Talk:2008 United States Senate election in Wyoming

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

Craig Thomas' death, vacancy of the seat, resultant election[edit]

It seems extremely likely that the election to fill Craig Thomas' unexpired Senate term will be held in 2008, at the same time as Mike Enzi's re-election bid. This will probably be a bit of a headache to write about on Wikipedia; I'm trying to look up what the provisions for vacancies in the Wyoming constitution may exist and etc. Anyone want to help? --JMurphy 05:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Unmerge[edit]

Result: Keep Merged--Dr who1975 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose that whatver decision is reached at Talk:United States Senate elections in Mississippi, 2008 should also be applied to this article. Please go to the discussion there and chime in.--Dr who1975 (talk) 23:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Merged--Unlike the Mississippi special election, there is no controversy concerning the special election in Wyoming. State laws concerning senate vacancies vary from state to state. There is no dispute as to the November special election in Wyoming. On the other hand, the courts will decide in Missisippi if the special election will be held in March, as the Missisippi attorney general would like, or in November which Missisippi's governor originally set. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does appear to be in keeping with wikipedia precedent... such as Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006 where there was an election for both the last 4-6 weeks of the current term on the same day as an election for the next term so I agree.--Dr who1975 (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the original proposer seems to agree to keep merged article, consensus has been reached. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deadline to file for candidacy?[edit]

When is the deadline for candidates to file in Wyoming? Right now the article is quite fragmented with separate sections for each party and each race. We don't have formal lists of candidates yet. Once we find out more about who's running and who's not running, we can rewrite the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New proposal to split into separate articles for the regular and special election.[edit]

Now that candidates' headings have been inserted into this article, I've noticed how awkward the article looks. Should this article be split into two articles? One for the special election for Barasso's seat and the other for the regular election for Enzi's seat. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "awkwardness" was caused by your recent edits. I think you made "a mistake" (because I know you would never do it intentionally to force a split debate). The candidate sections should be sub headings of thier respective elections, and it is no longer necesaary to have individual Republican/Democrat sections in the main descriptions if you are going to have candidate sections... I know of no other article on wikipedia that does this. I have fixed the sub sections...let me know what you think? I would also request that if you revert my reecent changes that you also revert your recent changes that precipitated mine and we debate both headings and spliting the page here.--Dr who1975 (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The article is not very long to begin with plus the races are on the same day in the same state Gang14 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Short article, capable of stating the details without impediment. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, reader is well served by being able to learn about contemporaneous elections that might otherwise be confused with one another in one article, with a lead section that explains the differences. -Pete (talk) 21:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for reasons above. I also don't want to see two links to Wyoming in the Senate section of the 'US elections, 2008' template - too confusing. Flatterworld (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The articles do not look right at all. To a new Wikipedian, this will look very confusing. I honestly don't get why they are merged, they just look like a juumbled up mess. America69 (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Split These "extra" elections in Mississippi and Wyoming are sepcial elections, not general elections. I can respect the views of some that want to minimize the number of articles, but the fact remains that special elections generally receive their own articles. Notability or whether the election is "competitive" shouldn't come into play. Every election generally is notable in its own right, and has its own article. For example, there was a special election in Maryland's 4th congressional district on June 17, 2008. The general election is discussed on the United States House of Representatives elections in Maryland, 2008. Even though both elections were in 2008, we don't discuss the special election in detail on the 2008 elections page. Just because both Senate elections happen to fall on the same day, doesn't mean they should be included in the same article. I also realize Senate special elections are very rare, but that doesn't mean Senate special elections don't deserve their own articles. You can keep a reference in the main 2008 general election article that a special election is occuring, but point readers to the other article for details with a "see XX special election" link at the top of the article.Dcmacnut (talk) 15:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, we've had special and general elections held on the same day before, such as Texas's 22nd congressional district in 2006. The special and general election each have their own articles.Dcmacnut (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between races[edit]

The unusualness of the double-race prompts some questions. As I understand it, the only practical difference between the special and scheduled elections are that the winner of the special election will serve for four years instead of six.

All other things being equal, candidates would rather win the 6-year term than the 4-year term. therefore the only reason for choosing to run in the four-year race would be if they thought they had a better chance of winning. In theory, either Barasso or (even less likely) Enzi could presumably have run as non-incumbent for the other's seat rather than defending his own. Less sillily, on what basis did the Democrats decide which seat to contest? Did they co-ordinate their decisions?

Were there any other differences? Were the primaries held on different days? Were candidates allowed to run in both primaries? How were the elections distinguished at the polling station? Did the same-party candidates co-ordinate their campaigns, mention/endorse each other, campaign together, etc.? There must have been possibility of voter confusion. jnestorius(talk) 01:59, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2008. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 12:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2008_United_States_Senate_election_in_Wyoming&oldid=1196525440"