Talk:2010 United States Senate special election in New York

Article focus

The article's focus is different from the title. The title is about the special election. A lot of the article is about who was selected for the immediate replacement. This should not be in this article. It could be in a separate article. This article should just be about why there is an election and who is running. Chergles (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

That's definitely something to consider, but we don't have any convention or existing practice for "appointment" articles, so it seemed better to include it in this one, since the appointment is what directly leads to the special election. The same is done in some other special election articles, such as United States Senate special election in Delaware, 2010. But if there's a consensus here that it should be split into its own article, we can do that. I'm not sure what the name would be, though, something like United States Senate appointment in New York, 2009? What categories would it belong to? Wasted Time R (talk) 18:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Such article might be good to create because of the voluminous information about Caroline Kennedy and other candidates is enough for a separate article.Chergles (talk) 19:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The appointment is relevant for the special election, so it should be here to some degree. As we've finally gotten a resolution on the appointment, we can maybe toss some of the more speculative nature of the appointment, move it to a separate article, or simply condense. Now the article will begin to focus more on Gillibrand's chances for election, Democrats and Republicans declaring as challengers, etc. I can't believe this article was nominated for deletion.--Muboshgu (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I think the current appointment material warrants staying intact somewhere. This really was a two-month-long mini-campaign of its own (with an electorate of one), and it results in a fairly obscure politician getting a huge boost to her career and an alteration to the ideological makeup of the New York senate seat. It's important that we describe how this all happened, just as we would, say, a hard-fought primary campaign. While I'm sure the writing can be improved and tightened, I would argue against tossing or condensing the material itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. By speculation we might toss, I meant the stuff like "Fran Drescher may be interested in the seat", if not sourced well enough, though it might all be worthy of keeping for the circus-nature of it all. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Drescher's interest was indeed reported on by major media outlets, and yes it is worth keeping to indictate the weird and dysfunctional nature of the whole process. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

One way would be to fix the title to something along the lines of "Vacant NY Senate Seat" or "Hillary Clinton's Vacant Seat". These titles are just working titles to get thinking started as obviously these titles are too childishly worded. Then you could include the appointment issue and the election issue in one article. Either that or split it and keep this title. Chergles (talk) 18:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

The person appointed to fill the position is for January 2009-January 2011. That person is not necessarily the person who will run in November 2010. Probably will be but not required. Chergles (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Interim solution

The interim solution to the above problem is what I've done. Rename the section "appointment history" to "Appointment history for Senate seat prior to the 2010 election". That way, the section about Gillibrand fits a little better rather than as a different subject in an article with a title about something somewhat different. Feel free to fight as I won't change the title back if someone insist on having their way. Chergles (talk) 19:01, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

This article needs a lot of re-writing but I'm not so interested in taking on the big task on a subject that I am not very interested in. Even from a grammatical standpoint, it's not too good. There are assumptions made that need to be smoothed out. Good luck. I've added one citation needed as an example of one of them. There are several. Chergles (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Another one is ..Once Gillibrand's appointment became known, Carolyn McCarthy, a colleague of Gillibrand's in the New York delegation to the United States House of Representatives, was quoted by The New York Times as saying that.. Why not just say Congresswoman McCarthy? Should also mention why. It's because (and it's mentioned in reliable news sources) that McCarthy's husband was murdered and she thinks Gillibrand is pro-gun because of her NRA membership. Chergles (talk) 19:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I've fixed up some of that. And the section title change is fine with me. Wasted Time R (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Section title change is A-OK. Wordiness can be worked on I'm sure, but things like McCarthy's personal history are highly relevant if she does indeed run, supports a gun-control advocate, or does work with Gillibrand on that legislation mentioned at the press conference.--Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

• This article is beginning to look really good! I don't think the appointment information should be moved to a new article. There's no point creating a whole article just for its sake, and it's closely-enough associated with this election to be kept here. Perhaps a redirect from a new article could be made to here. ALSO, be careful not to remove historically-significant stuff. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a scorecard. —Markles 00:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

When does the winner take the seat?

Does the winner of this special election take the seat…

• immediately after the election is certified in November 2010 (during the 111th Congress)? OR
• When the new Congress begins, in January 2011?

In other states, such as Illinois and Colorado, the winner would take over as soon as the election is over.—Markles 22:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is there a special election?

Perhaps the article could mention the specific NYS Law concerning US Senate appointments. Chops79 (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Appointment section redux

As we enter the start of the 2010 election campaign, the concerns expressed above last year about the distraction of the Appointment history section become more significant. The article seems very unbalanced by its detailed focus on the appointment process, which, while clearly relevant, is also completely distinct from the 2010 special election. I would propose another alternative not previously suggested. The appointment process is now best remembered as a reflection of both Gov. Paterson's decisionmaking style and Sen. Schumer's power. The article on David Paterson already has a lenghty section on the Senate appointment, which already duplicates much of the information contained in this article. I suggest making the appointment section of this article much shorter, as it is relevant but only as background, and merging any important details into the Paterson article. Cloonmore (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have the opposite reaction. I think there's too much on the appointment process in the Paterson article, which is suffering from recentism and neglects too much of his early career. The appointment process could be summarized there, with a {{main}} or {{seealso}} xref to the right section in this article. The same with discussions of the appointment material in the Gillibrand, Schumer, Kennedy, etc. articles. In other words, the appointment process should have a centralized description with the most detail that is not included under any one person's biography article. It could be a separate article, but I still think that the appointment process is closely tied into this special election; that process led to Gillibrand getting picked out of nowhere, which is what has determined much of the special election dynamic. I also don't see how having the appointment process here interferes with the election part of the article; there's a clear Table of Contents up front and any reader who wants to skip or skim the appointment part can. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

When is the primary?

The article mentions no date for the primary. --rogerd (talk) 17:04, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Per NPR, it's on September 14. I'll put it in the article. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 17:12, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks --rogerd (talk) 14:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 16:18, 21 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Cruft

There seems to be computer cruft or other code error at United_States_Senate_special_election_in_New_York,_2010#Results_3. Bearian (talk) 21:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Not running

The fact that some talking head or pundit who is paid to make dumb prognostications speculated that a figure may get in the race does not mean that person should be listed here after the fact. As per all other 2010 senate election articles and everything before that, those not running are removed after the primary. See [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5], among others. It should be common sense that if a person didn't run, then they didn't run. These didn't-runs had absolutely zero bearing on the election and there is no reason to include them in the article. Reywas92^Talk 16:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I can agree that if talk about a potential candidate came solely from a talking head and nothing came directly from the potential candidate, that isn't worth keeping. However, if the candidates were talked about at length, including them not shooting down the rumors, there is encyclopedic value. Harold Ford, Jr., for instance, obtained an encyclopedic level of press for his consideration in this race. Tasini also merits being included in this article. The oral surgeon, not so much. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

The article should be a history of the election. That includes those who seriously considered running but decided not to, because elections are often just as about who decides to get in and who doesn't (consider the current Republican presidential nomination race for example, where any history would include the fact that major players like Mike Pence, John Thune, Haley Barbour, Mike Huckabee, Mitch Daniels, Sarah Palin, and Chris Christie all thought about it but decided not to run). On the other hand, those who never considered running, but were mentioned by some yakking heads desperate for a topic (for example Hillary Clinton or Russ Feingold or Howard Dean challenging Obama for this year's Democratic nomination) can be left out. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

To include those who seriously considered it is a good compromise, though sometimes it's not clear who actually considered it (I doubt Pence really considered it; he was running for governor all along, and Palin was just screwing with the speculating media for attention, and the others, while veritable possibilities, always said no, no, no). After analyzing the sources, several of which are dead, I would keep all three on the Democratic side and perhaps only Vanderhoef on the Republican side. He seems to be the only one who actually formed an exploratory committee, and the others all appear to be speculation or anonymous sources or a simple no without evidence of any likelihood of running. I am having this debate on several current senate elections as well, and although there are occasionally people who may be relevant, the vast majority are simply other legislators who said no and bear utterly no connection to the race. Reywas92^Talk 04:10, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

United States Senate election in Maine, 2012 is a good example of where this is necessary. When Snowe was running, no major Democrat was interested in challenging her. When Snowe suddenly retired, both current Congresspeople seriously considered running. But then when it was clear Angus King was going to run as an independent, both Dems backed off. The current article doesn't describe any of this, yet it's vital to understanding the history of this particular election. Who doesn't run can be very important. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090101122038/http://wcbstv.com:80/politics/ny.caretaker.senator.2.897875.html to http://wcbstv.com/politics/ny.caretaker.senator.2.897875.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090223214856/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jn3kCOceMPF7iuG4FzHbl_EgrQZgD96EQ0NO0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jn3kCOceMPF7iuG4FzHbl_EgrQZgD96EQ0NO0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States Senate special election in New York, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140722150249/http://www.lohud.com/article/20091126/NEWS02/911260408/1018/NEWS02/Larchmont-mayor-floats-Senate-bid-against-Gillibrand to http://www.lohud.com/article/20091126/NEWS02/911260408/1018/NEWS02/Larchmont-mayor-floats-Senate-bid-against-Gillibrand

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:10, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on United States Senate special election in New York, 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120308191027/http://elections.erie.gov/content.aspx?id=121 to http://elections.erie.gov/content.aspx?id=121
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081218063840/http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com:80/archives/2008/11/clinton_move_starts_more_senat.php to http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/clinton_move_starts_more_senat.php
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110715051732/http://yorktown.patch.com/articles/ny-state-primary-primer-5 to http://yorktown.patch.com/articles/ny-state-primary-primer-5
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100330070939/http://www.nydailynews.com:80/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/03/malpass-in-the-mix.html to http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/03/malpass-in-the-mix.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090222200545/http://www.newsmax.com:80/insidecover/pataki_senate/2009/02/19/183404.html to http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pataki_senate/2009/02/19/183404.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101024045902/http://www.ny1.com:80/content/top_stories/127505/gillibrand--republican-rival-joe-dioguardi-debate-on-ny1 to http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/127505/gillibrand--republican-rival-joe-dioguardi-debate-on-ny1
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101028234525/http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=ratings-senate
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090119000051/http://maristpoll.marist.edu:80/nyspolls/NY090115.htm to http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/NY090115.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090305145218/http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu//nyspolls//NY090303.htm to http://www.maristpoll.marist.edu/nyspolls/NY090303.htm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090719085346/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_york/election_2010_new_york_democratic_senate_primary to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_york/election_2010_new_york_democratic_senate_primary/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100528064104/http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/sny_poll/0110_SNY_PollL.pdf to http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/sny_poll/0110_SNY_PollL.pdf/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090719085346/http://www.rasmussenreports.com:80/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_york/election_2010_new_york_democratic_senate_primary to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_york/election_2010_new_york_democratic_senate_primary
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100703033944/http://www.siena.edu:80/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/sny_poll/SNY0610%20Release.pdf to http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/parents_and_community/community_page/sri/sny_poll/SNY0610%20Release.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_senate_elections/new_york/toplines/toplines_2010_new_york_senate_election_may_12_2010/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101207020751/http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010.10.31_NewYork_USA.pdf to http://www.angus-reid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/2010.10.31_NewYork_USA.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20101105000502/http://www.siena.edu:80/uploadedfiles/home/Parents_and_Community/Community_Page/SRI/SNY_Poll/103110SNYPollReleaseFINAL.pdf to http://www.siena.edu/uploadedfiles/home/Parents_and_Community/Community_Page/SRI/SNY_Poll/103110SNYPollReleaseFINAL.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20121019134915/http://www.elections.ny.gov/ to http://www.elections.ny.gov/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.elections.ny.gov:8080/reports/rwservlet?cmdkey=Candidat_32
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=senate-2010-NY

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) 13:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)