Talk:2024 United States Senate election in Arizona

Noting that Sinema is part of the Democratic caucus

The Predictions section (with "flips") makes it sound like the balance of political control of the Senate caucuses would change if Gallego won, when that is not the case as long as Sinema continues to caucus with Democrats. Therefore, there was a footnote added next to Sinema's first mention in the article where she is introduced as the independent incumbent, stating that she remains part of the Democratic balance of the Senate, and the footnote has been cited in the Predictions section. 2600:1012:A023:5968:94E6:97BB:B23:A192 (talk) 15:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Bluerules has removed the footnote and the mentions of Sinema's continued affiliation with the Democratic caucus in the Senate, despite the concern being raised in the talk page. As said above, it is confusing to state the scenario of Gallego's win as a flip without having a note of explanation about Sinema, when the balance of Senate caucuses would not change as a result of that election outcome. And even when you simply consider independent to Democrat as a technical flip, I don't see why mention of Sinema's caucus affiliation cannot remain at all in the article. 2600:1012:A023:4DDC:10CE:D2F2:2863:29F5 (talk) 17:24, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

No, I moved that information from the footnote into the prose to make it look less awkward. Footnotes are for information that can't be fit into the prose; it was a simple rewrite to make note of Sinema originally being a Democrat. She's not seeking re-election, so whoever she caucuses with is irrelevant to how this election impacts control of the Senate. Bluerules (talk) 21:32, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Of course it's relevant. A Gallego win, assuming no other seats flip, would keep Democratic control of the Senate as 51-49 including their independents; a Lake win would move the Senate to 50-50. A Gallego "flip" is not the same as a Lake flip. It helps to note somewhere that Sinema is counted as part of the Democratic majority, and as of the time I edited, the article did not mention it at all - either in the main article text or the footnote. This is what was re-added earlier today. 2600:1012:A023:4DDC:10CE:D2F2:2863:29F5 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

It's not relevant because Sinema still isn't officially a Democrat. The Senate seat is still going to officially flip if Gallego wins. And unofficially, a Gallego win is expected to give Democrats more control because Sinema was voting against Democrats, hence why she's not running for re-election. Mentioning she was elected as a Democrat is all that needs to be stated in the lead. It establishes where she stands. Bluerules (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is in fact relevant because the Senate Democratic Caucus says so. Bernie Sanders and Angus King have been independent senators the entire time, but the caucus considers them as its members. Indeed, in 2001, 2007 and especially 2021, the independents were essential to the Democrats having a majority. Election news sources and forecast sites, too, consider Democrats to be on the defense in this race, and the Republicans on the offense.

Realize that I'm not advocating the complete elimination of describing the Democratic win as a flip. Rather, I'm saying that supplementing this description of a flip with some context about the balance of power in Senate caucuses helps the reader understand the situation and I'm against the complete absence of such a mention. Given the tendency of these election pages to be stuffed with trivia of questionable importance (they are there just because they satisfy RS and such standards), removing the mention of the incumbent's caucus affiliation after someone already provided the work to type up the content is pointless waste of time.

Case in point: what you said - Sinema left the party in 2022 - is technically not essential either, because whether one left two years ago or was elected independent has no bearing on the current state of the seat. Rather, it explains the background of the race. Well, if her departure from the party is a valid background content, so is her continued caucus affiliation. And the latter is actually more significant than the former because that explains the Democrats' current plans and motivations. 2600:1012:A023:4DDC:E5DC:4079:99C0:489B (talk) 02:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

No, it is fact not relevant because Bernie Sanders and Angus King are actually running for re-election. They are not seen as opposing the Democratic legislative agenda as Sinema is. The Senate Democratic Caucus wants Sinema gone, hence why Gallego started running for the seat before Sinema announced she wouldn't seek another term. While Sanders and King are essential to the Democratic majority, those are races outside of Arizona. Independents in Arizona will not be a factor in who controls the Senate after this election. Democrats being at a disadvantage in this race has less to do with independent senators and more to do with Democrats having to defend seats in swing states/states won by Trump in 2020, whereas Republicans are defending seats in reliably red states.

Between Sinema not seeking re-election and her being targeted by Democrats - again, Gallego was going to run against her if she filed to re-election - it does not help the reader by adding information that's going to become irrelevant regardless of who wins the seat. A Gallego victory is also expected to change the balance of the Senate because Gallego is expected to support the Democratic legislative agenda, which Sinema frequently opposed.

I don't mention exactly when Sinema left the party because it's not relevant either. What's relevant is she is an independent who was elected as a Democrat, which establishes where she originally stood and how she changed. It's relevant she became at odds with Democrats, which is why Gallego is running, and it's relevant she's not running for re-election, which would have put the election under a different context (and likely made it harder for Gallego to win). Her current caucus affiliation doesn't explain the Democrats' current plans and motivations. It doesn't explain why they ran Gallego against her before she wasn't running for re-election. Democrats backing Gallego's campaign after Sinema opposed their legislative agenda does explain their current plans and motivations. They were going to run someone against her, regardless of her caucus affiliation and her caucus affiliation will now be irrelevant when 2025 rolls around. Bluerules (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You have no argument in favor of completely removing the caucus mention other than "it doesn't have to be there" - that's not a valid argument, and countless other trivial details in other election articles and your own examples fail your own same test.

The fact that she was officially a Democrat and previously elected as one isn't essential either, and fails your own test. That does not affect the simple technical point - that the incumbent is officially an independent. It's background, just like the fact that she left in 2022 and, yes, the fact that she still caucuses with Democrats.

How Sinema was "at odds" with a caucus (that Schumer clearly accepted her continued membership in) and how other Arizona Democrats wanted to replace her, and Democrats' uphill battle for overall Senate control due to factors in other states - that's all background context. That's not technicality. None of that is essential to stating the simple point of having an independent incumbent. Bringing these up in your argument conflates supplying the necessary context with your earlier point, how this is not relevant to saying "Krysten Sinema - Independent". It looks like you are cherry-picking background information to advance your own picture of the election when the article can, you know, simply have a holistic background explanation.

And you seem to be arguing for the sake of arguing by purposely mirroring my whole response structure, rather than suggesting what's best for improving the article. Removing all mentions of Sinema's caucus doesn't improve the article, regardless of how little you weigh the benefit of keeping it. There's no good coming from it.

As such, the caucus mention will stay - somewhere in the article. That's all I want. 2600:1012:A023:4DDC:10CE:D2F2:2863:29F5 (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

You have no argument in favor of adding the caucus mention other than "it's part of the Democratic majority in 2024". That's not a valid argument because this election is to determine who controls the Senate in 2025. To claim my argument is "it doesn't have to be there" and I have a "test" is a complete strawman. The actual argument for removing the caucus mention is Sinema is not seeking re-election. Her caucus affiliation will have no bearing on the next Congress when this seat will be held by either a Democrat or a Republican, not an independent who caucuses with Democrats. Unlike the other examples you cite, this is a trivial detail that fails to be relevant to the main subject of this article - the election between the Democratic Gallego and the Republican Lake.

The fact Sinema was officially a Democrat and previously elected as one is essential because it is part of the current state of the election. It has to be there because it explains how Sinema started off a Democrat, alienated her party, and decided not to run for re-election after the Democrats backed another candidate. It explains why this election is between Gallego and Lake instead of Sinema and Lake. The simple point is this is an election article. The real simple technical point, as this is an election article, is the incumbent is an independent not seeking re-election. Sinema's status as a former Democrat who was elected as one does affect this point because it is part of why she is not seeking re-election. It is an explanation for what led to Gallego's entry into the race and Sinema's absence. The fact Sinema still caucuses with Democrats, on the other hand, does not affect that information because no matter the outcome of the election, she won't be part of the Democratic caucus in the next Senate.

Again, "having an independent incumbent" is not the simple point. Again, this is an election article. The simple point is whether the incumbent is seeking re-election. The simple point here is this election has an independent incumbent not running. How Sinema was indeed at odds with her caucus (that clearly wanted her gone, hence Gallego's candidacy) and how other Arizona Democrats wanted to replace her is essential to the real simple point of having an independent incumbent not seeking re-election. It is an explanation for why the incumbent is not a candidate. I also did not say factors in other states was relevant to the current state of the Arizona race. You mentioned Democrats are at a disadvantage in 2024 after saying independents were essential to the Democratic majority in past elections. I pointed out Democrats are at a disadvantage because of what seats are up for grabs, not because of independent. The other races actually aren't relevant to Sinema not seeking re-election. The other points, again, explain the necessary point of Sinema not being a candidate. "Krysten Sinema - Independent" is not the relevant information on an election article. "Krysten Sinema - Not a candidate" is. It looks like you don't understand what background information is necessary in the context of an election article and what background information isn't. Because contrary to what you keep insisting, the basic necessary information isn't whether there's an independent incumbent, but if that incumbent is running. And if that incumbent is not running, they're not going to impact the outcome of the election.

The only person arguing the article needs to be improved is you. I am breaking down your arguments point by point to explain why what you're proposing are not improvements. You tagged me because I removed your awkward note about Sinema leaving the Democratic Party without any mention of her being a Democrat in the first place. Removing anything not relevant to the subject of the article, the U.S. Senate race in Arizona, does improve the article, regardless of how much you weigh the benefit of keeping it. Sinema's caucus affiliation became irrelevant to the main subject at hand once she decided not to run. The next Senate will either have a new Democrat or a new Republican from Arizona. Even if it absolutely has to be mentioned somewhere in the article, it does not belong in the lead. That's just conflating the relevant election information with the irrelevant information.

This is not how Wikipedia works. You do not declare information belongs in an article without a consensus to support it. If you want the caucus mention in the article, get a consensus. Bluerules (talk) 18:30, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like some other contributors to weigh in on this since this 2-person back-and-forth isn't going to lead anywhere, and the arguing is moot if the other editor is willing to agree with the caucus affiliation mentioned somewhere. I'm just opposed to removing it completely just because it "isn't technically essential", as doing so doesn't benefit. 2600:1012:A023:4DDC:610F:53AA:D5BB:8A7B (talk) 02:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, what I'm mainly opposed to is the awkward footnote about Sinema leaving the Democratic Party when there was no previous mention of her originally being a Democrat. I'm mostly focused on the lead for the time being. Other editors can provide more insight on why this information may not be in the body. Bluerules (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Post-primary endorsements

@Chaserh2003: the "Post-primary endorsements" section only includes endorsements made after the primary. Stop adding endorsements that were made before the primary. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

May want to state it on the user's talk page also. If both are ignored take it to ANI. 2600:1012:A023:5968:94E6:97BB:B23:A192 (talk) 16:46, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Edits to the lead

@174.215.115.9: - "Congressman" is not supposed to be capitalized if it prefaced by a political party (e.g. "Democratic congressman"). "News anchor" is more concise than "television news journalist" and matches with how Lake is described on her own article. "Senate" is supposed to be capitalized. Please stop reverting this in the lead. Bluerules (talk) 22:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The IP reverted it yet again. I'm at WP:3RR on the article with my last edit. Could someone revert them? David O. Johnson (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Done. We'll see how long this continues for. Bluerules (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

The IPs are adding it again. Maybe it's time to request RFPP yet again? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I've requested it. David O. Johnson (talk) 14:02, 4 November 2024 (UTC)