Jump to content

Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania

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

Sestak

[edit]

Sestak has indicated his intent to run pending a family decision. He has NOT yet announced his candidacy. Please leave him under "potential" until he does so. --Tsk070 (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On August 4, 2009, Joe Sestak declared his candidacy for the U.S. Senate, posing a primary challenge against Senator Arlen Specter.[1]

Anti-Sestak bias much in the Democratic primary section? Anyone watching who's editing this thing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.147.168 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Scolforo, Mark. "Sestak officially announces he will take on Specter for Senate | Philadelphia Inquirer | 08/05/2009". Philly.com. Retrieved 2009-08-10.

Two lists of candidates

[edit]

Why are there two lists of candidates? Worse, they seem to be somewhat different. Can someone please remove the second list and integrate the information into the first list? Also, any candidate should be identified by political party. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Claim that the White House offered Sestak a job

[edit]

"Pa. Rep. Sestak stands by claim that White House offered him job to drop challenge of Specter" is the headline in the LA Times on February 20, 2010. The Philadelphia Inquirer mentions a White House denial. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2]

Can another editor follow up on this and add it to the article? --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bias

[edit]

The campaign section is pretty biased towards a favorable view of Specter. Why is there no mention of many of the problems brought up regarding his service as a Republican, his misquotes, his lobbying interests, but it's okay to slam Sestak on HIS record? Coolgamer (talk) 12:13, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is stuff about Specter having beena Republican, but for the other stuff, it's because Sestak hasn't been making those points. He's been talking about Specter not being a loyal Democrat, being a Republican for so long, being a career politician, being old, and attacking Sestak's military record unfairly. Those are the things Sestak has chosen to focus on, so those are the thigns that go on the negative side of Specter. And Sestak has lobbying interests and misquotes too, but unless Sestak or the media make a big deal about Specter's lobbying interests or misquotes, then it is not notable enough for inclusion on wikipedia to write about all or even any of them. I do not think this article is not biased, but I think supporters of either will naturally feel it is biased towards the other. Schnapps17 (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rework article to focus on Sestak/Toomey race?

[edit]

This race is now about Sestak and Toomey. However, as the article reads, Specter gets more mention earlier on. Now that the primaries have happened, the Specter business and what lead up to the primaries should be subordinated to the final race. Toomey gets little mention until well into the article. For more balance and objectivity, the final race should be the main focus. 173.49.135.190 (talk) 19:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I say yes and no. The general election is between Sestak and Toomey, but both of them have gotten less press than the 30 year incumbent who switched parties for political expediency. That likely will remain one of the most (if not the most) important parts of this race. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am working on expanding this article starting from the beginning of the race and moving up. I believe there is a fear the article could grow a little too long or top-heavy, but I also don't think the answer is to simply eliminate the Specter stuff, since that was a very significant primary that ended with the ouster of a long-time Senator. So my feeling is once I finish adding the Democratic primary stuff, I'm going to break that into a separate article about the primary specifically, move the relevant information over there, then significantly shorten the primary information on this page and add the "Main article" tag linking to the primary page. This, I think, will prevent it from becoming too unwieldy and prevent the primary section from overwhelming the general election. I'll probably do this in a couple days, maybe a week. Thoughts? — Hunter Kahn 17:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do believe it is a great idea to create a seperate article about the Democratic primary. It has a lot of information, it was interesting, and it was a close election. I strongly agree.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on United States Senate election in Pennsylvania, 2010. 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) 12:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:2010 United States Senate election in Pennsylvania/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 12:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

Candidates

  • Were there any others, even if not their candidacies weren't realistic?

Campaign

  • "2010 primary elections" — Anything to link to?
  • "Before the switch, the Democratic establishment had encouraged Sestak to run in the Democratic primary" — We know Specter is the Republican senator at this point, but who is Sestak? This would be a good place to introduce him.
  • "after Specter switched parties he was largely embraced by such major Democratic figures" — Why?
  • Any word on why major Democratic figures embraced him after the switch? --Usernameunique (talk) 04:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Usernameunique, this one's a bit complicated. I tried searching where it explicitly says why they embraced him but there's not much. It seems they were the ones who encouraged him into switching so I specified that in the article, I think it's intuitive that they would support him afterwards due to sunk cost. I could elaborate a bit more, they had promised he would retain seniority in the senate, promised to help him raise campaign funds, etc but I think it becomes somewhat off topic at that point. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps something from this article or this one could add some color? --Usernameunique (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's mostly the same thing, that they encouraged him to switch and aided him in his campaign, and that he support their stimulus package and healthcare reforms, etc etc. The article already contains the line "On April 28, 2009, Specter switched to the Democratic Party after having served in the Senate as a Republican for 28 years, encouraged by Vice President Joe Biden and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, after he had voted in favor of President Barack Obama's economic stimulus plan and was faced with opposition from Pennsylvania Republicans" which indicates the point at which they started supporting him. The POLITICO article contains some additional details like Specter being a close friend of Rendell beforehand and that Obama offered to appear on his ads. I don't think I should detail it more as it would deviate from the topic. Tayi Arajakate Talk 14:19, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Specter led Sestak by more than 20 percentage points" — In public polls, presumably.
  • "attacking his House attendance record" — So he was a congressman?
  • "a position in the Obama administration" — Any idea what position?
  • "no formal investigation was ever held" — Do you "hold" an investigation? "Opened" might be a better word.

Results

  • "The Democratic primary occurred on May 18, 2010. Although Specter had won endorsement from the Pennsylvania Democratic Party, at 10:14 PM EDT that evening, the Associated Press projected the race as won by Sestak." — This feels out of place. It's probably better incorporated into the above paragraphs.

Background

  • "In a December 2008 interview" — Run-on sentence.
  • "dozens of Pennsylvanians urged to challenge Specter" — urged Toomey?

Specter switches parties

Toomey jumps ahead

  • town hall — Anything to link to?

Final primary months

  • "the health-care plan before Congress" — Anything to link to?
  • "$2.3 million to his total $4.1 million war chest" — For this and the numbers in this sentence, is it $4.1 million after adding in the $2.3 million? Or $4.1 million plus $2.3 million.
  • "Toomey the best-funded Senate challenger in the country during the 2010 elections" — To that point? Or as of the elections?

Results

  • Again, this seems like it would be better suited above "Polling"

Early weeks

  • "That all changed at 10:30 p.m. (Tuesday)" — Was that when results were announced?
  • "the ToomeyForSenate account amassing 4,907 followers and the Sestak2010 account 3,796 followers. Both also had accounts on Facebook, where Toomey had 10,361 friends and Sestak had 3,146" — As of when? First 24 hours? That's not a lot of people for statewide candidates.

Ideological opposites

  • "the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee spent $1.4 million in support of Specter during the primary, which left them only $200,000 for the general election race" — Why only $200,000? Couldn't they have raised more? Or did they allot $1.6 million to Pennsylvania ahead of time?
  • "hoped to get an early in building name recognition for himself" — Missing a word.
  • "Sestak not only ... Sestak criticized ... Sestak also criticized ..." — Three sentences in a row that begin similarly.
  • "Republican Pat Toomey defeated his Democratic opponent Joe Sestak on election day. The Associated Press called the race for Toomey shortly after midnight." — What was the margin? Any info on victory/concession speeches?

Debates

  • Fine to list them in a separate section, but shouldn't they be mentioned in the text also?

Predictions

  • "During a special segment" — What makes this segment so worthy of mention? There must have been hundreds of predictions in the media.

Results

  • "Shortly before midnight on election day the Associated Press called the race for Toomey. Sestak conceded shortly after midnight." — Ditto re incorporating this above.
Usernameunique, I have tried to address all the issues that were pointed out, let me know if there are any further. Regarding one point, about the job offer, I couldn't find anything more on it. Courtesy ping BigCheese76, I took over addressing the review after a request at WT:GAN. Tayi Arajakate Talk 04:17, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, thanks again for taking this on. It looks good. I've highlighted three comments above that might have been overlooked, or you might just have found nothing on. Let me know either way, and then the article should be ready to promote. --Usernameunique (talk) 04:55, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have addressed the three points above, tell me how it looks now. Tayi Arajakate Talk 23:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tayi Arajakate, looks good. I've added one comment above, with some possible suggestions for sources that could be added. But the article is in good shape as it is, and I'm passing it now. Again, thanks for coming to the rescue of this nomination and taking it to the finish line. --Usernameunique (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_election_in_Pennsylvania&oldid=1212495523"