Talk:2024 United States Senate elections

Sorely tempted to...

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

Main Article Links

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

Pete Buttigieg

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

@2600:387:F:5910:0:0:0:2 it's in Personal life Nevermore27 (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Mike Braun

I'm totally wiki-illiterate beyond the basic typo fixes I've done sometimes, so I thought maybe someone with more skill could do this. Mike Braun has recently expressed interest in running for governor in 2024. I've seen Jim Banks and Todd Rokita, among others, mentioned as possible replacements if he does do so.2600:1700:9930:C110:3C6F:9E6E:ACF5:9DAE (talk) 09:37, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I fail to see why we should include that on the Senate elections page. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:48, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

For the same reason a possible primary challenge is mentioned for Sinema and the possibility of retirement is mentioned for Feinstein? If he ends up running for governor, then clearly he won't be running for Senator again.2600:1700:9930:C110:30D8:EAA3:58AE:7E7C (talk) 17:49, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh I see that totally makes sense, sorry Przemysl15 (talk) 03:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Mike Braun imo will win the Indiana governor race by 15%+ 71.234.242.120 (talk) 03:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Dianne Feinstein

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

Dianne Feinstein had decided to retire at the end of her term (January 2025). Then, she died on September 29, 2023. Governor Gavin Newsom had temporarily appointed Laphonza Butler until the people could put someone in on November 5, 2024, for a full 6-year term. 2603:7080:8600:26C1:CD6:8F1F:C933:7F2 (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

what about the minority leader?

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

Number of seats up for election

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

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

Independent vs TBD colors

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

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

Noun vs adjective in parentheticals

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

thoughts? Griffindaly (talk) 19:45, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Do Reliable Sources generally use the noun or the adjective? I would mirror presentation in Reliable Sources. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Since any change to current practice would have to be implemented sitewide and not just a single article, I suggest that this discussion take place at WT:E&R or WT:USC. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

New Mexico Senate Race Image

If you click on New Mexico on the Map it redirects you to the 2024 Nevada Senate Race page could this possibly be fixed? Zepo123 (talk) 08:21, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

It's not just New Mexico; nearly all of the links point to the wrong state article. The links for the map are in a template within a template within a template. It is probably a bug in the code and/or involves a complicated fix. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The problem appears to have been fixed, though I'm not sure how. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:44, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Gloria Johnson + Tennessee Three

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

I don't understand how writing that Representative Johnson is a member "who avoided expulsion by one vote" confuses readers, being that the term is specific to what event she was involved, and the title of the Wikipedia page (2023 Tennessee House of Representatives expulsions) about that event.

The only way I think a reader would be confused is if the link states that she was "a member of the Tennessee Three" is for an article that doesn't include that term in the title. The only article on Wikipedia that uses that title is about Johnny Cash's famous backing band. The sentence doesn't go into detail about why the motion to expel was voted upon, nor does it derail from the topic of the page. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

We link to a page that you also linked to in your argument that talks about the situation, so readers who are confused by the name can click the link to read more about it, so I don't see how the Johnny Cash argument works. I have full faith in readers to figure out the situation even if the title is not verbatim the same as what the hyperlink says. I still believe given the reasons above (clunky, off topic, etc) that "avoided expulsion by one vote" is too off topic for this page, and it diminishes the situation as well by summarizing a big topic (again, we have a whole page on this situation) into five words. While one could argue that "Tennessee Three" might do the same thing, it still allows readers to have an open mind going into the page when learning more about it. Flames675 (talk) 15:20, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand how writing that she avoided expulsion by one vote is "clunky" or "diminishes the situation," being that it accurately and concisely describes what the event was, and maintains consistency with the relevant article's title. I also don't understand how writing the sentence that way is "off topic" or prevents readers from having "an open mind going into the page" being that the expulsion vote is the central subject of the article and the sentence ("who avoided expulsion by one vote") uses nonjudgmental language. BlueShirtz (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Map of Incumbents Key Backwards?

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

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

Should the key be edited or should the image be edited? Geistbar (talk) 04:57, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

At least on my end, the darker shade is listed as "incumbent retiring" and the lighter shade is "incumbent". ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 08:58, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Opinion polls?

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

Manchin retiring

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

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

Joe Manchin had switched to the Independent party but still caucuses with the Democrats. Then, he decided not to run in 2024. 2603:7080:8600:26C1:CD6:8F1F:C933:7F2 (talk) 20:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Significant Differences From Ballotpedia

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

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

For the special Senate election:

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

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

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

Mitch McConnell

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

Oh, never mind, he’s retiring as Leader only. 2603:7000:9C02:90F9:44E:557F:E484:344 (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Plus, McConnell represents Kentucky, not Tennessee. PrusBis6187 (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Is Independent American the Same as American Independent?

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

Infobox Independent Color

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

NJ shading on the map

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

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

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

I've changed it to dark blue for now btw. TheSavageNorwegian 18:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is definitely the right call. But I feel like we should put in an asterisks or a note of some kind (it's confusing that the shading shows he is retiring but in the big box with all the races it shows (incumbent's intent unknown). If we go with a note, we should put it in both the map and the big box if possible. Epicradman123 (talk) 21:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

By big box, I mean the one in the change in composition section. Also I misspoke, NJ is currently listed as Undeclared, as opposed to incumbent's intent unknown. Epicradman123 (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Manchin caucus

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

Side note, it's still a point of contention whether Sinema caucuses with the Democrats, but she de facto does, so that's good enough for us. TheSavageNorwegian 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Washington Post article today explicitly says he will still caucus with Democrats. [1] My hesitation comes from pages that still say Sinema doesn't caucus with Democrats like here at Inside Elections where it says "Senate Outlook: Democrats have a 50-49-1 majority with two independents (King and Sanders) caucusing with Democrats and Sinema not caucusing with either party. Republicans likely to gain 1-3 seats" I know it's in certain Independent candidates best interest to pretend that they don't caucus with Democrats, but you have to be in one of the caucuses to get committee seats, so we shouldn't always take candidate's word on this as seriously as their actions. TheSavageNorwegian 00:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Menendez Independent Bid

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

Though Menendez is still a Democrat, he is running as an independent (for now anyway), so I think this is correct. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct way to do it is to shade NJ grey and put the independent count at 4 (as it is now) RickStrate2029 (talk) 19:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree? He is currently a Democrat, and is running as an Independent. So everything referring to the current state of affairs should number him as a Democrat amongst the Democrats, but on something like the map, which shows who is running and as what, I'm tempted to have it colored gray, with perhaps add an asterisk or something. I think our closest comparable race is 2006 United States Senate elections, where Joe Liberman ran as third party after losing his primary. It looks like the image they were using before that election had Connecticut labelled blue, not independent. (File:2006 Senate election map.png) I'm of two minds about whether our current incumbency map is more about the present or the future though. I think that's where we're running into difficulty. TheSavageNorwegian 19:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

If we are listing him as a Democrat everywhere else on the page, we should list him as a Democrat on the map, too. The map caption for these maps labels light blue as "Democratic incumbent running," and that is exactly what he is. He is an incumbent, a member of the Democratic Party, and he is running for re-election (for now). Labeling him as an independent on the map would be confusing. I could be convinced that there should be an asterisk, but he should definitely not be colored as an independent on the map. OutlawRun (talk) 03:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Menendez resignation

I've updated the retirement map given todays news about Menendez stepping down (to be updated again once the seat is vacant). I am unsure how we should proceed in the mean time re:his independent campaign. Per New Jersey Globe, "Menendez has not yet announced if he will continue his independent bid, but his decision to resign makes such a campaign improbable." I would go a step further and say it's near-impossible and we should treat it as such. Anyone against treating that as a given? Perhaps I'm being entirely premature here. TheSavageNorwegian 19:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We follow sources. His independent campaign continues until he ends it, and it's not up to us to decide how likely he is to continue it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah you're right. Nytimes an hour ago: "The possibility that Mr. Menendez could continue running for re-election as an independent threatens to undermine Democrats’ ability to retain their party’s decades-long hold on the New Jersey Senate seat." Yeah I think I'm premature. Gonna revert my commons edit since nothing has effectively changed yet. TheSavageNorwegian 19:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

His independent campaign exists until it doesn't, so that should remain in the article. However, the map should be changed to say the incumbent Democrat in NJ is retiring, since technically it is George Helmy, and he is not running for re-election. RickStrate2029 (talk) 18:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Susan Collins

In the previous two Senate election cycles that coincided with a presidential elections (2016 and 2020), only one senator (Susan Collins in 2020) was elected in a state that was simultaneously won by the presidential nominee of the opposite party. 2603:7080:8600:26C1:CD6:8F1F:C933:7F2 (talk) 20:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Arizona incumbent

Most analysts list Arizona as likely Democrat. That seems reasonable. But it is also listed as "flip". While technically correct given the party identification of the incumbent, Sinema, is Independent, I see the seat really as Democratic "hold". Fredwiki2024 (talk) 02:14, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Though you are certainly right, in the sense that it is effectively a Democratic hold, because Sinema is a registered independent, it is a flip based on senatorial party registration. The 2012 Connecticut Senate race is treated the same way. PrusBis6187 (talk) 03:05, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics

I think that we should remove the race ratings by RealClearPolitics from this article. They are a website that excludes many pollsters, promotes conspiracy theories, and leans a race to Republicans if there is a tie in their polling average. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 22:30, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight excludes some pollsters as well. I don't think this is a particularly unusual practice. As for their promotion of "conspiracy theories," would you care to provide specific examples? On the race rating conflicting with polling, it is not our place to judge their methodology behind their ratings. It is simply our job to report them. RealClearPolitics has been considered reputable up to this point. I don't see why that should suddenly stop now. OutlawRun (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

As for their promotion of "conspiracy theories" I mean that they are a very biased outlet with very biased content. I found an article from yesterday talking about Trump's energy "successes" and Harris' "risks." Source: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/2024/09/24/choosing_between_trumps_energy_successes_harris_risks_632234.html

They also repeatedly talk about how mainstream news has a left-wing bias, which is a conspiracy theory that lacks factual evidence (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2024/09/23/young_america_right_to_reject_traditional_news_151663.html). Thomascampbell123 (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

If we're trying to discredit their predictions based on that, why don't we go ahead and discredit Fox too? Except we don't, because that's not our place. Our place is to report the predictions of reputable, notable sources. If anything, the sites we should be talking about not showing ratings from are Race to the White House and CNalysis, Race to the White House especially. Both are small websites not affiliated with major news organizations, and I don't believe their predictions have gotten that widespread of media coverage that would make us believe that they should be considered "big players" in predictions.

CNalysis has gotten significant coverage, but that's for their ratings for state legislative chambers. We should absolutely keep those ratings up, but even by that own website's admission, state legislatures are their primary focus. All their other ratings seem like an afterthought.

Race to the White House isn't even notable enough to have a Wikipedia page to link to, nor a person associated with it to redirect to.

RCP is much more notable and well-respected, especially because of their aggregation of polling averages, like 538. We have their predictions up going back almost two decades. Why suddenly stop now? OutlawRun (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

You make a good point in that Fox News has biased news coverage the same way that RCP does. I think it would actually be fine to keep RCP rating because they are quite notable and well-respected. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

AP just called the Michigan Senate race for Slotkin

https://apnews.com/projects/election-results-2024/ JasonMacker (talk) 20:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

CNN is now also projecting a Slotkin victory.--JasonMacker (talk) 20:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

NBC is now the 3rd major network projecting a Slotkin victory --JasonMacker (talk) 21:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Maine

Maine was just called for the independents. 40.128.69.240 (talk) 21:26, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Pennsylvania

Pennsylvania flipped red, should be updated. 40.128.69.240 (talk) 21:28, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Can we please remove PA’s red shading from the map? Only AP & Fox have called it, and this feels like Arizona 2020 (Biden) all over again! Decision Desk HQ is usually one of the fastest networks to project and they have not called it (they also did not prematurely call AZ in 2020). The New York Times usually accepts AP calls, but they have not called it either. Obviously seems too early to declare a winner. Prcc27 (talk) 04:11, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

AP, CBC, CNN, and NBC have all called it EarthDude (talk) 06:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

No they haven’t. You must be thinking of the presidential election.. Prcc27 (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Just checked, AP called it for McCormick. https://apnews.com/article/why-ap-called-pennsylvania-senate-f9af5d80be39fcc7a2abb8258a8f3ccf 2600:100C:B2A7:6352:EC68:2B84:154B:F13A (talk) 17:10, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Casey says there are too many uncounted ballots for him to concede[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I remember reading in a comment on the 2024 presidential election's page that we should wait to show races as "won" until all the major networks have called a race. To my knowledge, CNN and the NYT have both not called it despite the AP calling it yesterday. The lack of a consensus tells me that we should not report the outcome of the race just yet. OutlawRun (talk) 17:40, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the shading on the map, leaving PA and AZ uncalled. Per the popup when you edit this page, we should wait until ABC, Associated Press, CBS, CNN, & NBC all call. TheSavageNorwegian 03:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, we shouldn't edit this unless there is a media consensus to do so. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Per CBS, they will not call the race until a recount is completed as it is within 0.5%.12.69.202.75 (talk) 04:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

its 0.6% now so no recount 2601:100:8C80:55D0:91E4:A84A:E255:AB36 (talk) 20:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

PA is shown as called for the GOP candidate, now. Could you please revert it until it is called? Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 13:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Done. TheSavageNorwegian 18:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 08:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to do a third revert in a short period of time. I don't know what rules Commons has around reverting, but it's not civil to go back and forth like this. I've left a message for the user who's been reverting me, hopefully we can get on the same page. TheSavageNorwegian 00:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

PA ain’t getting called without a recount, so unless we’re actually waiting for one, we should just update now.12.247.12.130 (talk) 12:42, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What we're waiting for is PA getting called by those 5 major outlets, which it hasn't yet. TheSavageNorwegian 15:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

I am uploading a version of the map with PA shaded light red, a lean color that they used on the presidential results map until the races were called. Working on it now. TheSavageNorwegian 15:41, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

What the heck, I'll just overwrite the current version with that. Good enough for the presidential map, good enough for us. TheSavageNorwegian 15:51, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

It was called 5 days ago. It’s been called by AP and FOX. No path for him to win. 2600:1005:B0C2:AA:E904:4246:5D8F:D839 (talk) 19:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Doesn’t matter per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE we should not call the race yet. I really think this page should be fully protected due to all the edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Even the Senate considers him to be Senator-Elect [3] for what it's worth. Epicradman123 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Decision Desk has called PA for Republicans

Still McCormick leads by nearly 25000 votes, the raw vote lead for the presumptive winner is larger than in Michigan-Senate and everyone has called this race in favor of Democrats, both race might be headed towards a recount but its highly unlikely that they will change a thing.

Republicans have 53 seats in the bag, Dems 47 including the two Indies. 2003:DA:C71C:3400:F065:2826:30C0:665F (talk) 21:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Please see the edit notice. AG202 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

If DecisionDeskHQ has called it, then I think to me it is clear who won. However, that doesn’t mean Wikipedia has to rush and call it before most of the major media does. Your analysis of the PA margin vs. the MI margin is WP:SYNTH. Prcc27 (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2024 (UTC)