senate seat and Molinari was rumored to have been the Daily News's Deep Throat for his travel related scandal.

The animosity between the two camps has risen to the point where members of the rival faction publicly stated that they wouldn't support Fossella this November in the Staten Island Advance letters to the editor section.

3. Fossella took a private poll and refuses to release its results. If the results weren't much closer than expected he'd release the poll.

4. Fossella won by 33,000 votes in 2004, a presidential election year. District voter turn out is typically 40 percent greater in presidential election years. This means expected turnout in non-presidential 2006 should be 40 percent lower. All things being equal (and my next point will explain why they're not)Fossella's margin is reduced 40 percent to 20,000, not a large amount in a district with 500,000 adults 18+ (granted only about 70 percent were registered as of 2005).

5. Public dissatisfaction with Bush and Iraq has helped Democratic candidates nationwide, so the trend is Democratic.24.168.108.195 06:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, this is wikipedia. Its an encylopedia for casual public use. Relax. Your campaign does not hinge on what this encylopedia says. It does not vote in elections.

Second, though I may describe myself as a Republican, it does not mean I should be discriminated against on usage of this site. I try to be nonpartisan because I understand that a majority of the Wiki users out there are most likely Liberals or Democrats. Plus, it would be against the rules of Wikipedia to express my views as a Republican. If you see, I added CQ rating to every race where they were not included previously, including races, where they might have made the Republican candidate look less suited for solid election.

Third, CQ is not the only nonpartisan election site that lists NY-13 as safe Republican. Cook Political reports, and Sabato's Crystal Ball do as well for example. Its a generally accepted opinion of unbaised political commentation.

As for your rationale that you would like to add to the article, most of it is just talking points of the Steve Harrison for Congress Campaign on why Fossella can be defeated. They are opinion. If you would like, I could also state my opinion on why they aren't reasons why Fossella can be defeated. But this is no place for our own personal opinions.

So Relax, Stop Vandalizing this page, and Go to Bed --Massrepublican 06:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed Vandalism by Massrepublican. CQ despite being allegedly objective is also opinion. With out support for their assessment they do not belong. Please don't tell me CQ, Cook, and Sabato rankings belong here because a so called consensus of editors what it here. A few editors who think having these assessments on the race is not a consensus, even if they charge that I'm the only one who perceiving them as inappropriate.24.168.108.195 14:17, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I really Don't Care that much for this issue. But, you can't disagree with one rating, and then allow the others to stay up just cause you don't personally like that one. What it comes down to is whether or not you believe the ratings should be for all the races or not, and Staffer of Steve Harrison, it seems that Wikipedians have decided to put these ratings up. Your opinion may tell you otherwise, but please check it at the door when dealing with this encyclopedia. (Obviously you are unable to do that, you have been blocked on and off for months now) --Massrepublican 14:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed vandalism caused by 24.61.29.237, Mass Republican and Getaway, who appear to be the same person. The CQ rating dooes not offer support for its assessment. I move that we remove all CQ, Cook and Sabato ratings that lack non-subscriber access to support or explanations of such. THose ratign s are opinions and unsubstantiated opinions.24.168.108.195 14:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I just want to point out that I don't agree with two or three of the ratings because I am closely involved with those races. But my opinion of how I believe they are going to turn out is not important. I also believe that I have good reasons for my opinion, but it is not relevant. These three groups are considered, for better or worse, to be the standard that everyone follows concerning the election races. They are not always correct. No rating service is. So, it is not personal toward you. Also, why do you believe that it correct to leave in the ratings by CQ, Cook, and Sabato that agree with you, but not the ones that disagree. Just let it go.--Getaway 14:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Getaway, You're a typical Republican, only reading what you want to read. I've called for removal of all CQ, Cook and Sabato rankings from this article, not just NY13. Will once again correct vandalism.24.168.108.195 15:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia's vandalism guideline. This is a content dispute and does not fall under the exemptions listed in the guideline. It's unfortunate that the other users have treated your edits as vandalism, but your edits haven't risen to vandalism either in my opinion. CQ, Cook, and Sabato have been included by the consensus of editors on this article and meet Reliable sources guidelines and can be included as long as the consensus of editors is that they may remain. If you wish to have them removed, I would suggest you try to convince the other editors on this article why they should not be included. A good start is to stop with the personal attacks, provide evidence as to why they should not be included (citable sources that meet the reliable sources threshold would be great), and stop with the deleting for now. If you get consensus from the other editors that CQ, Cook, and Sabato should not be included in the article, then they can be removed. --Bobblehead 17:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Bobble, the guidelines state in the first line, "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." 24.168.108.195 is deleting (first element) content (the political ratings) to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia (undermine the consistency of Wikipedia's coverage of the 13th District race in NY). His constant removal is classic vandalism. However, those elements can be tempered with the argument that, applying the policy of assuming good faith, 24.168.108.195 is attempting to improve the article. I concede that point. However, when he made the first change, it was not vandalism. When he made the second change it was not vandalism. When he made the 3rd and 4th changes, it was not vandalism, but it was bordering on stubborness. But, and here is where the good faith exception breaks down, on the 5th, 6th, 7th, etc. reverts, combined with his personal attacks, etc. his actions lead to classic vandalism. I respectfully disagree that, at this point, it not vandalism. It is vandalism because several folks have discussed the issue with him and he has refused to go about fixing his concern in a different, more appropriate way.--Getaway 18:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Getaway, it's a content dispute, plain and simple. Wikipedia's integrity would remain without the CQ ratings as the article itself remains informative without them. As far as exhausting WP:AGF, trust me, 7 reverts isn't even close to being enough. I've seen arbcomm cases that have involved content disputes that have last months and included dozens of reverts and personal attacks and yet the parties involved were still chastised for not assuming good faith. If the anon continues to be disruptive there are mechanisms to handle the content dispute and one of those could be an arbcom case filed against the user and getting them banned from the project. --Bobblehead 18:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If the so called unbiased CQ, Cooke and Sabato rankings were entered by the average Wiki contributor, they wouldn't cut it because there's no supporting information, just picks. That's my problem with these ratings. I can find variables that would transform the 13th from safe Rep to at least leans Rep and possibly more competitive. I'm sure people can find variables like that in many races they percieve as safe for either party. I'd remove all of the CQ, Cook and Sabato ratings, but I don't have the time, so I concentrate on the race in my district.24.168.108.195 22:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean if the average wikipedian just put "Safe Republican" in the 13th without sourcing CQ, Cooke, or Sabato? Or do you mean citing them as sources? If you mean the first, then yes, they would not be allowed as it would be a violation of no original research. However, if you mean the second, then you would be incorrect. As far as I can tell CQ, Cooke, and Sabato meet the reliable sources requirement, which innoculates their inclusion against a violation of the no original research. All three are frequently referenced in news articles and are treated as "experts in their field" and in the case of CQ is editor reviewed. If you can provide evidence from a reliable source that shows that they should not be considered reliable sources, feel free to reference them. --Bobblehead 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to second Bobblehead on this one - I have a degree in Political Science and Congressional Quarterly was an acceptable source for research papers in my poli. sci. classes, which is a much higher bar to clear than most wikipedia sources (wikipedia, for instance, was certainly not acceptable). Some random wikipedian with an IP address for a name who does not have the publishing credentials does not meet the same criteria to make their opinion on a race equal to that of scholars and pundits who do this for a living. If you write an acceptable scholarly publication with professionals in the field who are paid to make picks, then we can include your picks alongside CQ and the others. Until then, you'll have to find reasons to blank them. Best, Souperman 04:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Souperman, I'm glad you haver a poli sci degree, so do I among other degrees, but that alone doesn't qualify either one of us to make this decision. Everyone seems to defend the credentials of the so called independent sources to me, but no one despite me spelling it out several times already, has addressed my argument that this picks, which are mere opinion, are not backed up by CQ or Cook with reasons for their decisions. Despite their so called status, their inclusion which is mere opinion, should at least be backed up with justification.

Including a pundit's unsuppported opinion, no matter how much you worship them, is not NPOV particularly when there are facts that the Pundits who probably phoned it in, ignored or were not aware of. Using NY 13 as an example:

1. Fossella is scandal ridden, with his campaign finance violations be covered by The Staten Island Advance, NY Daily News, New York Times, NY1 (NYC 24 hour cable news station)MSNBC's the Most and CNN.com

2. The Staten Island Republican party is broken into 2 factions; Fossella and his supporters and the Molinari/Molinaro wing (although borough president James Molinaro is technically a not a Republican, but a conservative). Although Guy Molinari is a former Fossella mentor and Vito replaced his daughter in this Congressional seat, the two now hate each other's guts. The two factions run rival candidates in primaries such as Marchi's vacant state Senate seat and Molinari was rumored to have been the Daily News's Deep Throat for his travel related scandal.

The animosity between the two camps has risen to the point where members of the rival faction publicly stated that they wouldn't support Fossella this November in the Staten Island Advance letters to the editor section.

3. Fossella took a private poll and refuses to release its results. If the results weren't much closer than expected he'd release the poll.

4. Fossella won by 33,000 votes in 2004, a presidential election year. District voter turn out is typically 40 percent greater in presidential election years. This means expected turnout in non-presidential 2006 should be 40 percent lower. All things being equal (and my next point will explain why they're not)Fossella's margin is reduced 40 percent to 20,000, not a large amount in a district with 500,000 adults 18+ (granted only about 70 percent were registered as of 2005).

5. Public dissatisfaction with Bush and Iraq has helped Democratic candidates nationwide, so the trend is Democratic.

The 5 points above are facts. The pundits don't supply any facts for their decsions. I'm sure cases can be made in many other races nation wide for the holy pundits just phoning it in. 24.168.108.195 21:24, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the pundits do supply facts to support their decisions, you just have to pay them in order to get into the detailed analysis. It's how they earn a living. But there's over 2 months left before the general election. If Fosella is weak, then the opinion polls will start to show it and the opinions of the experts will start to shift. Just because there are issues with the incumbent it doesn't mean they'll be voted out of office. The quality of the opponent and how the opponent and the issues resonate with the voters is also important. Kerry did a good job of showing that this is true. --Bobblehead 22:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Polling is one of the reasons I list that this is not safe Republican. Reason 3 above mentions a poll Fossella conducted and hasn't released the results. The ony reasion not to release the results would be that the race is much tighter than he expected. And a source that can't be viewed by the average Wikipedia reader is not a source as far as I'm concerned. I also have access to the CQ/Cspan pick and CQ offers no formal justification for their decision, they just list the previous congressional and presidenetial results as well as census figures for the district. 24.168.108.195 07:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Florida 13th Congressional race

I started a page for Tramm Hudson, the leading contender in the Republican primary for Krazy Katherine's seat. He has some racial issues of his own. Richardjames444 15:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

is there a vandalsim watch list of candiate articles?

Anyone know to ensure POV isn't getting pushed? The Diana Irey article, for exmaple is getting hit, and it'd be nice to have some collective eyes. C56C 22:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Arizona's 1st congressional district

This section is just ugly. The Simon advocacy and the Renzi attacks need to be way toned down. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up AZ-1, if no one suggests soon it is still partisan to Simon, I will remove the POV warning. --Massrepublican 01:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've also tinkered a bit with the wording. I'm not absolutely convinced that ARMPAC money is that important, but I've encountered significant opposition on other pages when I proposed deletion, so I've left it in.

At this point, I suggest removing the NPOV tag; if someone feels there still is a problem, he/she can go into specifics here. John Broughton 19:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I say lets go and remove it, John did a good job to it.--Massrepublican 21:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oregon's 5th

I'm a little concerned about the quote that is in there and where it is attributed to. Simply stating, until such time as the citation is put forth, it should not be even in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kagurae (talk • contribs)

The source of the quote is given at the end of the paragraph (viz., it comes from CQPolitics.com) -- Sholom 14:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Kansas' 2nd

Someone added the claim that Jim Ryun is losing to the Democrat. I have maked it dubious claim because the Kansas 2nd District is large district that stretches from Nebraska to Oklahoma in Kansas, one of the most Republican states in the country. Other than Topeka and a small part of Lawrence there really is not any areas that a Democrat could hope to win. Also, Ryun is the former world record holder for the one mile and he attended the University of Kansas in Lawrence, neutralizing any advantage that a Democrat might possibly have in Lawrence. The editor did not provide a citation for the claim so I have marked it. Without a verifiable citation in a few days I am going to remove the dubious claim Also, Ryun has way more money in the bank than the Democrat and Ryun defeated the Democrat last time.--Getaway 02:27, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

No idea as to the validity of the poll, but a 5 second Google News search found your citation (counting the time I went and re-checked how to spell Boyda's name). The claim, as I read it (and as it should be in a NPOV setting), is not that Congressman Ryun was losing, only that an internal poll done by his opponent said he was down by about a point. Of course, it should be taken with a grain of salt, is certainly disputed by the GOP, and should be marked as such. --Souperman 04:26, 19 September 2006 (UTC)