Talk:2008 United States Senate election in Iowa

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Iowa / Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Untitled

General Election 2008 Iowa U.S. Senator general election Party Candidate Votes % ±%

Democratic Tom Harkin 941,665 62.7 +8.5 
Republican Christopher Reed 560,006 37.3 -6.5 
 write-ins 1,247 0.0 n/a

Majority 321,659 Turnout 1,546,453

Democratic hold Swing

These figures don't add up. The votes add up to 1,502,918, not 1,546,453. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:58, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on how 'turnout' is calculated, that discrepancy could perhaps be due to spoiled/blank ballots or some such. However, note also that 941,665-560,006=381,659, not 321,659 - I would guess a typo here. Slapping a 'citeneeded' tag on the table. --GenericBob (talk) 03:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a link to the official election results on the page if you want to verify the numbers... --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 03:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That page confirms the first three figures[1] but I can't see anything matching the 'Turnout' or 'Majority' figures given in this article. --GenericBob (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then. My guess is that the figures in the article are probably incorrect. Apparently I added them using the official results here, which includes over- and under-votes, but the turnout doesn't match and I'm not sure where that "majority" came from. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:48, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States Senate election in Iowa, 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080827121841/http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/iowa/election_2008_iowa_senate_election/ to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_senate_elections/iowa/election_2008_iowa_senate_election/

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) 11:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]