Talk:2024 United States Senate election in Michigan

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

Michigan Low‑importance

	Michigan portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Michigan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Michigan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MichiganWikipedia:WikiProject MichiganTemplate:WikiProject MichiganMichigan articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Substantiating claims in candidate section

Hi, I am hoping to lead off a discussion about what sort of expectations there are for providing a basis to name someone as a 'potential' primary candidate. Not having been a frequent contributor of Wikipedia up to now, I am sort of unsure what stands. That said, I am able to anticipate some of the conflicts (of interest) over what may be said, and hence, stipulations hereto the epistemic formation of a certain topic. Simply put, for this, I believe a potential candidate need not be validated by a reliable publisher. To have that requirement gives preference to the established norms of the Party and/or its most vocal proponents, when in fact eligible voters and indeed users of this Wiki are able to provided suitable input. Thank you for taking the time to read my prompt and I would happily respond to any of your feedback. Take care Safarnama29 (talk) 19:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly disagree – if we do not need RS for inclusion as a potential candidate, there is no point to listing potential candidates at all, since anyone could add anyone. If I may ask, why is it so important that Chang be included on this page given the lack of any sources mentioning her as a potential candidate? Please refrain from re-adding her until such a source exists. As it stands, you are just edit warring. Jacoby531 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with above. Please stop vandalizing the page. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry I didn't see this before making my last edit. I'll go ahead and remove it after writing this. So yeah, I hear the point you are making. If the section is only bound by possibility in the literal sense, and not in the figurative sense of being purported by a media outlet or a reputable individual, then anyone that meets eligibility (and is not so apparently misleading or incorrect to elicit revision) may be included. And what I would say to that is yes, that what is appropriate for this article. By virtue of the office/role, the nominees to said position are made possible by people in their region, not necessarily a party institution - which are over-represented in the media and, I am quite confident, in the columns of these pages. Do I make a mistake in saying so? I believe that people will frequent the wiki and provide rationale for writings they make. I've done that with proper argumentation and it should be incumbent on those conflicting authors to evaluate their philosophy. Furthermore, I reject the notion that I have vandalized the page, as I've merely acted in response to equally questionable measures. Thank you again for your consideration, best regards. Safarnama29 (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By mistake, I hadn't answered your question. To why I am inspired, I included Stephanie Chang to the list of potential candidates because in conference with the opinions expressed by progressive voters over time, she does seem like a person that would receive a nod from the Democratic base at some point. Safarnama29 (talk) 22:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When I say, "not necessarily a party institution," I'm specifically referring to Michigan's status as a closed primary.

"Michigan's Presidential Primary has been designated a closed primary. There is no political party registration requirement in Michigan Election Law. Any Michigan registered voter can participate in the primary." (2016, Bureau of Elections)

Consider that, according to Pew Research Center, 47% of adults in Michigan identify as 'Democrat/lean Dem.' Therefore, people of the state and their voting tendencies are the best metric by which to evaluate. Safarnama29 (talk) 22:58, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

of adults in Michigan, there is the following identification: 34% Republican/lean Rep., 19% No lean, 47% Democrat/lean Dem. All are permitted to participate in the primary voting process. Safarnama29 (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Self-promotion is not allowed

All declared, potential or considering candidates listed in the page must be supported by a linked journalistic citation or a link to an official government web site supporting the edit. Self-promotion is NOT allowed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Amash endorsements

How many tweets is the threshold for you guys to stop removing Amash’s endorsements? In reality, Paul endorsed him months ago, i’ve counted 5 tweets on his end, and multiple stories covering his denunciation of Mike Rogers. It’s like you guys are being paid off lol. Pathetic. I’ve also counted a Thomas Massie tweet endorsing Amash, but that was also removed from the endorsements box. Literally all of the other endorsements came from cited tweets. What gives? MoMoChohan (talk) 10:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ENDORSE. A tweet is an acceptable source for an endorsement from an organization, but not for an individual. Cope. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Add endorsement from Senator Rand Paul for Justin Amash for Senator 2603:6011:BF00:91A9:6AC7:6464:5B8E:8522 (talk) 04:50, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jamedeus (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AP just called the race for Slotkin

AP JasonMacker (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNN is now also projecting a Slotkin victory.--JasonMacker (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NBC is now the 3rd major network projecting a Slotkin victory --JasonMacker (talk) 21:08, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CBS is now the 4th. Only waiting for ABC now.--JasonMacker (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ABC marks all 5 projecting a Slotkin victory. I have added a sentence to the intro with this information.--JasonMacker (talk)