Jump to content

Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Primary results

[edit]

Just to save time and hourly updates, how about leaving the current primary results (it's only likely to fluctuate by a percentage or two) until the election is certified or at least keep the updating to once a day until then. --Bobblehead 17:12, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this after updating... it said there are now 100% reporting, but not certified yet. Sounds fine to me.Emcee 17:24, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit was the one that jiggled my memory. I was getting ready to make the updates myself earlier and then changed my mind about halfway through when I realized the numbers were changing as I was updating. As for the 100% reporting, that's just the precincts and is only the in person voters, so the tallies do not necessarily include the absentee ballots. --Bobblehead 17:52, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hiring of rivals

[edit]

Is three paragraphs really necessary for something that isn't even a campaign issue? At least, not yet. --Bobblehead 21:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be a campaign issue. It definitely was for the LaMagna/Wilson hires, and Tran solicitation, and I'm pretty sure you will see more to come with the Dixon allegations. The Seattle media does not like being stonewalled. Emcee 21:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are you part of the "Seattle media [that] does not like being stonewalled"? It seems that you are unable to demonstrate that this is a big issue. It is interesting that you claim "I'm pretty sure you will see more to come with the Dixon allegations". How do you know this? Are you hoping to use this article as a platform to spread this information? --Nottingham 22:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest focusing less on me and more on content. Wikipedia, and any encyclopedia, is method of supplying information to people, yes. I'm hoping to use this article to provide accurate and relevant information to people who are interested in the Washington United States Senate election of 2006, as I assume most editors of the article are. My opinions on whether or not this particular allegation will see further coverage is based on my familiarity with the race and the media outlets that have been doing a lot of coverage on it. I have been reading a lot and following it closely. That's another reason why I'm contributing to this article, because I think that I have a good understanding of the race and the candidates and can be useful in improving the article. Emcee 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You made claims: " . . . I'm pretty sure you will see more to come with the Dixon allegations. The Seattle media does not like being stonewalled." Now you seem upset when you are challenged on these claims. It appears that you represent yourself as speaking on behalf of the Seattle media. I have suggested many times to you that you should actually focus on the content and being accurate instead of making unsupportable claims, and of making claims that actually prove to be incorrect when someone actually reads the material wrongly cited as supporting the claim. --Nottingham 00:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant major campaign issue.;) It hasn't had any effect on the election so far (similar to McGavick's DUI arrest and Cantwell's Iraq stance). It has more space in the article than some of the major campaign issues which seems inordinate given the minimal impact it has had on the campaign so far. --Bobblehead 02:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How are you measuring whether or not it has had an effect? And why would you add the McGavick section if you think it isn't an issue? It's news on the election -- there has been nationwide coverage of the previous buy-out offers, btw -- and as long as it's cited, no reason not to include. We don't have to include every detail, but we do want to give a true summary and impression of what actually took place. Emcee 04:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"there has been nationwide coverage" is a false statement. As you edited that section, it is disappointing that you apparently knowlingly made or edited a false claim. Nationwide, as per Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.0.1), Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006., means "extending throughout the nation". There is a citation to a commentary in one newspaper from Washington, DC. That is not "extending throughout the nation". If there were "nationwide" coverage of these "buy-out offers" then presumably you would be able to reference coverage from several other states, such as Texas, Florida, California, New York, Wisconsin, and Vermont, to name some examples. --Nottingham 22:09, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not necessary that I provide a citation for every sentence that I write on the talk page, but here's another from New York. As I mentioned above, I've done a lot of reading on the subject and can say with confidence that the buy-outs have been a significant part of the media coverage of the race. Emcee 00:43, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have told you many times, that it would be constructive for you to quote facts instead of using your opinions. Obviously, it would also be constructive for you to stop using Wikipedia for your personal agenda as well, which you do by using it to promote your opinions instead of NPOV listings of facts. The NYT article you cite has a brief reference to the accusations of Cantwell hiring opponents buried in the 19th and 20th paragraphs. As for your remark "I've done a lot of reading on the subject and can say with confidence" I do not understand why you insist on making yourself and your opinions the issue. You should leave your personal biases and agendas aside and focus strictly on facts. --Nottingham 01:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cantwell and 44 LD endorsements

[edit]

I meant to leave a note here when I made the update, but was rather harried and forgot. Anyways, Hope it's alright that I left just a sampling of the endoresments for Cantwell in the Dem Primary. I couldn't find a centralized source that listed the endorsements for all the LDs and while I did find links to most, if not all, of the LDs, I figured 44 separate links would be a bit much. --Bobblehead 16:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it's inaccurate -- some LD's end up not issuing endorsements at all, so just because Tran didn't get a particular LD doesn't mean Cantwell did. I would prefer to see a source that cites that she received 44 endorsements; in absence, you could cite them individually here, so they're not cluttering up the main page. Thanks for asking about it, I had meant to mention this. Emcee 17:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblehead -- I don't comprehend the last edit summary you made -- can you elaborate here? The "Several edits. the Cantwell's endorsements were mentioned several times." Anyhow, until the exact number of Cantwell endorsements is known, and since we know the exact number of the Tran endorsements, it just seems to make more sense to say something along the lines of: "Hong Tran got one sole endorsement and three split endorsements with Cantwell, while Cantwell got the sole endorsement in many of the other 45 districts." I guess the argument is that Cantwell deserves to be noted in the first half of the sentence because she got more? I think that is a bit extreme, and that syntax/readability should take precedence as long as the same information is conveyed accurately. Note the current sentence, "While some of Washington's legislative districts did not give endorsements for the primary election, Cantwell received the sole endorsement of many legislative districts in the state, http://www.34dems.org/endorsements.htm][17][18], while Hong Tran won the sole endorsement of one district, Cantwell's home district, the 32nd Legislative District, and split endorsements with Cantwell in the 40th, 25th, and 26th Legislative Districts." Emcee 16:47, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to edit as you see fit for grammar and what not. It seemed appropriate to have the endorsements mentioned in one sentence as they were all related, but it does create a rather long run-on sentence. The edit summary was in reference to Nottingham re-adding that Cantwell received 44 endorsements while leaving the original sentence that I added and you edited, having it referenced twice was just redundant. Made sense to have Cantwell first since she received more of the endorsements. Although, for readability, it probably should have gone Cantwell, joint, Tran. Just so the detail of Tran's solo endorsement is more closely associated with the "she won the endoresment" line. --Bobblehead 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LD Endorsements

[edit]

Well, here's the start of 'em. ;) Running low on time right now, so I'll add more as I find 'em.

Anyone know how King County Democrats works? In strolling through the page and the links there to the LDs, many of the LDs only have a primary endorsement announcement for the Judicial races and a link to a page of Candidates (which usually means these are the ones we endorse). Except for the 32nd (which has Tran as their sole endorsement) the rest seem to be deferring to the KCD endorsements.--Bobblehead 17:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They each have their own endorsement meetings. kcdems looks like just a parent webpage of sorts for the LDs in the district. The 43d and 48th (both in KC) each showed their primary endorsement meetings. I don't see specific endorsements evenon this page for the whole of KC (KC young dems is a different thing, not an LD).Emcee 17:42, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note the Clark County "candidates" page is not the "endorsements" page. I.e., it just lists the remaining democratic candidates for office in 2006 that the Clark County democrats will be able to vote for -- sort of a list of links and info to inform voters about the potential choices (imagine that!) It appears they only endorse ballot measures and non-partisan positions, not primary endorsements. That covers LD 15, 17, 18, and 49.

Thanks for the link too the KC endorsements. I think you would have to list that separately, since it is not an LD endorsement though -- clearly the individual LDs had their own endorsement meetings. Emcee 19:32, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like what's below is all I'm going to be able to confirm without further digging. Most of the remaining don't have a website, haven't updated it in awhile, or have already updated their pages with General election endorsements and didn't keep their primary endorsements. Darn them. ;) --Bobblehead 19:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This comment from 25th District Vice Chairman Jim Morrell of Tacoma in regards to his district's shared endorsement of Cantwell and Tran is highly relevant: "[I]t wasn't a slap against Cantwell, but also it was kind of a feel-good vote, in that at least (people thought) 'I've said something about what's going on in Iraq' and stuff. It wasn't even about 'we shouldn't be there' but rather about how (the war) has been handled." http://seattlepi.com/local/285379_theothers16.html There seem to be no public quotes from the LD's supporting Tran. However, there is this quote from Morrell indicating that at least one shared endorsement of Tran was, at least to a District Vice Chairman, a protest against the war in Iraq, not support for Tran specifically. The Morrell quote should be in any section about LD Endorsements. --Nottingham 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The quote is acceptable for inclusion in the article. I'd personally prefer a trimmed down version of it. Something along the lines of "The 25th LD Vice Chairman stated the shared endoresement vote "wasn't a slap against Cantwell, but also it was kind of a feel-good vote" and it was about how the war was handled rather than troop withdrawls." But that's my opinion, so take it or leave it as you deem fit.;) --Bobblehead 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Legislative Districts themselves are not even democratic. One has to pay $20 to become a voting member eligible to elect the leadership of the Legislative District. Consequently, it is not clear what, if any, relevance a Legislative District endorsement has. From a Progressive or Civil Rights point of view, the Legislative District endorsement process would appear to be highly undemocratic. This would apply regardless of who was endorsed. Regardless, this is all largely irrelevant, since it appears that these are not issues driving the election. --Nottingham 19:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The press made a deal about the LD endorsements, thus the article does. The undemocratic nature of LDs is beside the point.--Bobblehead 21:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Endorsements Chair, Harry George, told me that Hong Tran presented herself and her stands on the issues well and stood up well to the questioning of the members in receiveing a pretty solid majority vote for her endorsement. Senator Cantwell, on the other hand, did herself no great favor by sending out surrogates who had no real defense of her votes for the Patriot Act, NAFTA/CAFTA/OFTA, and (of course) Iraq. Harry was quick to point out that the debate last night was quite diverse and that Iraq only played a small part in the voting."[1] As for the Morrell quote, it doesn't really add much -- we already know that Tran was campaigning largely on the war. Furthermore, if it wasn't a "slap against Cantwell" and was a "feel-good vote", in my mind, that means they're voting their conscience -- voting for a candidate that they might actually want, rather than against the candidate they they will eventually have to choose over the Republican.

LD endorsements generally decide who the active volunteers and Democratic PCOs in each LD will support and campaign for, through phone calls and doorbelling, etc. Politial parties are allowed to set their own terms of membership and exclusion. I would agree that it's not particularly Democratic (so said Hong Tran as well), but it's the reality of the current political system and relevant to the election.

You also mentioned previously that the LDs were notoriously unrepresentative of voter opinion. In Tran's case, she got 1 full plus 3 half endorsements = 2.5 LD endorsements out of 49 = 5.1% of the LD endorsments. Which is almost exactly what she ended up with in the primary election. Emcee 21:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're stretching a bit for the comparison of the percentage of LD endorsements versus actual primary results. Especially when you're comparing a limited local vote against that of a state result. A better comparison would be of the vote total for Tran in the LD vs the vote percentage she got in the endorsement meeting. Sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence. I didn't see any of the other Candidates winning any LD endoresments, yet there they are with around .6-2% of the vote. --Bobblehead 21:28, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Might be a coincidence, might not, but in any case, it's pretty darn close to the actual voter percentage she got -- you can't say the LD endorsement results in her case were notoriously unrepresentative. As for the other candidates, only Mover and Goodspaceguy got enough popular votes to correspond to even half of an LD's endorsement, but I don't think it's a big surprise that none of the democratic party faithful who are active enough to go be involved at their LDs viewed them as candidates to be taken seriously.Emcee 20:45, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
LD Endorsement LD Endorsement LD Endorsement
1st 2nd 3rd
4th 5th Cantwell 6th
7th 8th Cantwell 9th
10th 11th 12th
13th 14th 15th none
16th 17th none 18th none
19th 20th 21st
22nd 23rd Cantwell 24th
25th Cantwell and Tran 26th Cantwell and Tran 27th
28th 29th 30th
31st none[1] 32nd Tran 33rd
34th Cantwell 35th Cantwell 36th Cantwell
37th Cantwell 38th Cantwell 39th
40th Cantwell and Tran 41st Cantwell 42nd
43rd Cantwell 44th Cantwell[2] 45th Cantwell
46th Cantwell 47th 48th Cantwell
49th none
  1. ^ Or at least, none listed.
  2. ^ a little different, they have pages for their endorsed races.


totals (running tally, please update when you add one): Tran: 1 Tran/Cantwell: 3 Cantwell: 14 None: 5 Unknown: 26

majority

[edit]

What does majority 781,983 refer to in the general election results?

The number of votes needed to have over 50% of the vote. Not sure it's overly important, but there it is. --Bobblehead 01:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain actually. I didn't add it to the chart, as I didn't create it, so I've been winging it. I'd have no problem with cutting out the majority and turnout features on the election results. ----Mikesmash

File:AaronDixonSenate.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:AaronDixonSenate.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 20 February 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AaronDixonSenate.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 08:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on United States Senate election in Washington, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:31, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 10 external links on United States Senate election in Washington, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:51, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on United States Senate election in Washington, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Washington, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate election in Washington, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unexplained reversions

[edit]

@Thomascampbell123: I am wondering why you twice removed the wkikicode for accessibility (and consistency) here and here. I am also wondering why you refuse to use edit summaries, a refusal which seems utterly rude to me. I know you're aware and capable of them, because you've provided them about 36 times in your last 500 edits. But no matter; you can please explain here why you removed the wikitable code twice. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was adding the type of table that was used in other articles. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks for responding. My first response is: what's important is to use the type of table used in this article. You seem not to have noticed that the other non-template tables are coded the same way (in any case, you didn't change all of them, just the one "Predictions" table). Also, you weren't adding a type of table, you were removing it. My edit of 13:04, 1 June 2021 changed 'six tables to use the same, correct wikicode to address accessibility. This is very standard coding, used across Wikipedia. If other articles don't have it (and I know there are many, many which don't), it's just because nobody's gotten around to adjusting/correcting them yet. This style of coding is aimed at fulfilling the WP:ACCESSIBILITY guidline (and the WMF resolution behind it), as shown in some detail at MOS:DTAB. Also, align=left has been deprecated in HTML5, so we shouldn't be using it (and certainly not adding it) anymore anyway.
Could I persuade you to self-revert your last reversion? I'd appreciate it. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 00:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_United_States_Senate_election_in_Washington&oldid=1196489581"