Talk:2026 United States Senate election in South Carolina

Nancy Mace as a potential candidate

In her January 22, 2025, interview, she expressed strong support for running for Governor, and seemed to imply she would not run for Senate.

Should she be removed from the "potential candidate" section? Jcgaylor (talk) 00:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Endorsement PAC notability

Undid removal of endorsement of Run Sister Run PAC with providing following independent coverage:

https://www.yesmagazine.org/democracy/2018/07/31/women-of-color-face-significant-barriers-when-running-for-office-but-theyre-finding-support

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/programs/ready-runr/ready-runr-new-jersey/run-sister-run

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/run-sister-run-2020

https://ballotpedia.org/Endorsements_by_Run_Sister_Run

Also blocking endorsements based on 'notability' obscures information on efforts conducted by many organizations to support a wide range of political candidates. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 07:03, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

A few additional sources:

https://cawp.rutgers.edu/events/ready-runr-2022-run-sister-run

https://www.edwardsforhouston.com/endorsements - this same PAC has also endorsed Amanda Edwards for Congress. I should be able to add that to her page. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 07:16, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• The Yes Magazine source has one mention of Run Sister Run. I don't see how this passes WP:RS. While it does provide context to the sponsor organization, Center for American Women and Politics, WP:NOTINHERITED prevents that from establishing notability for the Run Sister Run PAC.
• The cawp.rutgers sources aren't independent, as they come from the PAC's sponsor.
• Per WP:BALLOTPEDIA, there isn't a consensus as to if this is a RS, but I am inclined to believe it is for this purpose.

Jcgaylor (talk) 08:34, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

These arguments come from a misunderstanding of PACs and how they operate. Because of the political nature of PACS, and their relationship to access to funding (wealthy donors vs grassroots donors) some will have wider coverage and less 'independence' than others.

I suggest this discussion be elevated to get consensus from a broader range of editorsProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

I fully understand what PACs are, and how they operate. I used to interact with them frequently in my work. While there are subject-specific notability guidelines for certain topics, I am not aware of one specifically for PACs (or political organizations broadly). If you are aware of an existing rule or guideline instructive on addressing the notability of PACs, please share it. WP:GNG, WP:NGO, and WP:Verifiability likely apply here. All of these require some version of the GNG (including independence). I believe I accurately applied these rules to the sources cited. I am welcome to feedback if I got something wrong.

You seem to argue that PACs ought to be held to a lower (different?) threshold of notability, specifically independence. I do not believe that to be necessary; there is nothing inherently different about PACs' operations that create a systematic obstacle to their inclusion on Wikipedia under existing policies and guidelines.

PACs, like politicians, political parties, and other partisan/political organizations, are often reported on or covered by reliable sources (see this piece in Politico from yesterday, for example). Their spending is reported on by public and private institutions, and their actions (when notable and relevant to a mass audience) are reported on. If a reliable source did not report on Run Sister Run endorsing a certain candidate, then that is a good argument the event is not notable. It is exactly because these are political (and often partisan) organizations that the independence threshold is particularly important, and should not be waived or lowered in this context. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

The initial objection had nothing to do with the citation, but instead on how much coverage there is about the PAC itself and whether that made the PAC notable - using this definition - Wikipedia:Political endorsements It is notability issue for endorsements that I took issue with, as it may end up creating the systematic obstacle to their inclusion on Wikipedia to which you refer.ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 01:51, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Either way, I do not believe the sources provided establish notability, as explained above.

If you do launch a challenge to the existing independence threshold elsewhere, please link it here so that we may all contribute!

Cheers, Jcgaylor (talk) 03:55, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

In the meantime, and until a better consensus has been reached here or elsewhere, it is best that you stop edit-warring (1). You've been reverted by multuple editors, all citing the same notability issues.

I understand that you believe the independence threshold should be changed, but until it is, the content you seek to include isn't suitable without more WP:RS. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

Democratic polling

Good addition - even better if an editor would remove the *hidden* mechanism for the generic Dem poll. Readers should be able to see all polls, rather than some being open and others hidden. ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 01:10, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Done. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Polls featuring generic democrats or generic republicans are put as a hypothetical poll, as Generic Democrat is not a real candidate running for the seat, and the poll is not of a real matchup in the race TW929 (talk) 01:32, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It still provides insight into the partisan balance of the electorate, and possible outcomes of the race, nonetheless. I see no reason to hide the poll, especially given the limited information in the section at the moment. It's not like we need to worry about saving space. Jcgaylor (talk) 01:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It's not hidden, it is put in the hypothetical poll tab since it is a hypotheitical poll, as is the precedent from every single other election page TW929 (talk) 02:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Rather than edit-warring, generate support for your position on this talk page or a similar venue.

Call it hide or collapse, you know what I mean.

Again, there is no reason to do it. It just creates an extra step for readers that isn't necessary. I agree with @ProfessorKaiFlai. Jcgaylor (talk) 02:56, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It is literally a hypothetical poll, so it goes in the hypothetical poll tab, no need to make special exceptions because you feel like it TW929 (talk) 02:57, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

No, the page editors get to decide how the page is formatted. Not the creators of templates elsewhere.

You have been outvoted on this matter, unless other editors get involved and support your position. Stop edit-warring, or I will have to escalate this matter. Jcgaylor (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

@Aesurias @David O. Johnson let me know if im wrong TW929 (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You're correct. I can sort of see where the other side is coming from in terms of accessibility for readers, but at it's core, the question "would you vote for Lindsey Graham or a generic unnamed Democrat?" is a hypothetical question. "Generic Democrat" has not declared as a candidate. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:34, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

The title of the section is "polling". This poll asks voters if they'd rather vote for a declared Republican candidate–in this case Sen. Graham–or a generic democrat. This poll comes from a report specifically about Graham's alleged unpopularity and provides insights into the partisan balance in the race and state more broadly. It is a poll about this particular race, and there the use of a generic candidate does not present a need to collapse the item, in my view. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, however hypothetical polls about matchups that do not exist in the race are collapsed, and I think there's no argument that Generic Democrat is a declared candidate in this race TW929 (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Of course, no one is arguing that "generic democrat" is a declared candidate. That is a red herring, though. The section is about polling in this race, which this poll demonstrable is.

If the strongest argument for your position is one of tradition, I do not find it compelling. Jcgaylor (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

You are arguing though that a poll of a hypothetical matchup between Graham and Generic Democrat should be treated the same way as a real matchup between Graham and Andrews. Not only does that not follow precedent, and the only argument being made to change it is that you want to. I dont really find that compelling at all. TW929 (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

It is demonstrably true that the PPP poll is a poll on the 2026 Senate race and voters' views on who/which party may end up on their ballot. The Graham v. Andrews poll is also a hypothetical match-up, at this point. My position is that the "polling" section should not expand one poll but collapse another, particularly when there are no spacing concerns to deal with. It's nonsensical and needlessly complicated, particularly in this context.

Blind allegiance to precedent shouldn't guide our decision. Jcgaylor (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Right. The question is a choice between a declared candidate, and a non-existent candidate. So, it's a hypothetical question.

I can understand where you're coming from and I would go so far as to say that if I saw it unhidden, I wouldn't hide it, but TW is technically correct and simply following a precedent. aesurias (ping me in your reply, or I won't see it) (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks all - good discussion, and glad that all polling has been made readily available for readers to viewProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 08:59, 13 January 2026 (UTC)